Minnesota’s Drinking Water Action Plan missing some key features

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Despite its outstanding record in providing safe and sufficient drinking water for customers on public water systems, Minnesota is to be congratulated in developing a (draft) Drinking Water Action Plan (DWAP) that acknowledges future pressures. These include: aging infrastructure, climate change, shifts in the demography and distribution of Minnesotans, and emerging risks from contaminants and pathogens. The time scale is 10 years.

The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) has taken the lead in the process. It has consulted widely among professionals and is now asking for feedback from all by March 17 (tinyurl.com/mdh-drinking-water). I have been pleased to be part of the discussions from the start.

The DWAP is comprehensive and clear.

But there are four important omissions that are linchpin for delivery of the rest and so need reconsideration.

First, drinking water is a complex interconnected system — so the policy framework needs to reflect this. In Minnesota, there are at least six state agencies involved in drinking water policy, not all of which have drinking water as their primary responsibility. Under these circumstances key issues can fall between the agency silos. This is what happened with nitrate contamination from agricultural production in southeastern Minnesota, prompting the intervention of the federal Environmental Protection Agency last year. The Minnesota Department of Agriculture leads on regulating fertilizer application. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency leads on groundwater protection. The MDH leads on the supply of safe drinking water. Integration and unambiguous leadership are essential for effective delivery. This is not yet part of the DWAP.

Second, stakeholder representation should be more explicit in the action plan. Just because the issues are complex and involve difficult trade-offs — for example, between removal of contaminants to increasingly lower levels, costs of treatment and ability to pay — there has to be more participation of those affected by the decisions in making decisions. This will be challenging because of the technicalities, and the decisions may be polarizing. Public confidence in drinking water will, nevertheless, depend importantly on developing a system that is able to balance preferences transparently and fairly.

Third, there needs to be clear provision for action in emergencies, like the contamination that happened after change in supply leading to acute lead poisoning in Flint, Mich. Notwithstanding the importance of stakeholder participation, this is likely to be ponderous and so the action plan needs to detail when it should be sidestepped by the experts for the sake of speed and public safety. The process and responsibilities under these circumstances should be particularly clear.

Fourth, private wells need to be part of the action plan. It recognizes that they fall outside the scope of drinking water protection in Minnesota and at a federal level. There are pressures from private well owners for similar protection given to those who use public water systems. But that raises questions about the use of public funds to add value to private property. So there is reluctance from legislators across the political divide to intervene. One consideration that might change minds is if the social costs of not intervening (benefits) were greater than the costs of intervention. This benefit-cost analysis should be part of the action plan.

So the message for MDH in redrafting: Make it more integrated and, where possible, more inclusive.

Peter Calow is a professor in the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey School of Public Affairs.