Below
are the names of those who sought to protect the Coldwater Spring with the
proper protection that this site of significance to so many, deserves. Please
give them a call, or send them a letter and ask that they deny MnDOT’s request
to become somehow above all others and become exempt from the law that protects
Coldwater from dewatering.
To date the disregard for this community resource
by MnDOT has reached it’s height in their attempt to become exempt from
the law. MnDOT who has consistently declared that they would protect Coldwater
Spring is now seeking to become exempt from legally being responsible
for doing so.
MnDOT who on;
January 9, 1999 Star Tribune editorial authored
by Bob McFarlin (MnDOT's then_director of public affairs) in which he
states:
The very best the community can do is study all the potential impacts
thoroughly, factually and within the law, and then exercise informed
leadership for the good of all. The Hiawatha Corridor Project is a shining,
successful example of this type of community consensus.
On August 25, 1993, the Minnesota Department of
Transportation requested a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) from
the Federal Highway Administration.
In order to do so, public record of community input
was destroyed, removing the community opposition to their project so as
to win Federal approval. This was reported on in various newspapers.
Camp Coldwater was designated as Historical Site
by Hennepin County Historical Society in 1952.
Minnesota Historical Society puts up historical
marker at Camp Coldwater in July 1991.
The State Historical Preservation Office commissioned
Bryant Intertec to do historical background check as part of its closing
procedure in 1996. The report states in its recommendation, the spring
should be preserved.
In December of 1997, Russell Fridley the former
president of the Minnesota Historical Society, filed deposition in lawsuit
in favor of preserving the Camp Coldwater site because of its historical
place in Minnesota history. 3-19-2001 Iowa Tribe again declares Camp Coldwater
a sacred site.
August 1998 MnDOT told the Indian Affairs Council;
“When completed, the new roadway will not impact the Camp Coldwater site.
Construction is not expected to impact the flow of underground water
to the Camp Coldwater spring.”
The Minnesota Indian Affairs Council then agreed to approve MnDOT’s plans.
However once they found out that MnDOT’s plan to keep Coldwater flowing
included piping in city water if the spring dried up, MIAC changed their
stance to such an extent as to demand the resignation of state archeologist
Mark Dudzak who approved such a plan.
Today as the road is actually being built, MnDOT
continues to want out of the legal responsibility they now have to protect
the spring, and is currently lobbying the legislator to escape that responsibility.
An April 1999 MnDOT study states that “Coldwater
will not be affected by construction”
May 25, 1999, MnDOT states in court (under oath
presumably) “We’ve measured the hydrostatic pressure in the soil and in
the [Platteville] limestone and they are not connected...There’s no construction
that we have had design for that impacts the limestone in any way. All
our construction is limited to the soil layer” (Mr. Wetmore, pg. 109,
lines 2 through13)
Actuality: The limestone and soil are hydraulically
interconnected. The MCWD hydrogeologist, Kelton Barr, reviewed pump test
data collected in 1973. The data indicated the saturated soil overlying
the Plateville limestone is in hydraulic connection. This is demonstrated
by the hydraulic contours of the saturated overburden which reflected
the fracture zone orientation of the limestone.
July 1999 Open letter from MnDOT Commissioner Tinklenberg
states;
“Some people have alleged that Mn/DOT shoved this project down the throats
of citizens. Nothing could be further from the truth.”
Really? Then why is MnDOT trying to undo the specific
law the community and legislators supported and passed to protect Coldwater?
Why is MnDOT now trying to do the opposite of what they said?!?!
October 1999 MnDOT stated in a public news release;
Camp Coldwater Spring was not identified in either the 1983 or 1985
statements because the project avoids the spring, located on Bureau of
Mines property. The project has been designed to avoid impacting the flow
of groundwater to the spring. Mn/DOT will monitor both water quantity
and quality during construction to insure that the spring is not impacted.
Yet MnDOT continues to lobby the government to
release them of the law that binds MnDOT to do so.
April 27th, 2000 The Bureau of Mines is open for
an Open House for the public to view Coldwater for themselves. MnDOT knew
of the date weeks beforehand. The day before however, MnDOT just happens
to bulldoze the road leading up to the grounds leaving auto access unpassable,
and post no less than six state troopers to ensure the lack of passage.
A 3/4 mile walk was then needed to gain access around MnDOT construction.
Attendance by the public is greatly diminished.
24th May 2000, Coldwater receives watershed protection
for the first time. This process started solely on the backs of citizens
who started petitioning for such protection. Once this became a force
big enough for results to happen, MnDOT brings in another watershed district
and essentially starts a fight between the two of them. The end result
is the split of Coldwater we have today, with the outflow in Minnehaha
Creek Watershed, and the source water (according to MnDOT’s own study,
on June 2000) in Lower Minnesota Watershed district. This greatly impedes
quick communication and confuses the boundary of who is supposed to protect
what. Meanwhile MnDOT construction continues.
June 2000, MnDOT releases a groundwater study on
Coldwater (as an alternative to a dye test that MnDOT said they wanted
to do first). Concerns having been raised with an underground storm water
sewer line cutting the flow to Coldwater, MnDOT finally does the right
thing for once and raises the grade of the road to avoid impact.
September 2000, evidence in the June report shows
MnDOT storm water holding pond at highway 62/55 interchange will impact
Coldwater Spring. MCWD produces studies that outline this and provides
peer review from Dr. Segiel, a nationally recognized authority on groundwater;
who has served as a expert witness to the US. Senate, a Fellow of the
Geological Society of America, a Birdsall Distinguished Lecturer, and
is currently serving on the U. S. Geological Survey Committee on Hydrologic
Research. He finds that not only is Minnehaha Creek’s original evidence
sound, but also that MnDOT’s study is atypical of what is now required
of groundwater modeling.
November, 2000, MnDOT once again states “no impact”
to Coldwater spring, at the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District public
meeting.
Then Daniel Dorgan official spokesman of MnDOT agrees to raise the pond
a few feet and also to "Eliminate any such impacts, should significant
impacts to Camp Coldwater Spring occur, as a direct result of this pond".
Richard A. Stehr Division Engineer at MnDOT declares the issue closed,
despite the fact that the two watersheds were not in agreement as required
to be by law.
As of today, MnDOT is also continuing to work to
exempt itself from the state law stating Coldwater Spring shall not have
it’s flow diminished. There should be no issue, but for MnDOT there is.
May 16, 2001 it becomes officially illegal
to dewater Coldwater Spring.
May 23, 2001 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
must take MnDOT to court in order to get them to allow a dye test that
MnDOT has said they wanted since June 2000. If MnDOT really wants this
test why must they be taken to court to have it done?
Further MCWD states "Camp Coldwater Springs is in imminent danger of being
altered from the construction of highway drainage ponds
which will very realistically divert spring water by as much as
30_percent or more ."
May 24, 2001, MnDOT has suggested that taking a
few weeks to complete the groundwater testing would delay LRT construction
by a year. Mayor Sharon Sayles Belton, Hennepin County Commissioner Peter
Mclaughlin, State Representative Wes Skoglund and City Council Member
Sandy Colvin Roy (12th Ward) and Metropolitan Council Board Member District
Eight Representative Carol Kummer, also the LRT Community Advisory Committee
Chair reject the assertion that LRT is an issue. In fact, the MCWD experts
have confirmed that LRT construction poses no threat to the Springs. The
real issue is how soon MnDOT is willing to acknowledge the threat that
the highway project represents to the Camp Coldwater Springs and get the
issue resolved.
MINNEAPOLIS, MN., May 30, 2001 _ Judge Frank Knoll
of the Fourth Judicial District Court of Hennepin County ruled in favor
of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) in its lawsuit filed
May 22 against the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT).
The decision restrains MnDOT
from dewatering (pumping groundwater from the site) the drain and storm
water pond areas at the Highway 55 and 62 interchange construction
site in order to conduct a groundwater test. The legal decision allows
up to four weeks for the dye test
procedure to take place.
MnDOT’s response is to have a fit and begin lobbing
the government to become exempt of this law that simply follows what MnDOT
has said all along.
It is clear to me that MnDOT is seeking to avoid
being held accountable for damage to Coldwater Spring. Further because
MnDOT seeks to become exempt from a law that states
“1.9 Neither the
state, nor a unit of metropolitan overnment,
1.10 nor
a political subdivision of the state may take any action
1.11 that
may diminish the flow of water to or from Camp Coldwater
1.12 Springs.”
And MnDOT being a unit of metropolitan government, their lobbying may
be illegal right from the start being that they seek to take action
that may diminish the flow of water to or from Camp Coldwater Springs.
Even if they don’t do it themselves, MnDOT’s actions, if successful, will
diminish the strength of the law, and start the ball rolling to then allow
others to reduce flow because MnDOT weakend the law
for them.
A law that was passed 110 to 20 in the House and
unanimous in the Senate. Not a single witness testified in opposition
throughout all committee hearings. MnDOT, MAC, the DNR and the Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District all had spokesmen at the Coldwater hearings.
Below is a list of who voted for and against the
bill.
Please call or write as you now have the evidence necessary to speak with
authority and ask that the legislator hold true and not allow MnDOT to
diminish our local Minneapolis resource, Camp Coldwater Spring.
Thanks!!
In the Senate:
In the senate
S.F. No. 2049: A bill for an act relating to historic preservation; recognizing
and extending the
protection of the Minnesota Historic Sites Act and the Minnesota Field
Archaeology Act to
historic Camp Coldwater Springs; amending Minnesota Statutes 2000, section
138.73, subdivision13.
Was read the third time and placed on its final
passage.
The question was taken on the passage of the bill.
The roll was called, and there were yeas 55 and
nays 0, as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative were:
Anderson Frederickson
Krentz Olson Robling
Belanger Higgins Langseth
Orfield Sabo
Berglin Hottinger Larson
Pappas Sams
Betzold Johnson, Dean
Lesewski Pariseau Samuelson
Chaudhary Johnson, Debbie
Lessard Pogemiller Scheid
Cohen Kelley, S.P. Lourey
Price Schwab
Day Kierlin Marty
Ranum Stumpf
Dille Kinkel Metzen
Reiter Terwilliger
Fischbach Kiscaden Murphy
Rest Vickerman
Foley Kleis Neuville
Ring Wiener
Fowler Knutson Oliver
Robertson Wiger
So the bill passed and its title was agreed to.
In the House;
S. F. No. 2049, A bill for an act relating to historic preservation;
recognizing and extending the protection of the Minnesota Historic Sites
Act and the Minnesota Field Archaeology Act to historic Camp Coldwater
Springs; amending Minnesota Statutes 2000, section 138.73, subdivision
13.
The bill was read for the third time and placed
upon its final passage.
Journal of the House - 50th Day - Wednesday,
May 9, 2001 - Top of Page 3921
The question was taken on the passage of the bill
and the roll was called. There were 110 yeas and 20 nays as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative were:
Abeler |
Erhardt |
Jaros |
Lipman |
Pawlenty |
Swapinski |
|
Anderson, B. |
Erickson |
Jennings |
Luther |
Paymar |
Sykora |
|
Anderson, I. |
Evans |
Johnson, J. |
Mahoney |
Pelowski |
Thompson |
|
Bernardy |
Folliard |
Johnson, R. |
Mares |
Peterson |
Tingelstad |
|
Biernat |
Fuller |
Johnson, S. |
Mariani |
Pugh |
Tuma |
|
Boudreau |
Gleason |
Juhnke |
Marko |
Rhodes |
Wagenius |
|
Carlson |
Goodno |
Kahn |
Marquart |
Rukavina |
Walz |
|
Clark, J. |
Goodwin |
Kalis |
McGuire |
Ruth |
Wasiluk |
|
Clark, K. |
Gray |
Kelliher |
Milbert |
Schumacher |
Wenzel |
|
Daggett |
Greiling |
Kielkucki |
Mullery |
Seagren |
Westerberg |
|
Davids |
Gunther |
Koskinen |
Murphy |
Seifert |
Westrom |
|
Davnie |
Haas |
Krinkie |
Ness |
Sertich |
Wilkin |
|
Dawkins |
Harder |
Kubly |
Nornes |
Skoe |
Winter |
|
Dehler |
Hausman |
Larson |
Olson |
Skoglund |
Wolf |
|
Dempsey |
Hilstrom |
Leighton |
Opatz |
Slawik |
Spk. Sviggum |
|
Dibble |
Hilty |
Lenczewski |
Osskopp |
Smith |
|
Dorn |
Howes |
Leppik |
Otremba |
Solberg |
|
Eastlund |
Huntley |
Lieder |
Ozment |
Stanek |
|
Entenza |
Jacobson |
Lindner |
Paulsen |
Stang |
|
|
|
Those who voted in the negative were:
Abrams |
Cassell |
Hackbarth |
McElroy |
Rifenberg |
Workman |
|
Bishop |
Dorman |
Holberg |
Molnau |
Swenson |
|
Bradley |
Finseth |
Holsten |
Mulder |
Vandeveer |
|
Buesgens |
Gerlach |
Kuisle |
Penas |
|
|
The bill was passed and its title agreed to.
It was then signed into law by Gov. Ventura.
|