October 22, 2019

Jeffrey S. Broberg, LPG, MA

Minnesota Licensed Professional Geologists #30019
Director: Minnesota Well Owners Organization (MnWOO)
St. Charles, MN
brobergmnwoo@gmail.com
Fish Kill in Garvin Brook threatens our local drinking water.
The Fish Kill and our Drinking Water Risks
Dead fish in Garvin Brook should sound water quality alarms from every quarter of Stockton
Valley demanding action to protect the drinking water of every household in the Valley. Water that kills
fish is not just bad for fish but in Garvin and Stockton Valleys the bad water will end up as the
groundwater that feeds our wells.

In the last week of September hundreds of trout and other fish died in Garvin Brook as a slug of
bad water traveled down the spring-fed stream faster than all the fish could get away (Figure 1). The
water killed the fish and moved downstream and according to local dye trace studies is likely to have bled
down into groundwater below that people use for drinking water in Stockton and across the entire valley
and beneath the bedrock ridges (Figures 1-8). Toxic water that kills fish in our karst landscape is a health
risk well owners can’t ignore.

Photo by Chris Rogers, Winona Post,

September 30, 2019

Figure 1: Sept 30 Garvin Brook Fish Kill: News Photo

Whenever the spring fed streams have fish kills, I believe that State and Local public health
officials should be required to tell us how to protect our drinking water. Recent studies of the
groundwater flow near Stockton have already demonstrated how fast surface water recharges our
fractured bedrock aquifers1. How can health officials ignore water that is so bad that it kills all the fish in
a spring fed stream?

1
Minnesota Karst Data Base, Mn Dye Trace Inventory, Minnesota Springshed Map

1
 As a geologist and trout angler I think dead trout, suckers and sculpin are alarming. As an
experienced environmental risk manager and director of the Minnesota Well Owners Organization
(MnWOO) I want to see state health officials assess the risks and help us protect our drinking water. As a
well owner I am most concerned with public health and the safety of our community. I think dead fish
from poison water in a trout stream near Stockton is an emergency

Figure 2. 9-30-19 Garvin Brook Fish Kill

Minnesota Well Index shows over 150 households with private wells. Red Arrow is the approximate upstream extend of the fish
kill. The Blue arrow is the approximate end of the fish kill at the confluence with Peterson Creek

I’m concerned for the health of hundreds of Winona County households near the fish kill (Figure
1) It seems we have many state experts who understand the groundwater risks, but their studies are never
used. Emergency response teams, public health professionals and drinking water experts are not
communicating the drinking water risks to the affected parties. This lack of communication increases the
risks for all those who is unaware that the well water we drink the same water that the trout swim in. This
lack of candor also increases the probability for a host of water quality hazards. This stalwart inaction
assures that our communities can never move forward to implement effective drinking water protection.

The Fish Kill Investigators seem stuck looking back through the rear-view mirror at what
happened in the past and are never seen looking at the road ahead. I fear that unless we look forward and
learn to control the clear and obvious risks everyone who drinks untested well water in the area is at risk.
MnWOO believes that the water that killed the fish in Garvin Brook is now a slowly passing drinking
water emergency between Lewiston and Minnesota City. Without testing all the drinking water from all
the private wells, the bad water that killed the fish in Garvin Brook will pass through undetected.
Following a fish kill incident we recommend that people act as if their wells have been flooded and
immediately test their wells for bacteria, nitrates and chlorides. You cannot know your water is safe
without testing your well

We know every household with a well is concerned about the water at their own kitchen sink, but
MnWOO sees no action and we are concerned that public officials seem either uninformed or they have
been told to stay quiet.

2
 Groundwater Dye Trace Studies Prove Surface Water and Groundwater Intermingle

Decades of groundwater and watershed studies in the Garvin Brook Watershed have mapped the
soils, mapped the bedrock and characterized the karst aquifers. All the studies have proven that the water
starting on the surface at the top of the ridges infiltrates into the soil or runs down into the valleys. The
surface water flows in cracks and fissures in and out of the limestone and sandstone bedrock. The runoff
flows a short distance across the surface before it disappears and becomes the groundwater that we drink
and later re-emerges in springs feeding Garvin Brook (Figure 4-6).

Figure 3. 9-30-19 Garvin Brook Fish Kill.

Geologic maps with springs, wells, water quality and 2014 Dye Tracing with extent of 2019 fish kill

Figures 3 through 7 show the dye trace and geologic maps. Figure 4 is the 2014 groundwater
flow model that shows how dyed water poured into the bedrock at the bottom of dry ravines later came
out a few days later in springs emerging from the bedrock farther down the valley. From the Garvin
Brook springs the water flows downstream but the dye traces show that the water also flows back down
deep into the fractured bedrock in the valley floor, recharging the aquifers below. The model describes
how recent water commonly is commonly found in local private wells and springs.

3
 Figure 4. 9-30-19 Garvin Brook Fish Kill.

2014 Dye Trace Study model for surface water/groundwater interaction in Stockton Valley demonstrating conduit groundwater
flow in the St. Lawrence and Tunnel City.

Both the 2014 and the 2016 groundwater studies predict that if fish-killing water flows through
Farmers Park it will likely sink out of sight into the underlying bedrock aquifers before it passes through
Stockton (Figure 4-7). The known risk is that much of fish killing water will stay with us as moving
groundwater as the rest flows to the Mississippi.

Even with accepted evidence of the local groundwater risk our Fish Kill Team seems to think
that a fish kill is just about fish, not about the water.

Figure 5.9-30-19 Garvin Creek Fish Kill. Dye trace studies show that surface water infiltrates through the soils and fractured
bedrock mixing recent age groundwater with vented water. Both recent water and vintage water are used for private wells.

4
 Figure 6. 9-30-19 Garvin Brook Fish Kill.

Downstream extent of fish kill is upgradient of 2016 dye tract study where dye was poured into stream sinks and emerged in
springs as much as 1.4 miles away

Figure 7. 9-30-19 Garvin Brook Fish Kill.

Dye trace downstream of fish kill shows rapid infiltration rates and rapid groundwater movement as high as 665 feet/ day. The
injected dye sank in fractured “pseudo-karst” and crossed beneath the ridges before discharging to multiple springs. Figure 1
shows private wells in the areas downgradient of the fish kill.

5
 State Fish Kill Response Focus on Fish not Drinking Water Risk.

Last week I made queries to seven State officials from four State Agencies about drinking water
safety in the Garvin Brook area. I found that the Minnesota Fish Kill team is led by a Conservation
Officer investigating this “incident” to identify a perpetrator, like a CSI episode. Unfortunately, the CSI
protocols do not include assessing the surface water/groundwater interactions at the time of the incident
and groundwater experts do not get involved to define the drinking water risks. Most unfortunate is that
there is no systematic program to test drinking water from all the high-risk wells.

Even a week after the incident I found no one at State Agencies who seemed aware enough about
Garvin Brook to be concerned about whether our well water is safe enough to drink. No one with local
groundwater experience from the Department of Health, or at the DNR, MPCA, or Ag Department are
assessing the groundwater health risk. I found that there is still no public health or water quality alert
system in the Fish Kill Investigation Manual, and no one talks to well owners to see if their drinking
water is OK.

Unfortunately, there is no plan to advise either well owners or downstream residents. No one is
looking to see if the fish killing water could be in our wells. To MnWOO and to the public the optics are
bad when the State ignores their own groundwater studies and when protocols of investigation exclude
the hydrologists and health experts. The truth is that health officials are not involved, and the DNR,
MPCA and Ag Dept Fish Kill Investigators only focus on the fish; no one looks out after the people who
are relying on local groundwater. Minnesota officials seem to be totally ignoring our drinking water and
ignoring the obvious risks to public health.

Hindsight Rules: No information or reports are forthcoming for months.

Once again, the agencies only acknowledge an ongoing investigation, but they won’t talk to us
about the incident and they won’t inform us of the risks. Even when residents are worried about their
drinking water risks; even when citizens in the Valley want to know how to protect their families, all we
get is a shameful refusal of Minnesota officials to discuss the broad implications of the Garvin Creek Fish
Kill.

Until the DNR/Ag Dept criminal investigation is complete there will be no reports of the likely
cause of the fish kill or the fate of the bad water that killed the fish. There will be no drinking water
testing in response to the hazard. There will be no warnings to families who could be using bad drinking
water, there won’t be any advice to landowners about either how to prevent a fish kill or about what to do
when bad water is flowing into and out of our drinking water wells.

Know this to be safe: – Fish Killing Water is Bad. Test Your Drinking Water.

We cannot have healthy farming communities and families in SE Minnesota if we ignore the
regional groundwater risks of toxic water flowing in and out of our drinking water aquifers. We need
Public Health to take the lead and we need them to employ their own data and the regional karst studies,
dye traces and springshed surveys (Figure 8).

6
 Figure 8. 9-30-19 Garvin Brook Fish Kill.

DNR Springshed Map of Winona County with Garvin Fish Kill identified by arrows.

We cannot continue to ignore or misconstrue our groundwater knowledge and then pretend we
are protecting the public health. People are drinking the water and households are being put at risk
without proper frequent drinking water testing and without appropriate drinking water treatment.

We need fish kill investigation on our trout streams to focus on the water, not focus on the fish.
We need public officials who prioritize communication and public health. We need fish kill emergency
responders who are not just slow walking their investigation. When fish kills occur in our valleys, we
need programs that protect our health and safety. We need rapid water quality testing of our drinking
water so that we don’t unknowingly drink the water that just killed the fish.

What’s next?

It is not too late to act, and State Leadership can still help protect our groundwater. We can’t wait
any longer. We know for sure that the things we have been doing for the last 35 years to protect our
streams and drinking water is not working. We have been studying the Garvin/Stockton Valley for
decades and now we know that the drinking water quality is getting worse. I fear that unless our
neighbors get sick state officials will still focus on dead fish, not on our need for drinking water testing
and drinking water protection.

7
 MnWOO is asking the Governor, his Commissioners, and all our elected offices to protect the
health and welfare of private well owners in Winona County. MnWOO is filing a Data
Practices/Freedom of Information Act requesting all the public data about the Garvin Brook “incident”.
We are also seeking information for all the other fish kills in SE Minnesota trout streams since 2015.
MnWOO wants to get a look and share the findings about why we never have any effective state response
to local drinking water concerns in the karst regions of SE Minnesota.

I never expect miracles, so I expect that sometime in mid to late 2020 I will finally get another
look at the level of State Agency neglect in assuring safe drinking water in the Stockton Valley.

Sincerely:

Jeffrey S. Broberg, MA, LPG

Minnesota Well Owners Organization

11596 Persons Dr, St. Charles, MN 55972

brobergmnwoo@gmail.com

507-273-4961

8
 References:
Minnesota Department of Health, 2019, Minnesota Well Index, retrieved from
https://mnwellindex.web.health.state.mn.us/

Barry, J., Green, J. A., 2015, Report on the 2014-15 Dye Traces in the Vicinity of Stockton, MN, Winona
County, MN. retrieved from L
https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/184791/Winona_2014_Stockton_02Aug2016.pdf?s
equence=1&isAllowed=y

Barry, J., Green, J. A., et al, 2018, Coupling Dye Tracing, Water Chemistry, And Passive Geophysics to
Characterize A Siliciclastic Pseudokarst Aquifer, Southeast Minnesota, Usa. Retrieved from:
https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1034&context=sinkhole_2018

Green, J.A., Alexander, E. C. Jr, Sept 2014, Mapped Paleozoic Karst Spring sheds in SE MN, retrieved
from:
https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/groundwater_section/mapping/springshed/springshed_map.pdf