Download January 13, 2016 Meeting Notes (PDF)

Water Reuse Interagency Workgroup
Meeting Summary
January 13th, 2016
8:30 am - 12:00 pm
Department of Labor and Industry Building
Present Members: Anita Anderson, Julie Ekman, Scott Fox, Bob Johnson, Jim Lungstrom, Roger
Mackedanz (for Dan Stoddard), Deb Manning, Carmelita Nelson, John Parizek, Mark Schmitt
(for Rebecca Flood), Suzanne Rhees, Nancy Rice, Faye Sleeper, Ron Struss, Randy Thorson,
Cathy Tran, Marcey Westrick (for Jim Haertel)
Absent Members: Brian Davis, Ali Elhassan, Randy Ellingboe, Rebecca Flood, Jim Haertel, Jim
Kelly, Dan Stoddard
Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) Staff: Emmy Waldhart and Leslie Winter
Management Analysis & Development (MAD) Staff: Kristina Krull and Charlie Petersen
Welcome and Agenda Review
Charlie welcomed members to the first Water Reuse Interagency Workgroup. The purpose of
this meeting was for members to understand why the group formed, to learn about previous
work on water reuse, and to begin discussing a project charter. Charlie covered the ground
rules for the group.
Purpose of the Water Reuse Project
Anita summarized the history of the previous iteration of the group, an ad hoc group that met
from 2013-2015. That group suggested changes to the plumbing code, looked at the existing
regulatory framework, partnered with MnTAP to conduct a survey, informed MDH’s microbial
risk assessment project, and brainstormed barriers to water reuse.
Anita explained that this new workgroup will help the State develop a consistent message
about water reuse, as well as strategies to support safe and sustainable reuse. Unlike the
previous group, this group has agency leadership commitment and funding from the Clean
Water Fund. The legislature charged this workgroup to “prepare a comprehensive study of and
recommendations for regulatory and non-regulatory approaches to water reuse for use in the
development of state policy for water reuse in Minnesota” (Session Law 2015, 1st special
session, Chapter 2, Article 2, Section 8).
Introductions
Charlie led members in introductions and asked about their interest in water reuse. Broad
themes of the group’s interests include:
1
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Water conservation and protection
Protecting public health
Water use permitting
Recharging limited or threatened groundwater sources
Improved communication about reuse
Irrigation reuse and efficiency
Waste and storm water reuse
Training, education, and research
Water Reuse in Minnesota
Anita presented a PowerPoint to provide background information about water reuse. First she
defined the workgroup’s objectives:
•
•
•
Define successful implementation of reuse in Minnesota
Identify current conditions that support successful reuse and identify barriers and
solutions to barriers
Evaluate and recommend regulatory and non-regulatory approaches to successful
implementation of reuse
Anita presented on the water sources and end uses involved in water reuse. The workgroup
discussed how different groups use different terminology for this topic, and that this group will
have to come up with its own definitions. Scott noted that the PCA has a contractor creating a
storm water guide, including a list of terminology. The group agreed to look over that list as a
start for a future discussion on definitions, provided that it’s available in time.
There are many reasons why State staff want to expand water reuse: to improve water quality,
to address water quantity issues, to encourage sustainable economic growth, and to protect the
environment. The group discussed the importance of engaging private industry on this issue,
even if they aren’t formally represented on the group.
Anita then summarized several existing water reuse projects. It seems that water reuse projects
save water and recharge water sources, but it’s unclear by how much. Some projects are very
visible to the public, like the one at Target Field, and these help raise public awareness of water
conservation and reuse.
Current issues in water reuse include: minimal water quality monitoring at most systems;
poorly-designed or -maintained projects; high costs; regulatory barriers; and public health risks.
Anita shared some results from a statewide MnTAP survey of schools, golf courses, utilities,
landscape architects, plumbing authorities, etc. The survey asked about barriers to water reuse,
regulatory gaps, concerns, current projects, and needed resources. Anita noted that this group
can review more of the results at a later meeting. Broadly, the results showed a need for design
standards, technical assistance, and financial resources/incentives.
2
Anita outlined current water reuse regulations and codes. A lack of national regulation led to
the creation of many independent codes, which causes regulatory gaps and contradictions. That
said, there is plenty of research and information available that the group can draw on. The
group needs to review it, explore how it all applies to Minnesota, and decide how the State
should modify its framework.
Develop Water Reuse Project Charter
Anita presented the draft charter that MDH developed and invited the group to suggest
changes.
Purpose
Even though the group has until 2019 to spend its funds, Anita said she would still like the
group to try to finish its work by July 2017. The group supported the earlier deadline.
Members discussed whether the workgroup only needs to develop recommendations for state
policy, or whether the group should also develop the state policy for water reuse. Based on the
legislature’s wording, the group decided that they only need to develop recommendations and
not the actual policy; the recommendations will lay the foundation for others to establish policy.
Project Management and Roles
The charter suggested an executive committee comprised of Anita, Suzanne, Cathy, and Scott.
The executive committee would help set the agendas for the meetings, and decide on how to
proceed if the full group gets stuck. The group agreed to have an executive committee.
The group discussed a lack of common terminology, and delegated the executive group to
decide how to proceed with that issue.
Anita noted that agency sponsors are not required to attend all meetings but that they are
always welcome; they may have more interest in certain topics/meetings than others. In general,
representatives listed on page six of the charter will be the ongoing workgroup. The workgroup
may form subgroups to work on specific issues or activities.
Project Activities
Charlie explained that the group will broadly follow three steps: conduct research, analyze the
information gathered, and develop recommendations based on the results. Then the group will
determine how to present their recommendations to different audiences.
In and Out of Scope
Anita explained the reasons for the suggested in/out of scope items. The group will prioritize
which types of reuse to focus on at a future meeting.
Deliverables
The group agreed minute notes should be public, but that the notes for a meeting won’t be
made public until after the following meeting, when the group has had a chance to review them
together.
3
Stakeholder Involvement
Members agreed it’s important to gather stakeholder input as part of this process. The group
has a diverse set of people who can reach out to different groups of stakeholders (e.g., via
existing newsletters). In the future, project leaders might email members asking them to identify
their lists of stakeholders; the group can then compile those responses and prioritize which ones
to engage at which points in the process.
The group then discussed how to make their work available. Members noted that the meetings
are public, and that stakeholders are welcome to attend, but that their input at meetings might
be limited to certain agenda items.
Constraints and Dependencies
Members wondered whether this project is actually dependent on other projects, and suggested
moving those paragraphs to another part of the charter.
Assumptions
The group discussed whether the proposed assumptions were more like project objectives. They
suggested a different assumption along the lines of “every member attends, and involved and
committed.” Members also wanted to add an assumption that all members will share the
workgroup’s information with others in their agencies.
Other
Members suggested adding an accounting of the Clean Water Fund dollars and how they will
be spent.
Communications
Leslie and Emmy from MDH communications explained that they’ve been asked to draft a
communication plan for the group, as well as a brief document summarizing what the group
has done so far and where the group is going. They’re also working on a website and an
infographic for the group. They want to make sure the group provides consistent and
understandable messages to different audiences.
Leslie handed out a draft communication document, but noted that a smaller group may need
to further revise it. Emmy presented the infographic MDH has developed about types of water
reuse and received some feedback from the group.
The group suggested other collaborative websites for MDH staff to look at, including the
invasive species website managed by MDA, DNR, and others, and the riparian buffers site
managed by BWSR and DNR. The group agreed that if a collaborative site isn’t possible, MDH
could host a central website for the project. Other agencies would link to the project site on their
own websites.
Emmy presented a slogan for the workgroup, and the group modified it to “Can we reuse that
water Minnesota?” The group discussed whether the slogan should only apply to this project or
to future work, too, but decided to focus it on the existing group’s work.
4
Emmy and Leslie asked the group whether other agencies want to be involved in the project’s
communications efforts. Some members saw a benefit in having a subgroup with technical and
communications staff, while others suggested that MDH should lead communications work and
just have other agencies review documents.
Members can submit suggested changes to the handout or slogan to Anita.
Next Steps
This group intends to meet monthly. Except for February, the group tentatively agreed on
meeting the mornings of the second Wednesday of the month. Project leaders can send out a
survey to confirm this if needed. The executive committee will meet before the next workgroup
meeting to plan the agenda.
MAD will email out the notes for group members to review. The group will approve them at
the next meeting, and then MDH will post the notes on the project website.
5