Crane Lake, Minnesota Water & Sanitary District  
Crane Lake, Minnesota Water & Sanitary District - Menu



August 7, 2013 – 6:30 P. M.



The meeting was called to order by Chairman Rob Scott at 6:35PM


Chairman Rob Scott welcomed the 30 meeting attendees and introduced Representative David Dill, St. Louis County Commissioner Mike Forsman, St. Louis County Environmental Services Department Representatives Terry Soderberg and John Lindquist, and S.E.H. representative Greg Kimman.  Chairman Scott explained that there would be presentations by St. Louis County and S.E.H. and that each speaker would accept questions and comments from the floor.


Terry Soderberg and John Lindquist addressed the compliancy of septic systems on Bear Island.  The County considers any system five years old and younger to be compliant without inspection.  They stated that 11 systems on the Island were fully conforming and compliant with two new systems being added by the end of the week.  Nine systems are compliant but need inspection.  Any system older than five years should be inspected by private sector inspectors.


Some questions presented to Mr. Soderberg and Mr. Lindquist:  Why should the District spend so much money; individuals should be responsible for their own systems.  Shouldn’t all questions be answered before proceeding?  There is poor communication from the District.  If the concern is water quality of all of Crane Lake, how are other properties being considered?  The engineers should include what is not developable on the Island in future studies.


Greg Kimman of S.E.H. began his presentation by listing the following sources used for their option considerations:  ESA Advisory Committee Report and Recommendations, Voyageurs National Park Clean Water Joint Powers Board Comprehensive Plan, RLK Eastern Service Area Report, and S.E.H. Concept Plans Analysis.  The following is S.E.H.’s outline of options for sewer treatment on Bear Island:


Update all ISTS Systems to be Compliant:  Pros – Each property owner continue ownership responsibility, variety of flow usage.  Cons – Difficult to monitor and police, bedrock requires media filters such as peat which are expensive to build and susceptible to short circuiting.

Combination of ISTS and Holding Tank:  Pros – Tailor the treatment unit to the use of the property.  Heavier users would need ISTS and lower users would use a holding tank.  Cons – Determine which users for each system, usage changes over the years, barge costs and monitoring of holding tanks, problematic ISTS systems, allocation of operation and maintenance costs.

Collect and Treatment on the Island:  Pros – Eliminates need to transport wastewater across the lake.  Cons – The Island is almost entirely bedrock; therefore, a cluster treatment system would be difficult to build and operate.  Easements for the treatment system would be required.  Operating a Class C treatment system on the island. Permitting challenges.

Collect and send to CLWSD:  Pros – Same type of system already established at Crane Lake.  Cons – Expensive to build, Island has difficult terrain.


Some questions presented included:  Concern of heat tape expense mentioned at previous meeting.  Concern of heat tape value when power outages occur in winter.  Credit should be considered for those with new systems.  Some of the funding should be used in areas other than Bear Island.


The meeting was adjourned at 8:05PM.



Jo Ann Pohlman, Clerk

Crane Lake Water & Sanitary District
P.O. Box 306 · Crane Lake, Minnesota 55725
© 2001 CLWSD