Water Reuse Interagency Workgroup
Meeting Summary
March 9th, 2016
8:30 am - 12:00 pm
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Present Members: Anita Anderson, Julie Ekman, Scott Fox, Bob Johnson, Deborah Manning,
Suzanne Rhees, Nancy Rice, Faye Sleeper, Ron Struss, Cathy Tran
Absent Members: Brian Davis, Ali Elhassan, Randy Ellingboe, Rebecca Flood, Jim Kelly, Jim
Lungstrom, Carmelita Nelson, John Parizek, Dan Stoddard, Randy Thorson, Marcey Westrick
Management Analysis & Development (MAD) Staff: Kristina Krull and Charlie Petersen
Welcome, Agenda Review, and Updates
Charlie welcomed members to the third meeting of the Water Reuse Interagency Workgroup.
The purpose of this meeting was to work on the group definitions of water reuse and success
for water reuse, and to begin discussing stakeholder engagement.
Anita and Deb will be speaking at the Groundwater Association spring conference on April 20th.
Interagency agreements were set up for quarterly invoicing to MDH. Anita said that other
agencies can do one invoice for the two quarters of 2016 if that’s their preference.
Anita also brought up that MDH is considering applying for an LCCMR grant to do more
pathogen testing on different reuse systems. If others want to be a part of the application, they
should talk to her. The application is due on March 21st.
Ron attended the Minnesota Rural Water Association conference this month and learned about
some new examples of water reuse projects occurring around Minnesota.
The group approved the meeting notes from the February meeting.
The project website prototype will be done by Monday.
Definition of Success for Water Reuse
Charlie led the group through an activity for members to brainstorm and categorize their ideas
of what success for water reuse looks like. The group’s final categories were:
1
Water Reuse Interagency Workgroup
March 9, 2016
Definition of Success for Water Reuse What is success for water reuse in Minnesota? Five years later, what has been successfully done in the area of water
reuse? How would our clients/customers define success with water reuse?
Integration
of
Governance
Integration in
Infrastructure
and Services
• Integration
into
agency/entity
regulation
systems
• Water users
“credited;” can
work within
water
appropriation
permit system
– reuse is
accounted for
• Integrated with
other/existing
infrastructure
utilities
Quantified
benefit to
water
resources
• Benefits
identified and
quantified; what
are we trying to
achieve?
Hierarchy of
benefits to energy
use/cost
• Reuse
implemented
where feasible –
economically,
environmentally,
protective (public
health)
• Continued
research:
mechanism to
communicate
recommendations
public health
findings, action regulation
• Reduce demand
on groundwater
aquifers
Reuse is
common
practice
• Typical homes
have graywater
systems (it’s the
norm)
• Treated drinking
water is not used
for non-potable
purposes
• Has moved past
the “pioneer”
phase; education
and incentives to
mainstream the
practitioners in
their design
• Reuse
implemented
where feasible –
economically,
environmentally,
protective
(public health)
• Public
acceptance,
recognize need
and what is/isn’t
allowed
Safe,
sustainable,
and
sanitary
systems
Water is so
valuable that
water reuse is
economically
beneficial
• Systems are
maintained
long-term;
capital/fiscal
planning,
responsible
management
entity, longrange
planning
• Public health
concerns
addressed
• Acceptable
risk, what will
public agree is
acceptable risk
related to
benefits
• Sustainable
and beneficial
• Efficient,
integrated
systems; saves
water, energy
and money
• Economically
feasible so it
becomes standard
practice in design
• Full, integrated
cost/benefit
analysis can be
performed; clear
path for decision
making
• Common
practice;
understanding
regulatory
(allowed, not
allowed); many
examples in
Minnesota
• Continued
research:
mechanism to
communicate
recommendations
public health
findings, action regulation
Clear Pathway –
remove barriers
• Clear regulatory pathway as
needed; more standardized –
normalized; understandable
process (even to public)
• Remove code barriers; there
is a system or literature in
place to clearly show and
describe the implementation
and maintenance of reuse
systems
• Simplified process; example:
operation, maintenance,
testing, regulation
• Accepted standard practices;
manuals for design and
support, network and
support system, experts or
those with experience
• Continued research:
mechanism to communicate
recommendations public
health findings, action regulation
Continued research
and technical
expertise available
• Catalog or tracking of
what works; some degree
of monitoring and
tracking so we can learn
what works; what is cost
of maintaining
• Accepted standard
practices; manuals for
design and support,
network and support
system, experts or those
with experience
• Continued development
of technical solutions; a
research fund or research
center devoted to
advancing the technology
for water reuse systems
• Continued research:
mechanism to
communicate
recommendations public
health findings, action regulation
2
The group spent some time on the difference between ‘reuse being a common practice’ and
‘reuse becoming more economically feasible.’ The group decided those are two separate pieces
of success. The group then moved from ‘economically feasible’ to defining success as ‘water is
valued enough that water reuse is economically beneficial.’
Members also discussed the two levels of integration: there is integration in governance, and
there is integration within infrastructure and services. The former refers to regulatory and
government issues, while the latter is more about integration in water and wastewater systems
and services.
Definition of Water Reuse
Definitions
Three members met prior to this meeting to revise the definition the group developed in
February. They presented their new version to the group:
Water Reuse: The capture and use of stormwater, wastewater, and subsurface water to meet
water demands for specific, direct and beneficial uses such as flushing, irrigation, cooling,
washing, industrial processes and drinking.
The definition includes the following:
•
Stormwater: Water generated by rainfall or snowmelt that causes runoff.
o
•
•
Rainwater: Water generated by rainfall or snowmelt that can be collected directly
from roof surfaces.
Wastewater: Used or spent water from homes, institutional buildings, public buildings,
commercial establishments, farms, or industries.
o
Greywater: Wastewater from bathroom sinks, showers, tubs, and clothes
washers.
o
Domestic Wastewater: Wastewater from toilets, utility sinks, dishwashers, or
kitchen drains.
o
Industrial Wastewater: Wastewater generated by industrial or commercial
establishments, including backwash water.
Subsurface water: Water that is extracted from below the ground surface to maintain the
structural integrity of a building or discharged through dewatering of mines or
construction sites.
The group discussed whether to eliminate the word direct from first part of the definition. Some
were concerned that using that word would imply someone could use the collected water
without treatment. Eventually the group decided to use “for intentional and beneficial uses.”
3
The group also modified “industrial wastewater” to “industrial process water;” industrial and
commercial buildings can also produce blackwater and greywater, and members wanted to be
clear that this definition is about other types of wastewater.
Members agreed to change “extracted” to “collected” under the subsurface water definition,
and to remove “construction sites.”
The group discussed whether to combine domestic wastewater and greywater, or to place one
definition under the other. Greywater as defined above could also count as domestic
wastewater. The three members who volunteered to work on this last time agreed to meet again
to refine the definition.
Members reminded each other that the definition and the in and out of scope discussion will
help focus the team’s work, and are not intended to be a formal definition of what does or
doesn’t count as water reuse.
In and Out of Scope
Members agreed that the following topics are outside the scope of the group’s work:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
De facto reuse (e.g. current practices of wastewater treatment plant discharge to rivers
and uptake of river water downstream by water treatment plants)
Subsurface infiltration devices for stormwater management
Rain gardens/rain barrels at residential homes for outdoor use
Septic systems
Groundwater recharge
Surface water augmentation for the purpose of water level management (e.g. White Bear
Lake)
Agricultural subsurface drainage water
The group went back and forth on whether to include groundwater recharge within scope.
Eventually they agreed that although groundwater recharge can be a benefit of water reuse, the
topic is too large for this group to consider in scope. While groundwater recharge is out of
scope, the group decided to include aquifer storage and reuse in certain cases; aquifers are a
subset of groundwater where the water can be pumped from the ground.
Items the group specifically noted as being in scope include:
•
•
Aquifer storage and reuse if it’s a drinking water source
Agricultural irrigation if it comes from the water sources noted in the definition
Members agreed that stakeholders and the public can help them determine if they missed
anything on their scope lists or in the definitions.
4
Water Reuse Teams
Members assigned themselves to the four different project teams. The final team assignments
were:
•
•
•
•
Risk: Nancy, Anita, Sara Heger (non-group member)
Regulatory: Suzanne, Deb, Randy, Cathy
Outreach/Non-regulatory: Scott, Suzanne, Carmelita, Faye
Water projects: Brian D., Bob, Ron
*John is not yet assigned to a team
The first name listed for each team will be the team lead. They will convene their teams before
the April full group meeting. Group members can still recruit non-members to work on the
teams.
Communication/Participation Plan
Because of time constraints, the group did not have time to develop the stakeholder list.
Members should email Kristina any additional lists of stakeholders that they have to add onto
the list Anita provided. The group does not want to collect the email addresses of different lists,
but rather needs to compile of list of the different groups members have access to or know
about.
Members stressed how important it will be to communicate with the public about this group’s
work; at the Governor’s Water Summit, some members of the public called for the creation of a
water reuse group because they didn’t know this one already existed.
Next Steps
MAD will email out the notes for group members to review and the team workplans.
Team leads should organize team meetings before the April full group meeting to develop their
workplans.
Deb, Suzanne, and Cathy will meet again to revise the definition of water reuse.
Members should email in any additional stakeholder groups to Kristina to add to the list.
Some members suggested that MDH and DNR communications staff and the executive team
should meet next week to discuss the communications plan. Scott added that PCA
communications staff might be willing to help with this project once their suggested role is
better defined.
Anita said that the group may want to complete the picture of the current regulatory
framework in time for the April 20th Minnesota Ground Water Association conference.
Members noted that the Freshwater Society workshop in May could be a good chance for the
group to get feedback on the definitions of water reuse and success for water reuse.
5