Water Reuse Interagency Workgroup
Meeting Summary
February 23th, 2016
8:30 am - 12:00 pm
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Present Members: Anita Anderson, Brian Davis, Scott Fox, Bob Johnson, Deb Manning,
Carmelita Nelson, John Parizek, Suzanne Rhees, Nancy Rice, Faye Sleeper, Ron Struss, Randy
Thorson, Cathy Tran, Marcey Westrick
Absent Members: Julie Ekman, Ali Elhassan, Randy Ellingboe, Rebecca Flood, Jim Kelly, Jim
Lungstrom, Dan Stoddard
Management Analysis & Development (MAD) Staff: Kristina Krull and Charlie Petersen
Welcome and Agenda Review
Charlie welcomed members to the second meeting of the Water Reuse Interagency Workgroup.
The purpose of this meeting was to start crafting a definition of water reuse, and to review and
revise the workplan.
Anita updated the group on a project website. Eventually there could be a joint website, but for
now there will be an MDH website that members can link to on their agency websites and a
GovDelivery list.
The group approved the meeting notes from the January meeting.
SharePoint Site
Anita described the project SharePoint site to the group. The site has minutes from the previous
water reuse work group, some research articles, and the results from the survey mentioned at
the last meeting. She’ll send out the SharePoint link later this week. If other people need access,
members should let Anita know. Members should only use Internet Explorer for SharePoint
and not other browsers. If members want to upload documents, for now they should send them
to Anita.
Develop Definition of Water Reuse
Charlie led the group through a first discussion of “water reuse.” The intention was for the
group to start a common definition today based on existing definitions, but the group will
continue to refine the definition throughout the project.
Review of existing definitions
First the group reviewed existing definitions of water reuse. Some themes that emerged from
the discussion about existing definitions included:
1








There are a lot of existing definitions for different key terms.
It helps to have a graphic to go with the definition.
There is disagreement over whether stormwater is a subset of rainwater, or the inverse.
There are concerns about using the term blackwater because of public perception of the
word.
There can be definitions based on end use of the water or based on water source.
The group needs a definition that’s both simple and broad, but that has sub-terms
defined underneath it.
The group shouldn’t recreate definitions entirely if it doesn’t have to.
Some terms may not be technically accurate descriptors, but they are common use terms
that the group should probably use for consistency and for clarity to the public.
Starter definition
Next the group focused on building off an existing definition from the PCA stormwater manual:
Reuse: Use of stormwater, greywater, or blackwater to meet water demands, including but not limited to:
irrigation, drinking, washing, cooling, and flushing.
Members had a discussion about how to modify the definition:






This definition is for the group to have common understanding. Later the group can
come up with variations for public use, maybe by involving stakeholders.
Members agreed to use wastewater instead of referring to blackwater and greywater.
Those two terms are often associated with residential or light commercial buildings, and
wastewater is a broader term that can include both of those types of water, plus others.
The group went back and forth a lot on whether to use stormwater or rainwater. It was
undecided at the end of the meeting which to use. By non-technical definitions,
stormwater is a type of rainwater, but common reuse language flips that. Some statutes
only define stormwater and not rainwater, which means the group’s choice could have
some legal implications in implementation.
Stormwater and wastewater don’t get at all the water sources that might be within
scope. The group also discussed foundational water (possibly also called underdrain
water, subsoil, subsurface or dewatering water) and whether that should be in the
definition.
The group decided to keep the examples but to order them from water needing the least
treatment to needing the most treatment.
The group added language from the Metropolitan Council Stormwater Reuse Guide
about “for specific, direct, and beneficial uses.”
Ultimately the group developed this definition:
Reuse: The capture and use of stormwater or wastewater to meet water demands for specific, direct, and
beneficial uses, including but not limited to: flushing, irrigation, cooling, washing, and drinking.
2
The definition includes the following pieces:



Wastewater: includes greywater and blackwater
Stormwater and rainwater: one will include the other
Foundation water (possibly also underdrain water, subsoil)
Members also wondered whether there was a need to include a reference to treatment in the
definition.
Charlie asked for two to four members to revise the definition before the March meeting. Deb,
Suzanne, Cathy, and Faye volunteered.
Public Engagement
Brian Stenquist from the DNR presented on stakeholder engagement. He advised the group to
engage people as soon as possible and to create a communications plan and a stakeholder
engagement plan early on in the process.
Brian noted that the group should worry most about people who are dead set against water
reuse. The group should engage them as soon and as deeply as possible, and work to
understand why they might oppose the group’s work. Those individuals need to understand
that the state is making change for a good reason, and to assure them that we’re following a
good public process.
He handed out a list of different public engagement techniques and highlighted a few that he’s
successfully used in the past:





Open meetings: have meetings and do work in front of people.
Advisory committee: this group is already a type of advisory committee, but there could
be another group, too.
Prepare materials for the media.
Engage existing groups.
Have a public website.
The group briefly discussed who might oppose parts of the project work. Members noted that
city administrators and potential suppliers might oppose some of the group work. Some parties
might oppose work on the grounds of protecting health and safety.
Review Project Work Plan
Kristina gave a high-level overview of the work plan draft. Some of the points of discussion
included:

Whether group should recommend types of water reuse projects, or just
characterize/describe different types. Projects are so site specific that it might be difficult
to assess things like the cost-benefit of different types of projects.
3
o






Other outcomes from the group might be a clear process for people in the state to
follow if they want to pursue these projects, or a process for determining the
efficiency and effectiveness for a project.
o If the group will recommend types, the language should use “recommend” and
not “promote.”
Adding questions about liability in addition to risk, and about where additional
research is needed.
How to ensure agency leadership stays involved throughout the process. They are part
of the group, but the group might need to periodically invite them to specific meetings
to make sure they understand and approve of the group’s direction.
Whether success is just the group’s success, or success for water reuse, or other things.
The group should get its vision of success confirmed by agency leadership and
stakeholders.
Besides benchmarking about projects and statutes, it might help to ask other states and
cities who have gone through something like this group’s process to find out any
lessons learned.
Adding a line to the timeline for agency management review.
Whether the water projects team would meet consistently or do the work more
individually. Team members could coordinate at the beginning to agree on common
questions and factors to consider, and later synthesize their materials.
The group also discussed how to engage stakeholders throughout this process. Each team will
define what stakeholder engagement they need, but the group decided that the executive team
will be in charge of coordinating overall stakeholder engagement, and making sure it’s done
consistently across various groups.
Next Steps
MAD will email out the notes for group members to review. They’ll also ask members to reply
with which project team they’d like to serve on, and to suggest anyone else not on the group
who should be on a team.
The members noted above will meet to revise the group’s definition of water reuse and come
prepared with a modified version to the March meeting.
4