South Dakota
Ottertail Petition
In the Matter of the Application of Otter Tail Power Company and Others for Certification of Transmission Facilities in Western Minnesota; MPUC Docket No. CN-05-619; OAH 12-2500-17037-2;
January 15, 2008
Subject: Additional public hearing requested, BSII CON
Dear Judge Mihalchick and Judge Neilson,
It has come to our attention that information given by Otter Tail Power (OTP) Big Stone II project manager Mark Rolfes at the public hearing on Thursday January 10 related to water levels for Big Stone Lake with regards to Big Stone II demands was not completely forthcoming.
This alarms us for a number of reasons. Foremost, with the local area and population already shouldering the bulk of negative health and environmental risks associated with Big Stone Plant Unit I - these communities face double the burden and deserve to know the truth with the proposed Big Stone II.
Mr. Rolfes, in response to a lake home owners question as to what about the water levels on Big Stone Lake with demand from BSII, responded multiple times that water would only be taken when "water levels were high."
In fact, the Big Stone II partners would have the legal authority to draw off water when the lake is low. It has done so in the past and can be expected to do so in the future.
As the attached charts demonstrate, (OTP Table 1 and Table 2 (pdf)) in its Application for Permit to Appropriate Water Within the State of South Dakota (March 2007, Rolfes, Mark p. 4-5) under current regulations, water diversion can and has occurred anywhere from low lake levels >=965 feet up through high lake levels >=967 feet—in addition to emergency allocations.
The public deserves to know the truth. We believe that this permit before the PUC for a certificate of need for transmission lines should not be issued before a full convening of the Minnesota South Dakota Boundary Waters Commission can take place. We believe that a fully scrutinized public hearing of water draw down practices and protocols is necessary before plans for this plant can proceed.
We ask the Judges to consider - if there is a significant and potential threat to a boundary water from another state (as the 12-10-2007 MN DNR letter asserts (pdf)), what does Minnesota state law say about the duty of the Governor or the state legislature to address that threat? If the precedent was established in the 1970’s to convene the Boundary Waters Commission to hash out these issues between Minnesota and South Dakota, why has it not been convened this time around?
We are asking respectfully that you recommend to the PUC that The Minnesota South Dakota Boundary Waters Commission be convened before a decision is granted to give the BSII partners their Certificate of Need.
In addition, Clean Water Action requests:
- An additional public hearing, with extension for public comments;
- Advance notice in all local papers surrounding Big Stone Lake stating reason why, including publication of OTP Tables 1 and 2 (attached) - to be paid for by OTP; and
- Courtesy notice of additional hearing / smaller print version cards of Tables 1 and 2 to lake home owners at OTP expense at least 2 weeks in advance of the hearing, if granted.
Sincerely,
Darrell Gerber
Program Coordinator
Clean Water Action
308 E Hennepin Ave
Minneapolis, MN 55414
P - 612-623-3666
F - 612-623-3354
dgerber@cleanwater.org
Mary Jo Stueve
Program Coordinator
Clean Water Action
405 S 3rd Ave Ste 102A
Sioux Falls, SD 57104
P - 605-978-9196
F - 605-978-9019
mjstueve@cleanwater.org
