North Zumbro Sanitary Sewer District (NZSSD)

Submitted By

42 Results

Search Type

Sort:

Sort Results By

Comment From: Michael Hutchinson

4/30/26 @ 8:25 AM

I am concerned that this will link Zumbrota's water with that of the proposed datacenter in Pine Island, that waste water with unknown solvents and chemicals will be pumped into Zumbrota and end up in our soil and then back into our drinking water. O...↓

No attachments

Comment From: William Saville

4/29/26 @ 5:57 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Aubree Derksen

4/29/26 @ 10:03 AM

NPR just released a study today linking metals exposure to critical brain development windows in babies and the health effects that show up later in adolescence. https://www.npr.org/2026/04/29/nx-s1-5803561/baby-teeth-toxic-metals-brain-infants-kids ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Kahla Jourdan

4/28/26 @ 9:51 PM

I noticed that there is NO mention of the incoming hyperscale data center coming to Pine Island in the study. The study needs to be updated to reflect the massive impact this data center will have on the joint waste water treatment facility.

No attachments

Comment From: Aubree Derksen

4/28/26 @ 9:29 PM

Considering that there's a lot of comments that apply to cumulative impacts and needing more information regarding the data center and how it impacts the project, remember that it's Google you're dealing with in the effort to get the information that...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Aubree Derksen

4/28/26 @ 9:02 PM

Cumulative impacts definitely need to be updated to include the data center plans, especially regarding back-up generators and water. Please see the attached report on air pollution/emissions in regards to diesel generators. If the power goes out in ...↓

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Aubree Derksen

4/28/26 @ 8:45 PM

For p.49 section 16-While amber lighting reduces ecological impact and that's great to see it on your plan, in as many areas as possible where lighting is needed at night red lights are even better as the wavelenghts are practically invisible to most...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Aubree Derksen

4/28/26 @ 8:29 PM

I have seen communication from Stantec to Pine Island specifically stating that Tribal communities do not have the staff, time or resources to respond within the 30 day public commenting windows. Given that this project directly affects Prairie Islan...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Erica Kettner

4/28/26 @ 8:10 PM

I am very worried about our water supply. We have well on our century farm. I worry about my health and the animals wild and domestic. We have endangered salamanders in our stream. What will happen to them if their habitat dries up. We have eagles,ow...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Darcie Simpson

4/28/26 @ 7:41 PM

This EAW appears to have been completed in December 2022. At least that is what is included on this site for review and comment. Since that time, Pine Island has approved the development of a hyper scale data center (02/2026), which will be nearly ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Amanda Nygaard

4/28/26 @ 7:37 PM

I am not opposed to the wastewater treatment project itself to support our communities and residents. However, the EAW does not appear to be all-encompassing as it does not state that the proposed Data Center in Pine Island plans to utilize this faci...↓

No attachments

Comment From: David Derksen

4/28/26 @ 7:29 PM

"NZSSD submitted a Cultural Resources Project Review to the Minnesota Indian
Affairs Council (MIAC) on March 4, 2025, August 27, 2025, and October 13, 2025, to confirm that
there are no Project impacts to cultural resources in their database (Appen...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Aubree Derksen

4/28/26 @ 6:56 PM

P.20 Appendix N-I'm a little confused-are the Stantec people supposed to be finding out more information on the people connected to the artifacts they found or are they only required to look in the census? If they're required to do more digging they'...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Aubree Derksen

4/28/26 @ 5:06 PM

For future reference for all environmental reviews, please include a table of contents and page numbers. For the appendices y'all attached a 585 page document that contains F-O but there's no table of contents with page numbers, which makes it very d...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Janice Hobbs

4/28/26 @ 4:55 PM

This project does not have all the information needed to proceed. The information needed is as follows:

1. How much waste water will be discharged from the Google hyperscale data center in Pine Island?
2. What contaminants will be in the waste wa...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Aubree Derksen

4/28/26 @ 4:43 PM

P.41 The prompt specifically says to "discuss potential environmental effects from an accidental release or spill of hazardous materials. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the use/storage of chemicals/hazardous mat...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Melissa Henry

4/28/26 @ 3:45 PM

Our community and surrounding communities should be aware that the City of Pine Island is considering a proposal to send wastewater from a planned Google AI hyperscale data center to the joint wastewater treatment facility. At this time, important de...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Kelly Leibold

4/28/26 @ 3:44 PM

Good afternoon! I'm submitting a second comment because my earlier response was incorrect; the data center in Pine Island plans to spread 5.2 million gallons/year of bio solids on nearby fields. The annual water usage itself will be much more, which ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Kelly Leibold

4/28/26 @ 3:36 PM

I currently sit on the La Crosse County WI Board of Supervisors but I grew up in southeastern Minnesota, serving on the Pine Island MN City Council from 2019 to 2022. I don't believe data center usage was factored into this development, using over 5 ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Mary Bakeberg

4/28/26 @ 3:35 PM

The joint wastewater treatment facility is much needed and should benefit the cities involved in the project. There is however, some very important information missing before the project is approved. The Pine Island hyperscale AI data center use of...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Aubree Derksen

4/28/26 @ 2:47 PM

I strongly challenge the wording on p.45 " "the project was deemed to have no effect on the Whooping crane, monarch butterfly, rusty patched bumble bee and prairie bush-clover." That just sounds like lazy science. All the pieces of your project are i...↓nterconnected and your job during environmental review is to show how they are interconnected and how to mitigate the risks and harms, particularly the harms that come from the thinking that part A over here has no effect on part C over here. First off, the timing of this public comment period being in March/April makes it difficult for citizen scientists to run over and count all the milkweed that is in fact growing in the area that the EAW claims it's not. The original letter itself was issued in February 2024, further contact was made during the winter of 2025 and 2026, all non-growing seasons. I can spot milkweed in the ditch going 70mph on the highway because I had a Monarch waystation before moving here and raised monarchs. Lone milkweed plants are still valuable and are in cases preferred because they're less likely to be targeted by predators than large clumps of milkweed. So an area like this project area that might have more scattered milkweed plants versus large clumps of it will still have an impact on the monarch, not no impact. Further, the biosolids used as waste management strategy do in fact have an impact on insects like monarchs (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7468139/, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844023069967) whose host plants are likely to be on the fringe of agricultural fields were biosolids are spread or are randomly growing in the midst of crops. There is messaging to encourage the growth of pollinator plants in the midst of crops rather than discourage it because pollination helps everyone out. Milkweed too is also considered a "weed" and is therefore targeted by herbicides which therefore affect the monarch as well since herbicides are a chemical found in biosolids. The chemicals in biosolids end up being ingested by the caterpillars and have an effect on the adult wingspan making the wingspan smaller. For monarchs this matters because the 4th generation that hatches in the fall is the generation that migrates and they are bigger because of the need to migrate. Size matters for species survival. Biosolids are laid in the fall and the timing of that fall spread matters for the larvae that would consume the plants that come in contact with those biosolids. Then you have to show in your plan with biosolids that you have taken into account the monarch butterfly and how your mitigation strategy prevents undue harm to this proposed threatened species. You cannot say "this project has no impact on Monarchs." There is a significant rule change coming down the line soon regarding the status of the Monarch caterpillar. It would probably be wise to wait for that rule change before moving forward to ensure no irreparable harm is coming to that species. That or I need assurances that this project will go the extra mile with all documentation and act as if the rule as has already been adopted and Monarchs are officially classified as threatened.

No attachments

Comment From: Roxann Voigt

4/28/26 @ 2:22 PM

I am very concerned that this project was developed before the pine Island data center was an imminent threat to our water supply. How will this affect all these communities? Don't we need to stop and refigure the impact?

No attachments

Comment From: David Derksen

4/28/26 @ 2:08 PM

Has capacity for this treatment center taken into account population growth along with the approved data center development in Pine Island? The AUAR for the Pine Island hyperscale data center leaves the door open for a 3,000,000 square foot industria...↓

No attachments

Comment From: PETER Reuss

4/28/26 @ 1:19 PM

I don't see where the proposed hyperscale data center coming to Pine Island fits into this. It seems that, if the data center's water goes to the treatment facility, that should be taken into account and will significantly change the needs. This feel...↓

No attachments

Comment From: David Wilson

4/28/26 @ 1:09 PM

This waste water project isnt accounting for the new proposed data center(s). I feel its inadequate projections made before any of these latest proposals

No attachments

Comment From: Kami Johnson

4/28/26 @ 11:23 AM

This WWTF needs to take into account the MASSIVE data center approved by the Pine Island city council. This huge increase in usage by this data center will surely require a new review process and serious consideration for this proposed WWTF for all 4...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Janet Hanke

4/28/26 @ 10:32 AM

I support the NZSSD as proposed, if the design includes contingencies for population growth in the covered areas. This area is notorious for building public facilities that are adequate now but are almost immediately too small for the populations th...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Aubree Derksen

4/28/26 @ 9:47 AM

Oh, forgot to ask in previous comment regarding the Calcareous Fen, how do the biosolids impact this plant? It seems like the application of the biosolids needs to include this particular plant in the equation as this plant would likely be particular...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Aubree Derksen

4/28/26 @ 9:00 AM

On the very first page of Appendix J it says "Acalcareous fen (Wanamingo 22, Fen ID#29025) was documented approximately 3 miles from the proposed project. A calcareous fen is a rare and distinctive peat-accumulating wetland that is legally protected ...↓in Minnesota. The Wetlands Conservation Act (WCA), authorized by Minnesota Statutes, section 103G.223, states that calcareous fens may not be filled, drained, or otherwise degraded, wholly or partially, by any activity, except as provided for in a management plan approved by the commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources. Many of the unique characteristics of calcareous fens result from the upwelling of groundwater through calcareous substrates. Because of this dependence on groundwater hydrology, calcareous fens can be affected by nearby activities or even those several miles away. For more information regarding calcareous fens, please see the Calcareous Fen Fact Sheet. To minimize stormwater impacts, please refer to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's General Principles for Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual. Please note that calcareous fens are "Special Waters" and a buffer zone may be required. Calcareous fens may be impacted by activities within the fen, activities that affect surface water flows (e.g., stormwater flow, erosion), or activities that affect groundwater hydrology (e.g., groundwater North Zumbro Sanitary District MCE-2025-00612 Page 2 of 6 pumping, contamination, or discharge) even several miles away. Given the project details, impacts are not anticipated. If the proposed project will alter the hydrological conditions in the surrounding area, contact the Calcareous Fen Program Coordinator, Keylor Andrews ([email protected])."

The EAW mentioned the rest of the letter but failed to mention the Calcareous Fen at all and that there is a very specific person that needs to be contacted regarding this very rare species that is located near the project and is known to be impacted even within several miles of a project. That is an oversight that needs to be corrected immediately and the mitigation plans listed need to specifically address this particular species and this particular point person and include proof of contact with this particular point person. There is also going to need to be further analysis of the mitigation plans listed and how they intersect with insect species for example. Doing construction on frozen ground may help mitigate harm to a tree species but may cause undue harm to an insect species like the fireflies or bees that hibernate and burrow during the winter and are facing population decline. While a mitigation strategy of construction is frozen ground is a mention of a seasonal timeframe it is the only mention of seasonal timeframes given for plants and that is also an oversight that would need to be corrected for proper mitigation strategies. You would need to know specific times of day that are less likely to interfere with pollinators and ensure construction is not happening at a critical time when an insect species that depends on that plan as its host plant is spawning for example. You don't want construction to happen at crtical times for the plant when accidentally damaging it would result in preventing it from blooming for example.

No attachments

Comment From: Aubree Derksen

4/27/26 @ 9:38 PM

p.41 Reiterating a previous comment of mine and also clarifying-as a resident I would like specifics included in a waste management plan. I'd like the licensed waste haulers that will be used or a list of the ones that could be used to be named along...↓ with any compliance violations. I'd like assurances that groundwater monitoring is in place at the designated waste facilities where waste is being disposed. It's important to specify what street traffic would be moved onto for impacts-residents have to pay for the wear and tear of the 17 truckloads a day and they need a say as to what streets are better and what days and times of day are better. It is not specified how many days those 17 truckloads a day would be running, that is important information we need to know. 17 truckloads a day for 10 days? 30 days? 6 months? Is it during school hours or times when our children are crossing the street? It says excess PFAS can be released and contaminate groundwater-how is this excess going to be measured and with what frequency? Who's responsibility is it to measure the baseline once it's on the fields? Will the landowners get a printed report with all the baseline numbers on it for reference as well as printed reports with follow up measurements? Will those printed reports also be available for the general public as well? If not then this needs to be included. What is the recourse community members have if negative health outcomes develop down the road and biosolids are suspected as a potential cause, especially given that protections and regulations are not fully in place but may be in the process of being developed? Please ensure that protections apply to the community as a whole, not just landowners that apply biosolids given the nature of contaminates crossing property lines. There should be a more comprehensive list of the negative impacts related to nutrient levels and mitigation than what's included in this EAW. This is an agricultural community and nutrient levels in our ground are a big deal. Oh, it'd also be very important that the groundwater monitoring wells near us here be updated more frequently than they have been https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/cgm/index.html and it'd be nice to have a well closer to this location.

No attachments

Comment From: Aubree Derksen

4/26/26 @ 9:32 PM

P.40 mentions construction waste for this project. MPCA's own report looking into groundwater contamination from construction and demolition debris (https://www.pca.state.mn.us/business-with-us/landfills) concludes the following: "Self-reported groun...↓dwater-monitoring data from unlined C&D landfills in Minnesota shows that a majority have impacted the groundwater at concentrations that have exceeded both human and environmental standards, for Boron, Arsenic, and Manganese. The evidence is strongest for Boron and Manganese, with more information needed concerning Arsenic, given gaps in available data. The problem does not appear to be confined to particular regions of Minnesota and is not being resolved by changes in landfilling practices following the DLGD of 2005. This is because the three contaminants are leaching from what had been previous considered "acceptable," innocuous materials such as concrete, reinforcing steel, and drywall. It is also possible that Manganese and Arsenic native to some Minnesota aquifer sediments are being released through an oxidation-reduction reactions. The "acceptable" materials can also be found in the waste streams going to permit-by-rule demolition landfills and general concrete landfills. These were not evaluated in this report, since they lack groundwater-monitoring systems, but they contain some of the same materials, concrete in particular. The 2005 DLGD was a step forward in laying the foundation for fact-based policy about unlined C&D landfills, because most of them lacked groundwater monitoring and therefore it was not possible for the MPCA to determine whether they were meeting their performance goals of preserving groundwater quality. However, more can be done at existing C&D landfills to monitor performance. Even after 15 years' implementation of the DLGD, this report shows that not all landfills are providing a sufficient assessment of environmental impacts. Some C&D landfills have no monitoring networks, others lack monitoring networks specific to the unlined construction and demolition management areas, and some others have large sampling gaps or use insufficient analytical methods. All groundwater sampling analysis should use a reporting limit that is below the intervention limit."

For this project please ensure that:
1) a C & D waste reduction plan is included in the environmental review to minimize not only the need for landfills but also the risk of materials (those included in the groundwater report as well as the EAW) that could leach contaminants in the first place
2) the name and location of the C & D facility where any construction waste would be disposed of along with the groundwater monitoring reports and any compliance violations.
3) include a requirement that C & D waste must be disposed of at a facility that has groundwater monitoring in place and is in compliance

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Aubree Derksen

4/26/26 @ 9:03 PM

Unless I am mistaken, I worry that there is yet still no requirement that requires the MPCA to notify well owners about projects that would impact their wells, like dewatering, even if effects may only be temporary. The onus is placed entirely on a p...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Aubree Derksen

4/26/26 @ 8:17 PM

It is a good thing that this new facility is proposed on a location that is not within a floodplain. https://www.americanrivers.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/MississippiRiverMER2025.pdf

No attachments

Comment From: Aubree Derksen

4/26/26 @ 12:32 PM

The MPCA as well as all cities in the NZSD and the engineering firm need to pay close attention to the fact that the DNR told Pine Island 1 year ago they'd need a new water treatment facility for the data center. There's now a lawsuit because aquifer...↓

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Aubree Derksen

4/25/26 @ 10:45 PM

How will this new system address PFAS? Can it remove PFAS? I know it's an option but I don't know if Pine Island or any of the other cities applied for PFAS clean water specific grant funding for this project. Data centers and other large projects co...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Jason Huso

4/24/26 @ 12:22 PM

It doesn't appear that your current design has considered the additional potential waste water source from the massive Google data center that has been approved for construction immediately North of Pine island? The combined waste cooling water effl...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Aubree Derksen

4/24/26 @ 12:12 PM

I was out in public just being a normal person at a completely unrelated social event engaging in small talk with the people there and in response to the normal question of "so what do you do for work?" I learn I'm talking with one the primary civil ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Nicole Mills

4/16/26 @ 7:29 PM

On Page 8 of Appendix B (Feasibility Study) of the EAW for the WWTF, the future projections for Pine Island are noted. It mentions future population growth due to potentially 200 homes to be constructed in the Elk Run area, and it assigns an estimat...↓e of 500 towards population growth due to these potential homes being constructed. It's then asserted that this increase in population will lead to additional commercial and industrial growth. It is also estimated that 80,000 gpd of future flow will be expected from these sources.

I see NO mention of the hyper scale data center The City of Pine Island recently approved in this EAW for the WWTF. Why is that?? While this feasibility study is dated October, 2021, it should absolutely be updated to include the water usage estimates for the Google data center that is slated to begin construction soon. Called "Project Skyway," the City of Pine Island website has an estimate of 152,000 gpd to be used by the data center. This would put the projected annual use at 55,480,000 gallons of water. Add THAT number to the current Pine Island average use of 110,000,000 gallons per year, and we're at 165,480,000 gallons of water used annually. Is it a coincidence that this number is JUST below the amount (166,000,000) the DNR permitted the City of Pine Island? I'm guessing not.

As also stated on the City of Pine Island website, an increase of water appropriations over the current appropriation would require the City of Pine Island to amend its water appropriations permit with the DNR, and the City has this need built into the City's comprehensive plan, regardless of whether Project Skyway moves forward or not. And with an amendment to the water appropriations, further additional studies would be required.

So, if Pine Island is looking at using an estimated total of 165,480,000 gallons of water annually, accounting for the current Pine Island population AND the incoming data center, how do we factor in the additional water use for the 200 homes (estimated 500 people) Pine Island is expecting in Elk Run? The additional 29,200,000 gallons of water used annually. This addition will, without a doubt, put Pine Island above its current DNR permitted use, and will trigger an amendment to its water appropriations permit with the DNR, AND will require additional studies.

I'm wondering, what are the additional studies that will be needed? And if we can safely assume these will be needed, as the data center HAS been approved, and we as community members have been assured this will lead to further growth of the Pine Island area, why not do them now? Or if they can't be done now, due to the current WWTF system in use by Pine Island already failing, why...at the very least, is the proposed data center water usage not being factored into this feasibility study for the WWTF that Pine Island will be sharing with three surrounding communities?

I'm wondering if the City of Pine Island is simply going the route of it's easier to ask for forgiveness than it is for permission in regards to its water usage once both the data center and the future Elk Run housing development are here. Maybe it doesn't matter that Pine Island's water usage numbers seem to be off, but as they're asking three other communities to help foot the bill for the WWTF so that it can be shared by all, I would think it would matter, at the very least, to the other communities; Zumbrota, Goodhue, and Wanamingo. Because while the data center may affect the Pine Island community the most, I've little doubt our fellow WWTF communities will feel its presence also.

No attachments

Comment From: Aubree Derksen

4/15/26 @ 10:34 PM

I have concerns that the feasibility study is not up-to date. For one, it was done in 2021 and five years has passed. That seems like a significant period of time to wait before beginning construction. I'm also noticing that in this feasibility study...↓ the data collected for Goodhue is based off of the 2010 census. The 2020 census is what should be used and this merits an update so that there's accurate information being collected. The markets have changed as well. The Trump administration alone has caused significant upheaval in the last year alone. I can all but guarantee there's going to be financial implications to this project based on impacts from the current administration alone. Inflation has gone up 21.86% since 2021(https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/2021). Things are far more expensive now and it's recommended to do new feasibility studies when there's been significant market shifts (https://luthresearch.com/glossary/when-to-conduct-a-feasibility-assessment/).

P. 18 states "Analysis of flow retention costs indicated that it would cost approximately $1 per gallon of volume to construct flow retention infrastructure at each individual community while it would cost approximately $0.80 per gallon of volume to construct centralized flow retention infrastructure." Considering that Pine Island is in a lawsuit involving the data center "Project Skyway" (25-CV-25-2298) and the water usage estimates are alleged to be 2-3x more than what the data center said it would be in the AUAR (see indexes 4,12, 56, 65,70) this is a very big cost implication for Pine Island residents. It's also an even bigger implication considering that the data center is only in phase 1, phase 2 hasn't come down the pipeline yet and the EAW scoping for 3 more data center buildings were just announced going onto the phase 1 plot of land (index 63) bringing this to 4 data centers on the 1 plot of land and these 3 data centers will have water usage as well and cooling technology that's going to impact this new WWTF. The WWTF also was based off a 4MGD water permit that also wasn't taking into account Pine Island's data centers. Pine Island's data center venture is throwing too many big changes into the mix that need to be accounted for.

Update the feasibility study including all of Pine Island's data centers and press Pine Island hard for exact details that won't require a lawsuit to find the information out. Or remove Pine Island from the project and make them deal with the data centers and updating their wastewater facility on their own without penalizing the other communities. Removing Pine Island from the equation would free up funding for the other communities who are not overly complicating the project.

No attachments

Comment From: Rodney Lanners

4/15/26 @ 10:18 PM

Residents should be aware that the City of Pine Island is considering sending wastewater from a proposed Google hyperscale data center to the joint wastewater treatment facility. At this time, the specific volume, chemical composition, and potential ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Aubree Derksen

4/15/26 @ 6:47 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Alice Bygd

4/05/26 @ 9:07 PM

I think that Zumbrota should stay separate especially from Pine Island that will soon have a data center.

No attachments