City of Garnavillo opposes water withdrawal request in letter to DNR
Residents also urge action from supervisors
By Audrey Posten
The city of Garnavillo last week issued a letter to the Iowa Department of Natural Resources in opposition to Pattison Sand Company’s request to triple its current maximum water withdrawal quantity from 976.8 million gallons per year to 3.7 billion.
According to Pattison Sand owner Kyle Pattison, the reason for the request of additional water to be pumped is to quarry limestone below the water table.
The request has sparked public concern, including from all who spoke at an April 22 DNR-led public hearing. Attendees criticized a lack of notice and information about the water use and worried about the withdrawals’ potential impact on the Jordan aquifer and local wells and municipalities. People also disagreed with the DNR’s assessment that Pattison’s need for more water is justified, while disputing that a corporation should be allowed to pull water from a public resource without being charged for it.
Garnavillo’s letter, approved by council resolution and written by Public Works Superintendent Chad Schroyer, said “it is with great concern that the DNR is looking into letting PSC use 3.7 billion gallons per year out of the Jordan aquifer.”
Schroyer said classes have advocated saving water due to concerns of water shortages in the aquifer. He questioned what would happen to cities or property owners with their own wells “and could the cities/homeowners afford to drill deeper wells? Would this lead us to a shortage of water during years we are in a drought year, impacting those who are depending on their wells for animals, industrial users, schools, and our residents?”
The letter additionally cited concerns of runoff and industrial waste making water unsafe to drink or more expensive to treat.
“We feel by this excess amount of water being pumped from the Jordan aquifer would cut into the longevity of the aquifer and we hope the right decisions are made in this review,” the letter concluded.
Garnavillo isn’t the only governmental entity considering a response to the DNR. At its May 20 meeting, the Clayton County Board of Supervisors was slated to decide whether to submit a written response regarding the Pattison water permit application.
The consideration comes after around 20 people attended the May 13 supervisors meetings and some shared their concerns over the water withdrawal request. Many talking points echoed those from the April 22 public hearing.
Larry Stone of Elkader recognized that Pattison Sand is an important industry and employer in Clayton County but said the request to dramatically increase the amount of water used raises many questions. Why is more water needed when the company does not use all the water it’s currently permitted to use? What happens to the withdrawn water and is there a guarantee it won’t be shipped off site?
Stone worried about potential contamination to the aquifer and said there is not enough information available about a “cone of depression” pumping could cause. He urged Pattison and the DNR to investigate whether past withdrawals have affected other area wells.
“It must be Pattison’s responsibility and their expense to measure the impact on groundwater—and to stop withdrawals if the pumping is shown to adversely affect surrounding wells,” Stone said.
Anita Grunder of Clayton agreed with Stone, and Bill Burke, a resident at Willie’s Resort/Frenchtown near Guttenberg, called for more study on potential effects to wells.
Gene Wehrheim, a property owner near Littleport, urged protection of the environment, while Jane Metcalf of Elkader accused the DNR of not considering that water is a limited natural resource.
Garnavillo’s mayor, Chuck Lawson, cited the Mississippi River as Clayton County’s top tourist attraction and an important source of income for many people. He feared the withdrawal’s potential impact on that resource as well as Garnavillo’s two wells that serve 760 people.
“If our water supply goes bad, where does that leave people in the county?” he wondered.
Kay Vifian from Guttenberg said people need to comment and try to influence the DNR to put conditions on the permit if it is issued.
“This isn’t a political issue,” Vifian said. “Everybody needs water—and good water.”
Steve Veysey of Ames called the DNR a “captured” agency that serves permit applicants and businesses instead of the general public. He, too, said people should require the DNR to put enforceable conditions on any permit.
Jenna Van Meeteren, director of the Clayton County Conservation Board, reminded the supervisors that they and the conservation board could receive phone calls from constituents if there are problems related to the Pattison permit. She suggested taking action ahead of time and passing along comments and concerns.
“It’s gonna be [viewed as] our fault, even though we have no say” over the DNR’s actions, Van Meeteren said. “We need to do our due diligence.”
The Iowa DNR is continuing to review Pattison Sand’s application, and a written comment period goes until May 27. An official anticipates the DNR will make a decision 60 days after May 27, at most.
