This has to do with the conversation that was spurred at our last meeting July 15th.

The one area of sustainability that was not addressed and deserved some attention in my mind, is the treatment of waste water. Most waste water is treated and then put back into use in surface water. If we focus energy on making cleaner water from waste water, we could begin the process of recycling what we use, and what comes down in precipitation. Smaller communities are constantly striving to make less and less of an impact on their eco-system as they can see the effects of the changes much more quickly. There are many exploratory experiments that are going on around the nation to impact waste water and make it more usable if not drinkable.

Just a thought.

So many questions!

I found Laurel's presentation a little frustrating. She mentioned so many issues in passing, but didn't define or contextualize many of them and I needed more.

For example, I understand that Minnesota's water law is important to how we manage water, but... why? What does it mean? How does it work?

How do our current practices affect below-surface hydrological cycles?

And a big policy question: what are our REAL water needs? How can they be met? Is it economically feasible to use less invasive water (i.e. rainwater, surface water) for some of our less picky needs like lawn watering or industry without treating it, and save the expensive (i.e. treated ground or aquifer water) for uses that require higher quality like drinking? Or, should we just focus on conservation and educating folks to make changes in their behavior?

Excellent points from Kelsey and Janne. I like thinking about the big picture stuff myself, so what I got out of Laurel's presentation was an overview of the permit system for appropriations. I guess my policy question related to that is - what do permits really tell us? Are they intended as a way to ration the supply (as crudely as we know what that is)? I'm guessing not, since it sounds like Laurel was saying it's mainly a one-way information flow... users telling the DNR how much they're using. Or maybe that's all their intended for - simply a way of tracking who is using how much for future planning purposes? Whichever is the case, do we think a permit system is the most effective way to manage water appropriations? Do we have a choice about this? Is this system coming to us from the feds? Are we allowed to scrap it or just tweak it? I think we need a more creative and nuanced system to actually manage supply as usage and localized availability becomes more complicated.

Also, I found John's talk really fascinating. I felt like he gave us a glimpse of the overall system, highlighted the gaps, and shared some questions that the EQB is already asking about how to get to a more thoughtful, integrative water management scheme. In terms of a policy implication, I wanted to ask him... he says he doesn't think water sustainability is at a crisis stage, yet. But does he think our water sustainability management system is at or nearing a crisis? Given the short comings of the system we have (namely the disconnects) are we in for a world of hurt if (as) water demands grow and quality worsens?

I also liked Janne's point about addressing both the supply-side AND the demand-side. We need to come at this from both ends, definitely.

And I found it interesting that availability problems are punctuated depending on geography, and excerbated by development and population.

Lastly, the most important question to me anyway is, where do citizens fit into all this? Where is our role? How can we be at the center of this rather than on the periphery?

Phew! My two (million) cents worth. J.

Several comments:

1. Both talks referred to the Met Council report. I've asked Annie to post that. This report is fairly straight forward and easy to read.

2. You may recall the very quick point made about conservation pricing. There are several forms of conservation pricing: (1)seasonal rate adjustments - higher rates for the summer, to discourage lawn watering, and (2) "increasing block rates", which means that for a given household the lowest "block" of water is cheap (for example, $2.00 per hundred cubic feet), then next "block" costs more (e.g, $3.00 per ccf). This discourages high water use.

Conservation rates are lightly used in the Twin Cities. In some parts of CA, they have 4-5 rates with increasing use, with the highest costing 8 times as much as the lowest block!

Finally, regarding wastewater recycling. Wastewater can be used for irrigating non-food crops, golf courses, parks, etc. It's perfectly safe if well-treated. However, there is very little wastewater recycling (also called wastewater reuse) in Minnesota (in the west, virtually all wastewater is recycled!), mainly because we haven't had to. I suggest that this may change, not because of a need to conserve water, but to reduce waste inputs- in response to the "TMDL" requirements. If wastewater is recycled, nutrients, organic material, etc. don't end up in the river. And these same nutrients can be quite helpful to a farmer.

One final point regarding "consumptive" and "non-consumptive" uses. Consumptive use essentially means the water is evaporated and therefore isn't returned as a flow to a river or to groundwater. Someone asked about municipal wastewater: this is, almost by definition, non-consumptive water. Some municipal water withdrawn is evaporated (on lawns). This is consumptive use. The rest is returned to the sewer - non-consumptive use. Think of it like beer - you just rent it, you can't buy it. (OK, our lawyers would call this "usafructory" use, but the beer analogy is easier to remember)

As Larry asked, I've posted the Met Council sustainability report, Water Planning in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, on the 7/15/08 meeting webpage. You can get to it directly by clicking here.

All of our water currently uses the same infrastructure (one set of plumbing infrastructure coming in, one set of sewer pipes going out plus a nearly-complete set of stormwater drains going "out.") This makes it nearly impossible to use anything but potable water and often high-quality aquifer/groundwater for watering lawns, flushing toilets, industry, etc.

Larry mentioned wastewater recycling as an additional source of water, and I'd like to add the concept of "untreated water" i.e. river or lake or rain water for uses that don't require potable water.

Something interesting I learned recently from Veronica Strang, author and anthropologist. (Janne's comment made me think of this.) Our water 'fixtures' give us the illusion water is plentiful. It flows 'freely' into our homes from a gushing spout that is almost never dry, resembling a healthy spring or waterfall. This is intentional. When piped in water was first developed all those years ago, the design was intended to impart a feeling of luxury and abundance. Similarly, we no longer have to 'fetch' water (which some say has taken away an important social function, especially for women). Such cultural artifacts are now at odds with modern messages of conservation, causing a kind of hazy dissonance among citizens (who are now 'consumers').

Minnesota has traditionally been a water-rich state - we are at the "top of the mountain" after all - where the availability of water has not been much of a pressing concern. However, at least three events seem to be changing the paradigm for management of this resource, namely:

1. Increased competition for water resulting from population growth
2. Reduction in water supply due to recent growth in consumptive water uses, such as the ethanol industry, feedlot cattle production and irrigated corn and soybean production
3. Climate change, which may reduce precipitation and increase evapotranspiration in Minnesota

Some of the possible impacts that we might keep in mind for future discussion could include:

1. Reduced water storage in Leech Lake and Lake Winnibigoshish, which provide water for the upper Mississippi navigation project and other purposes. This is of interest to Minnesota farmers, who transport their export crops to New Orleans by water, and cities like Minneapolis and St Paul which get most of their drinking water from the river.
2. Less winter snowmelt to fill up the prairie wetlands of western Minnesota, with the resulting reduction or loss of wildlife habitat and reduced streamflows in headwater streams that are at least in part derived from accretions from groundwater.
3. Increasing expense in getting at groundwater for municipal, agricultural and industrial purposes as the water table progressively drops away from the surface.
4. Not enough water to meet future projected needs. Who wins the competition for water? Who loses?
5. Increased interest in the use of fossil water. Should it be used and depleted as we have mined iron ore, for example?

It might also be useful to keep in mind the two legal systems that are used to allocate water in the US. The first, the riparian doctrine, is mostly used in the eastern part of the country where water supply is not a pressing issue. The second, the doctrine of prior appropriation, is the standard for the 17 western states, where limited water supply is the issue. If Minnesota gets drier, or if demands for water begin to outstrip the available water supply, the manner in which we have legally allocated water in the past may need a reexamination.

The introduction of conservation pricing raises some interesting issues.

What is the current pricing system for drinking water? It is my understanding that the price of drinking water varies enormously between communities. Is this a good idea? Should there be a uniform, rational pricing system for drinking water statewide? Is there an information source for drinking water pricing in communities around the State?

Should fairly agressive conservation pricing be implemented throughout the State? Why does the DNR accept "conservation neutral" pricing in some cases?

Follow on comments to several issues.

First, in response to Janne Flisrand's comment: Yes, one does need a separate water infrastructure to recycle water. Usually this is fairly local - for example, a particular wastewater treatment plant might build piping to water a nearby farm or large park. For example, some ethanol plants could use treated wastewater for cooling water. A town of 10,000 would provide just about the right amount of wastewater for a 100 million gallon per year ethanol plant (average size of new plants), but few ethanol plants do this. One might compel wastewater plants to at least think about recycling in the permitting process (which MPCA manages).

Note that to effectively recycle wastewater, there must be some suitable local demand - like ag irrigation, parks, industrial cooling. You can't practically recycle wastewater generated in the TC to irrigate corn 25 miles away.

As to using lakewater, etc. for non-potable uses - an interesting thought. Certainly lawns could be irrigated with lakewater. This might create another set of problems though (like drawing down lake levels, in some cases).

Regarding Randy's point: It would probably be ill-advised for DNR to create a uniform pricing system. This is usually done locally. It might be more appropriate for DNR to set conservation goals (which I think they do, but I don't know the extent to which they are enforced), and then support research on pricing mechanisms. For example, we probably need more information on the "elasticity" of water pricing in Minnesota (can't extrapolate from CA), so municipalities can develop their own "demand-side" management that achieves conservation goals while being somewhat equitable and also generating operating revenue. If one sets pricing too low, little conservation occurs. Setting price too high may cause people to conserve so much that the municipal system does not get sufficient revenue.

Also, the appropriate way to conserve will differ among cities. An effective approach for Eden Prairie may be not right for Pipestone.

Finally, pricing alone is not sufficient. The most effective water conservation programs use a mix of pricing, education, regulation.

A few weeks ago, Janna commented: "I wanted to ask him (i.e., me) ... he says he doesn't think water sustainability is at a crisis stage, yet. But does he think our water sustainability management system is at or nearing a crisis? Given the short comings of the system we have (namely the disconnects) are we in for a world of hurt if (as) water demands grow and quality worsens?"

I'm still not fully answering Janna's question, but I'd put it this way: Although the Met Council's water supply master plan is a potentially important intervention, I do not believe the path we're on is sustainable. Our system is reactionary; not forward looking. And in fact, we generally react reasonably well to crises -- i.e., with sensible short term solutions. I think we'll see a lot of that in the coming years as we cobble together "fixes" to local water supply issues across the region and state. The hard question is how long it will take before we reach that point when people realize that the cobbling no longer works for the commons we're charged with managing. And the tragedy we will then face is that our "way out" will have been severely constricted and no doubt, most costly.

One thing we might recommend is a recurring (decadal?) statewide survey of the public's perception of water resources. Minnesota Sea Grant did a great survey in 1998, the "Treasures under pressures" survey at:

http://www.seagrant.umn.edu/water/survey/mnlakenotables.pdf

This dealt only with lakes, but one could easily envision expanding this to include perceptions about drinking water, streams and rivers, etc. The results would be enlightening to legislators and other policy makers. If done regularly, they could see how perceptions are changing.

To my knowledge, nothing like this has been done since 1998.