Table of Contents 

Providing guidance for regional and local community water supply planning

The Twin Cities seven-county metro region is home to three million people, over half of Minnesota’s population. Securing residents’ safe and plentiful water – while protecting the region’s diverse water resources – requires coordinated, interdisciplinary, and ongoing effort.

The seven-county region is relatively water-rich. However, communities face a range of challenges as they work to meet current and future water demand. The region’s population continues to grow. Groundwater pumping is increasing. Land use is changing. Naturally occurring and manmade pollutants impact water supplies. And variable weather like floods and droughts, as well as longer-term climate change, affect water supplies. Learn more in the Water Supply Planning Atlas.

The development of this plan is not motivated by widespread water shortages or crises. Rather, this plan is a response to the recognized benefits of coordinated action to support the water needs of current and future populations without adverse impact to natural and economic resources.

Bringing together the many different and changing facets of water supply into a regional picture is outside the scope of any one community. Yet it is necessary to adequately plan for the region’s growth and economic development, and it is an appropriate role for the Metropolitan Council.

We recognize the responsibility and authority of local water suppliers to provide water. However, a regional perspective is also important, because the effects of local water supply decisions do not stop at community boundaries. Communities often share the same or interconnected water supply sources – aquifers cross many political lines, for example – and the cumulative impact of decisions made by individual communities can be significant.

The plan provides guidance for local water supply systems and future regional investments; emphasizes conservation, interjurisdictional cooperation, and long-term sustainability; and addresses reliability, security, and cost-effectiveness of the metropolitan area water supply system and its local and subregional components.

The Metropolitan Area Water Supply Plan provides a framework for sustainable long-term water supply planning at the regional and local level in a way that:

• Supports local control and responsibility for water supply systems
• Is developed in cooperation and consultation with local, regional, and state partners
• Highlights the benefits of integrated planning for stormwater, wastewater, and water supply

The collaborative process to develop and implement this plan supports communities to take the most proactive, cost-effective approach to long-term planning and water-supply permitting to ensure plentiful, safe, and affordable water for future generations.

Focusing funding for regional and local water supply work

Since 2010, the primary source of funding for the Met Council’s regional water supply planning and support for local implementation has been Minnesota’s Clean Water Fund, which is currently available until 2034. This funding supports the following two Met Council programs that increase communities’ implementation of projects to help achieve sustainable water supplies:

The following water supply-related planning activities are historically funded through limited Met Council funds:

This Metro Area Water Supply Plan lays out stakeholder-identified needs for continued financial support through resources such as, but not limited to, Minnesota’s Clean Water Fund (Table 3.2 and subregional water supply action plans).

Additional funding sources will be pursued by Met Council, local governmental units, and partners in order to implement water supply planning activities contained in this plan.

Connecting water supply planning to other regional plans

The metro area water supply plan is informed by and supports the 2050 regional development guide, Imagine 2050, and is part of the 2050 Water Policy Plan. It more specifically provides water supply-related considerations for developing regional, subregional, and local plans as well as supporting programs.

Regional water supply context

General water supply setting

Effective water supply planning looks at the entire water cycle. Understanding the region’s "waterscape" helps identify upstream issues and opportunities, downstream impacts, and relationships among water stakeholders and agencies. Keeping these elements in mind is important when discussing water supply policy and planning. Learn more in the Water Supply Planning Atlas. 

Challenges for the region’s water supply  

Everything that happens on land impacts water, and all water is connected. Recognizing the upstream and downstream connections among water supply hazards helps to identify the biggest risks and focus monitoring and mitigation measures. Learn more in the Water Supply Planning Atlas. 

Opportunities for regional water supply planning

Successful water supply planning includes supporting opportunities throughout the region’s ‘waterscape’ to implement practices to monitor, protect, and restore natural and built water resources. Learn more in the Water Supply Planning Atlas.  

High-level roles for water supply planning and implementation  

Everyone – agencies, business, individuals – has a responsibility for ensuring sustainable water supply planning. Collaborative actions are needed at the individual level, the local government level, the regional level, and the state and federal levels. Some examples of key roles are summarized below. 

Regional water supply action plan

Approaches reflect how water supply planning conditions vary across the region 
Water supply conditions vary widely across the region and among communities. Each city has different sources, treatment methods, and water use patterns. For example, some areas have high commercial and industrial demand, while others mainly use water for residential purposes. What works for one community may not work for others, so regional water supply planning must consider this when setting goals and tracking progress. As communities plan for future water needs, their approaches will be influenced by their unique water supply situations. Learn more in the Water Supply Planning Atlas.

Locations of different water sources 
While the Twin Cities metro region is relatively water rich, not all sources of water are equally available, and each comes with its own management considerations. Figure 3.1 below illustrates the geographic extent of the region’s primary water supply sources and summarizes some of the benefits and challenges of each source. 

Figure 3.1 Twin Cities region’s nonpower water sources. The region generally relies on the Mississippi River and four primary aquifers for non-power purposes, and each source has different management considerations.

Every community in the Twin Cities region gets at least part of its water supply from groundwater sources, through municipal and/or privately owned wells. However, a large portion of the region – almost a million people – also relies on surface water. Currently, the priority protection areas for municipal public water supply intakes on the Mississippi River (shown in yellow in Figure 3.1) are located partially or wholly within the communities of: Andover, Anoka, Arden Hills, Blaine, Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Centerville, Champlin, Columbia Heights, Coon Rapids, Crystal, Dayton, Fridley, Gem Lake, Ham Lake, Hilltop, Lino Lakes, Little Canada, Maple Grove, Minneapolis, Mounds View, New Brighton, New Hope, North Oaks, Osseo, Plymouth, Ramsey, Robbinsdale, Rogers, St. Anthony, Shoreview, Spring Lake Park, Vadnais Heights, White Bear Lake, and White Bear Township.

For the most up-to-date information about source water protection area delineations for groundwater and surface water sources, emergency response areas, and spill management areas, contact the Minnesota Department of Health. 

Water use patterns differ by community development type 

A range of community types – with different land use characteristics, density expectations, and water supply needs – exist in the Twin Cities region. Some communities are highly urbanized, while others are agricultural and rural. Regional land use policies and supporting strategies, including those that connect to water supply priorities, are framed around these community designations (Figure 3.2).

While community designations show similarities in land use, water-use patterns also vary among the different community designation types. Just one example of this is illustrated in Figure 3.3 – how summer versus winter water use varies by community designation. Local water supply-related plan updates should consider the community’s water use patterns as local controls are developed or updated to support water efficiency, emergency response, source-water protection, and other activities. 

Figure 3.2: Imagine 2050 community designations

Data source: Met Council 

Figure 3.3: Summer versus winter pumping from municipal community public water systems

Note: This graph does not include pumping by privately owned wells. Source: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources’ water permitting and reporting system, MPARS.

Type of water supply systems

Water supply conditions can still vary widely within community designation types (Figure 3.3). When planning for local water supply needs, it's important to understand the different water supply situations and planning requirements that communities in the metro region typically face.

For example, water supply planning requirements differ based on the type of water supply infrastructure serving the community. Some communities need to develop and implement local comprehensive plans, local water supply plans, and wellhead protection plans. Others develop local comprehensive plans and local water supply plans, but no wellhead protection plans. Still others only develop and implement local comprehensive plans. Table 3.1 summarizes some general categories of community water supply system types in the metro region, although each community has its own unique details. These categories are described in more detail below and in Figure 3.4. Appendix A provides more specific information about local water-supply-related plan requirements.  

1. Independent municipal community public water system with appropriation permit (Example: Andover). People and businesses in these communities can access water through municipal community public water supply systems owned by their community. These communities have permits from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to pump water from local sources for their municipal community public supplies. Privately owned wells, nonmunicipal public water systems, and/or nonmunicipal community public water systems also provide water in these communities. All of these communities have land that has been designated as a Drinking Water Supply Management Area.
2. Municipal community public water system with appropriation permit, also supplying neighbor(s) (Example: Minneapolis). People and businesses in these communities can access water through municipal community public water supply systems owned by their community. These communities have permits from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to pump water from local sources for their municipal community public supplies. Privately owned wells, nonmunicipal public water systems, and/or nonmunicipal community public water systems also provide water in these communities. In addition, these communities provide water to people and businesses in one or more neighboring communities. All of these communities have land that has been designated as a Drinking Water Supply Management Area.  
3. Municipal community public water system with both appropriation permit and purchasing additional source water from neighbor(s) (Example: Bloomington). People and businesses in these communities can access water through municipal community public water supply systems that are owned by their community. These communities have permits to pump water from local sources for their municipal community public supplies. The community also receives (buys) water from a neighboring water supply utility. In addition, privately owned wells, nonmunicipal public water systems, and/or nonmunicipal community public water systems provide water in these communities. All of these communities have land that has been designated as a Drinking Water Supply Management Area.
4. Privately owned wells, nonmunicipal public water systems, and/or nonmunicipal community public systems - no municipal community public water system (Example: Afton): People and businesses in these communities can access water through privately owned wells or through nonmunicipal public water systems, and/or nonmunicipal community public water systems. Around 70% of these communities have land that has been designated as a Drinking Water Supply Management Area for one or more neighbors. 
5. Municipal community public water system purchasing all source water from neighbor(s) (Examples: Little Canada). People and businesses in these communities can access water through municipal community public water supply systems that are owned by their community. These communities receive (buy) water from a neighboring water supply utility for all of their municipal community public supply.  Privately owned wells, nonmunicipal public water systems, and/or nonmunicipal community public water systems also provide water in these communities. All of these communities have land that has been designated as a Drinking Water Supply Management Area for one or more neighbors.
6. Neighbor provides municipal community public water system and source water (Examples: Falcon Heights, North Oaks): People and businesses in parts or all of these communities can access water through municipal community public water supply systems that are owned by a neighboring public water supply system. These communities’ sources of water are the responsibility of neighboring water supply utilities, and customers receive a bill from that neighboring municipal community public water supply system. Privately owned wells, nonmunicipal public water systems, and/or nonmunicipal community public water systems also provide water in these communities. Most of these communities (85%) have land that's been designated as a Drinking Water Supply Management Area for one or more neighbors.
7. Jointly owned municipal community public water supply system purchasing all source water from neighbor(s) (Example: Crystal). People and businesses in parts or all of these communities can access water through municipal community public water supply systems that are jointly owned and operated by multiple communities. These communities receive (buy) water from a neighboring water supply utility for their shared public water supply system. These communities’ sources of water are the shared responsibility of the jointly owned water supply utility. Privately owned wells, nonmunicipal public water systems, and/or nonmunicipal community public water systems also provide water in these communities. All of these communities have land that’s been designated as a Drinking Water Supply Management Area for one or more neighbors.
8. Planning for independent municipal community public water system (Credit River, Gem Lake). People and businesses can access water through privately owned, noncommunity, and/or nonmunicipal wells alone, but the community is currently planning for a municipal community water supply system. Part of the community has been designated as a Drinking Water Supply Management Area for one or more neighbors.  

Figure 3.4: Governance of water supply systems in the metro area varies from community to community

Data sources: MDH, DNR, and community local water supply plans and comprehensive plans 

Given these eight different community designations, five different water sources, eight different water supply systems configurations, and the many other local differences, one size cannot fit all, and we benefit from taking a subregional approach. See the subregional chapters of this plan for more detail about those approaches. 

Definition of success for water supply planning in the metro

Ensuring sustainable water supply for the region, now and in the future

This plan sets out to achieve a sustainable water supply for the entire region now and in the future.

Water supply is sustainable when its use does not harm ecosystems, degrade water quality and quantity, or compromise the ability of future generations to meet their water resource requirements.

The region’s water supply may be considered sustainable when:

• Water use does not exceed the estimated limits of available sources, taking into account:
  • Impacts to aquifer levels (such as reducing water levels beyond the reach of public water supplies and privately owned wells),
  • Impacts to surface waters and aquatic resources, including diversions of groundwater that affect flows and water levels, and 
  • Impacts to groundwater flow directions in areas where groundwater contamination has, or may, result in risks to public health.
• Planned land use and related water demand protects source waters and is consistent with long-term design capacity for water supply infrastructure, when that design capacity is based on sustainable sources.
• Individual water use supports sustainability, and appropriate mechanisms are in place to limit or forego nonessential water use during times of water shortage following natural disasters or other types of emergencies.
• Risk to infrastructure and public health is managed through ongoing assessment and investment.

This definition of water supply sustainability incorporates statutory descriptions of sustainability in Minnesota statutes, chapter 103G. Additionally, this definition goes beyond those statutory descriptions to more explicitly acknowledge infrastructure and land use, and is described in a way that can be translated into quantifiable terms that can be incorporated into technical analyses that support estimates of sustainable limits. 

What success looks like

Stakeholders engaged in the update of this plan shared their hopes for the region’s water future – if we are successful, what does the region look like? This plan is grounded in those perspectives, shared through the Metro Area Water Supply Policy and Technical committees and through subregional water supply engagement in late 2023 and early 2024.

The following are descriptions of what success looks like, with related measures. As this plan is implemented, Met Council and partners will develop and track more specific targets.  

1. Water supply infrastructure. Public water suppliers can act quickly, be well informed about their decisions, and equitably address aging infrastructure, contamination, changing water availability, changing water demand, and financial challenges. Communities and their water supply are resilient to climate change and other impacts, because there is sufficient funding and other resources for water supply such as infrastructure, staff, new technology, etc. Measures of success may include: 
   • • All communities have incorporated local controls to enhance water supply infrastructure resilience into local comprehensive planning and implementation.
     • Water suppliers have identified and evaluated alternative sources as part of infrastructure resilience assessments.
     • Public and privately owned water system owners collaborate more frequently with each other and agencies on asset management planning, emergency response, efficiency programs, source water protection, and other needs.  
     • Capital planning includes a minimum 10-year spending projections and factor in lifecycle estimates for major capital assets.
     • Treatment and distribution infrastructure renewal is maintained with identified budgets and revenue sources. 
2. Water quality. Communities have the resources they need to provide clean, safe water for everyone. A shared process is developed that allows communities, water utilities, and regulators to understand and respond in a more coordinated and effective way to both contaminants of emerging concern and existing contamination. Measures of success may include:
   • • Water suppliers continue to meet water quality standards.
     • Increased availability of funding for public water suppliers and privately owned well users to treat water to ensure high-quality water, including safe drinking water. 
3. Land use and water supply connections. Public water suppliers, land use planners, and developers have tools, funding and authority to work together – supported by aligned agency directions – so that growth is responsible and supported by reliable and adequate water supply. Development is done in ways that balance communities’ economic needs while protecting the quantity and quality of source waters that are vital to the region’s communities. A measure of success may include:
   • • Decision-makers consider water use as part of land use planning. For example, all communities have incorporated water efficiency and source water protection actions into their comprehensive plan updates and local implementation (development guidelines, etc.), so that water suppliers can support "more with less." 
4. Understand and manage groundwater and surface water interactions. Water resource managers, community planners, and leaders understand how groundwater and surface water interact and how those interactions impact water supply sustainability. Measures of success may include:
   • • Communities in the region understand where water-supply-related challenges from groundwater-surface water interaction take place.
     • Groundwater and surface water source interactions across the region are adequately monitored with the data managed, shared, and used to inform impact analyses.
     • There is an increase in the number of local controls adopted by communities to mitigate water-supply-related challenges posed by groundwater and surface water interactions. 
5. Sustainable water quantity. Communities and water agencies have a common understanding of the sustainable limits of groundwater and surface water sources and work together to collectively make plans that sustain an adequate supply – for people, the economy, and the function of local ecosystems. Agency directions are aligned and support local plans to safely supply demand that exceeds sustainable withdrawal rates using the most feasible combination of alternative groundwater or surface water sources, conservation, reclaimed wastewater and stormwater reuse. Measures of success may include:

• • • As a region, the average indoor, outdoor, and residential water use per person declines.
    • As a region, the total summer versus winter water-use ratio declines.
    • There is an increase in the number of water reuse installations and water efficiency improvements across all land use types (existing and new), leading to a corresponding decrease in drinking water use for nonessential purposes.
    • The percentage of acres of new and redevelopment that incorporate turf grass alternatives increases.

Actions to support successful water supply planning

This action plan was developed in partnership with the Metro Area Water Supply Advisory Committee, its Technical Advisory Committee, and participants of a subregional water supply stakeholder engagement process. It is possible and expected that actions not reflected here may emerge in subsequent years. If so, this plan will be amended following the process described in Appendix A.

To achieve success, stakeholders identified the following as necessary conditions:

• All the voices are heard as community plans are made and implemented – so that the full range of diverse water supply needs are met.
• Public trust and understanding are enhanced, and a culture shift around water use has occurred.
• Collaborative and proactive approaches for engagement, planning, and plan implementation are taken within and across communities.
• The policy framework is streamlined and improved.
• State and regional support and funding for planning and plan implementation is increased.

Key steps for action 
A regional framework for action (Figure 3.5) organizes work in a way to help achieve the desired outcomes for the region’s water supply. Some actions are most effective regionwide. However, some actions are more suited to certain parts of the region and are therefore described in more detail in the subregional chapters of the plan.

Figure 3.5: Metro region water supply framework for action

This figure illustrates the framework necessary to achieve Metro Area Water Supply Advisory Committee goals.  

High-level schedule for different phases of work 
The following actions are expected to be ongoing, although the outputs are expected to shift through the region’s decennial planning process. For example, activities in 2025-2028 will focus more heavily on supporting local plan updates; activities in 2028-2030 will be more focused on supporting for local plan implementation; and work in 2030-2035 is expected to shift to program evaluation to inform regional policy and plan updates (Figure 3.6). 

Figure 3.6: High-level schedule for different phases of water supply planning work 

Regional indicators and performance measures

Setting and tracking regional and subregional indicators and performance measures helps focus attention and resources on planned work and adapt to improve outcomes.  

Regional indicators

Regional indicators are region-level measures that help provide context and build our shared understanding of past and current conditions. 

Performance measures

Performance measures are information about Met Council operations, services, investments, programs, and policy objectives. These measures relate to what Met Council has more control over and help provide evidence of whether objectives’ targets are being reached.

• Subregional work group activity that includes collaboration on topics identified in regional and subregional action plans (examples: asset management planning, emergency response, efficiency programs, source water protection, and other needs)
• Established task forces with local stakeholders for the purpose of plan implementation
• Outreach and engagement materials available and used consistently across the region to increase awareness of sustainable water use, especially as the compounding effects of climate change contribute to fluctuating water availability. This is done in collaboration with organizations such as the Clean Water Council, Minnesota Ground Water Association, American Water Works – Minnesota Section, and others.
• Technical assistance provided to local planners (examples: number of wellhead protection plan and local water supply plan updates supported)
• Local plan updates that include:
  • Adoption of local controls to enhance water supply infrastructure resilience.
  • Alternative short- and long-term water sources in case of disruptions or limitations.
  • Capital planning that includes a minimum 10-year spending projections and factor in lifecycle estimates for major capital assets.
• Financial resources for local partners (examples: grant funding, state appropriations)
• Impacts of water supply plan implementation projects and programs (example: gallons of water saved through efficiency grants) 

Subregional water supply action plans

During and after the development of the 2015 Master Water Supply Plan, Met Council heard from stakeholders that “one size does not fit all,” and that future regional plans need to more fully reflect the differences across communities. In 2022, responding to that feedback, MAWSAC recommended that Met Council approach planning for the Metro Area Water Supply Plan from a subregional perspective. Met Council committed to supporting a robust subregional engagement approach for the 2025 Metro Area Water Supply Plan update.

We took a subregional approach, reflected in the subregions identified in the Metropolitan Region Water Supply Planning Atlas as delineated in 2023. The subregions are neighboring communities connected by a combination of shared water challenges, hydrogeologic landscapes, and organically developed community water supply planning groups from previous planning cycles. As new information becomes available and community needs and relationship evolve, subregional boundaries may shift.  

Figure 3.7: Subregional water supply planning areas   

Data source: Water Supply Planning Atlas by the Met Council 

Process to develop subregional action plan content

From March 2023 through February 2024, Met Council staff embarked on a highly participatory engagement campaign to approach planning from a subregional perspective. We used the subregional boundaries established through the development of the Water Supply Planning Atlas (Figure 3.7). The intent of this engagement was to:

• Integrate water supply, watershed, and land use planning perspectives.
• Build a shared vision for water supply in the subregion.
• Prioritize issues and opportunities.
• Develop an action plan to guide implementation.
• Enhance relationships within the subregion and with the Met Council.  

We engaged with core teams of local leaders in each subregion in the summer of 2023 to collaboratively design how to engage their peers. Starting in the fall of 2023 and continuing through the winter of 2024, we hosted two to three workshops in each subregion to draft content in line with the intent described above.  

Around 150 individuals participated in the seven-month process, representing 76 cities and townships and 44 nonmunicipal organizations. Perspectives included utility directors, watershed staff, community development planners, agency staff, nonprofits, large-volume water users, and more.  

Participants expressed appreciation for the engagement work done to develop these chapters and requested that subregional engagement continue as a way to support focused implementation. The Met Council is committed to this continued engagement, as reflected in the regional commitments in the Metro Area Water Supply Plan and the rest of the 2050 Water Policy Plan.

Purpose and use of subregional action plans

The subregional water supply planning areas are primarily for the purpose of supporting collaboration, relationship building, and resource sharing across jurisdictional boundaries. They are not intended to add another layer of planning or to restrict local land use planning authority; rather, they are intended to support outreach and collaboration around existing planning efforts.

The Met Council respects and supports the responsibility and authority of local water suppliers in managing water resources while recognizing the importance of a cohesive regional perspective, as local water supply decisions impact neighboring communities. The Met Council’s role is to support regional water planning by delivering essential technical resources to guide sound decision-making and by offering planning assistance to local entities. As neither a water utility nor regulator, the Met Council’s water supply planning follows the Metro Area Water Supply Plan, cooperative framework that strengthens local control and accountability, developed in partnership with local, regional, and state stakeholders.

The outcomes from subregional engagement workgroups—often in their own words—are included in the subregional action plans in this section. These subregional action plans reflect the input given at the time of the engagement, with some minor revision during the process to adopt the Metro Area Water Supply Plan with the 2050 Water Policy Plan. While the plans as they stand will guide the Met Council’s water supply planning work in each of these subregions, many of the actions will be ones that subregional work groups take on themselves. These actions are expected to evolve over time as new issues and opportunities emerge. 

Central Metro subregional water supply action plan 

Figure 3.8: Central Metro Subregion water supply planning area  

Communities depicted in a color other than gray overlap in multiple subregions. Data source: Water Supply Planning Atlas by the Met Council 

Water supply planning context and current conditions

Everything that happens on land impacts water, and water is all connected.

The Central Metro subregion group (Figure 3.8) includes the cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul, the communities served by those municipal community public water supply systems, and other surrounding communities. These communities are in the urban center of the region. This is the most highly developed part of the metro and the most densely populated.  

The Central Metro subregion is unique among the seven subregions in that the Mississippi River is the primary drinking water source for most communities. Some communities, such as Bloomington, use a combination of groundwater and surface water to provide water, while others, such as New Brighton, rely primarily on groundwater, but may utilize a connection to the Minneapolis or the Saint Paul system during an emergency or as needs dictate. Some communities use groundwater as their only source of drinking water.

Few residents in this part of the metro receive their drinking water from privately owned domestic wells. However, there’s a greater concentration of wells for industrial or commercial purposes here than in other parts of the region. Additionally, 26 of the 27 communities in the Central Metro subregion overlap with or are adjacent to land that has been identified as a Drinking Water Supply Management Area.  

With the region as a whole expected to grow by more than 650,000 people between 2020 and 2050, the Central metro subregion will continue to see growth. Current estimates suggest that approximately 200,000 more people will be added to the area by 2050 compared to 2020.

Over the past two decades, communities have continued to grow, but overall water use has generally declined since the late 1980s when water use peaked. However, density is likely to increase to accommodate estimated growth through development and redevelopment. To deliver service to more homes and businesses, communities may need new infrastructure to increase water supply, treatment, and storage capacities, and to expand water distribution systems.

Expansion of water supply systems comes at a cost and is not without financial, social, or environmental risk. To be sustainable, communities and the region must maximize current infrastructure investments and consider how growth, land use changes, climate impacts, inequity, and other challenges stress water resources and supply systems.

Beyond quantity, several quality-related items are also of concern in the Central Metro subregion:  

• Increased impervious cover
• Source water protection (which requires collaboration with communities well beyond the seven-county metro planning region for surface-water-sourced communities)
• Legacy contamination
• Emerging contaminants such as PFAS and chloride
• Continued pursuit of water reuse

While management of water supply is ultimately a local responsibility, we know there is value in working together on water supply projects. Current partnerships are a testament to that. Water is all connected, and it does not follow jurisdictional boundaries—the work must acknowledge that as well.

Our water is facing threats from familiar and new contaminants including PFAS, nutrients, and chloride. We will support technical work/research to produce good information about water supplies so that our decision makers and the public can make timely, informed choices about actions that impact our shared water supplies.

The Central Metro chapter of the Water Supply Planning Atlas contains more details in the description of current challenges.

Stakeholder-defined vision of success for water supply planning in the Central Metro subregion

Water supply planning for the Central Metro subregion is successful if the following outcomes are produced or conditions are met in the long term:

• Regional collaboration supports information sharing, public education, and shared access to data such as source water quality and consumption​.
• Strategies are implemented to optimize efficiency in operations. ​
• Regional growth planning considers sustainable source water availability.
• Reliability of infrastructure for anticipated growth is maximized through the implementation of asset management practices.
• Source water is protected through collaboration and enforcement efforts, and the region uses a diversity of source water​.
• Adequate funding is available for water infrastructure.​
• Public engagement ​is improved.
• Public health is a focus.
  • Health guidance is provided for new contaminants​.
  • Lead is eliminated in homes, including water service lines, private home plumbing, and lead paint.
• The subregional plan is useful to communities with public water systems and privately owned wells for planning purposes. ​
• A culture shift occurs around nonessential water use, such as lawn irrigation, that changes behaviors. ​
• Water rates are affordable for customers​.
• People understand that our drinking water is safe​. 

Issues and opportunities

Stakeholder engagement we conducted in the Central Metro subregion in 2023-2024 identified several issues and opportunities related to water supply planning. They are listed here in alphabetical order.

Agency coordination  

Communication, data sharing, transparency, coordination, efficiency, and general partnership between and with agencies should be enhanced.   

Asset management and investment  

There is an overall lack of funding for water supply, including to maintain, grow, and expand infrastructure. Funding for water supply and asset management can be better coordinated and secured through many efforts including:   

• Adoption of improved asset management strategies.
• Work to secure long-term funding for compliance issues. 
• Leverage of existing funding sources. 
• Have grants from different levels of government to support this work. 
• Work with agencies to allow asset replacement related projects score higher on grant applications.
• A focus on infrastructure investment and sustainability. 
• Engagement with and educate local elected officials on the importance of this work, and lobbying to secure funding.   

Communication   

Communication needs to be proactive, targeted, and tailored to specific audiences, and across platforms. At the same time, it needs to be coordinated and consistent.    
Communication of scientific information needs to be relatable, and contain the “why,” “what,” and “how” to inspire both understanding and action at household and policy-making levels.   
Increase the extent to which water supply is valued and prioritized by the public through intentional cultivation and strategic communications.  

Data and technology 

There is an overall lack of meaningful data for water suppliers, and the data that exists can be hard to find and access.  A subregion-wide database for cities to share well and aquifer pumping data should be developed.  Additionally, new technology is being developed, such as artificial intelligence, but is currently underutilized. The Central Metro subregion should utilize and explore how to incorporate new technology and tools in their work. 

Education and engagement 

Education and engagement are key to achieving success in all water supply work. Education and engagement efforts need to interact with diverse audiences including schools, politicians, the public, and public and private partners. Education and engagement should focus on: 

• The importance of source water protection. 
• Water quality and quantity. 
• The cultural value of water. 
• Water conservation and efficiency. 
• Prevention is cheaper than remediation. 
• Building trust in the safety of drinking water throughout the Central Metro subregion that is currently lacking due to cultural barriers and lack of trust in the government.   

Planning 

Water management strategies (stormwater, groundwater, surface water, land use, etc.) should be aligned to achieve effective planning and to help align goals and policies with their resources. Currently, stakeholders feel there are multiple competing priorities and poor prioritization. Additionally, the Central Metro subregion is the densest of the seven subregions and is expected to see an increase in population in the next 10 years. Growth affects water supply and sewer capacity, and questions on how best to handle this remain. Better planning in the Central Metro subregion could look like: 

• Locals have more control and say in regional planning. 
• A comprehensive plan is representative of the group needs.  
• Regional growth is aligned to be more sustainable and water wise. 
• Intercity wellhead protection plans and water supply plans are developed—common problems often have common solutions.  

Water conservation and efficiency 

Conservation and efficient water use support sustainable water supplies. Minnesota is projected to experience more drought events, and water suppliers must consider the ability of their water source(s) to meet higher water demands during such events. Education on conservation has been identified as a priority for the Central Metro subregion, specifically changing public ideas around lawns and irrigation and changing from traditional turfgrass to pollinator-friendly lawns and less water-intensive, more drought-tolerant turfgrass.   
  
Additionally, conservation efforts need to be able to keep pace with increasing population, and an accepted balance of ground and surface water sources for the region should be considered. Plans and policies should encourage and incentivize redevelopment in the urban core, protecting important recharge areas outside the core.  

Water quality 

Existing contaminants need to be addressed before they enter groundwaters and surface waters. The region needs to prepare to respond to contaminants of emerging concern while working to reduce confusion and conflict between statutes and regulations. Currently, Central Metro subregion stakeholders feel that statutory regulations are evolving as the list of contaminants continues to expand. Additionally, they note experiencing the following constraints: 

• As detection limits get lower and regulations get stricter, there needs to be an increase in funding to address them.
• It is difficult to stay abreast of evolving water quality regulations and standards due to increasing understanding of the risk of contaminants of concern.
• PFAS treatment and disposal costs need to be considered. 
• As our knowledge of PFAS increases with evolving science, our understanding of its long-term health impacts is changing, which can lead to confusion among the public. 

Workforce  

Workforce concerns need to be addressed, including staffing shortages, lack of necessary funding for staff, turnover, and ability to attract and retain staff, and conversely, onboarding staff without enough mentors or supervisors.  

Other focus areas for consideration  

Finally, these focus areas were not heard during the Central Metro subregion’s first workshop but were heard across several other subregions and included for discussion at the Central Metro subregion’s second workshop.

• Reuse: Support use of reuse to reduce water demand.   
• Chloride: Pursue limited liability legislation and support best practices to reduce chloride contamination from road salt and water softeners.
• Source water protection: Enhance source water and wellhead protection efforts for both known and emerging contaminants.
• Climate change: Climate change needs to be factored into future planning for water use as well as resilience to extremes and climate impacts. 

Prioritized focus areas and action plan

As part of the engagement process, stakeholders identified the following priorities for the Central Metro subregion. Stakeholder-identified statements for what success looks like in 10 years are also included for each.

Affordability

• There will be equitable access to safe, affordable water for all.  
• Terms like affordability will be defined. 
• We will understand how to balance affordability with rates and act to do so. 
• The general public understands the value of water.  

Asset management and investment

• Assets will be in place to reliably service the needs of each community.  
• Government will invest in additional assets to address changing standards. 
• Assets will be planned for and replaced before end of life.  

Data and technology

• There will be a central database for water system information, including water quality testing results, that is accessible to the public, regulatory agencies, and public water systems.

Education and engagement

• Communication will be coordinated in terms of content and actions between communities.  
• There will be consistent messaging regarding source water protection, water quality, conservation water reuse (irrigation), cultural value of water, cultural barriers, lack of trust, and that contamination prevention is less costly than removal.   
• Young people will speak intelligently about water, water use, water resources, etc., with continued levels of complexity so that they can shape future commentary. This should drive workforce as a secondary effect. 
• Additionally, to help shape and influence belief in public water, community engagement needs to target lower-income areas and non-native Minnesotans that have moved to the state.

Planning

• Water availability, quality, and sustainability will be the first step to inform land use, development, population growth, transportation, etc.  
• Built-out communities need to evaluate for capacity and growth and the ability to provide water to such growth with infrastructure expansion and redundancy. 
• There will be more consistent guidance for contaminants of emerging concern so that the region can better plan for expanded future treatment. 

Water conservation and efficiency

• We will move away from Kentucky bluegrass lawns. 
• We will be maintaining current water consumption levels or minimizing rate of increase (per person). 
• Rules that facilitate and promote water conservation and efficiency will be adjusted/implemented. 
• Research to implement conservation and efficiency will be advanced – household level, community level, commercial, and industrial. 

Water quality

• Water supplies will meet current and future health guidance standards.
• We will know how to prevent contaminants of emerging concern from entering water supply. 
• There will be chemical reviews prior to use regarding disposal to water or soil discharge. 

Workforce

• Utilities will be fully staffed.
• There will be skilled applicant pools.  
• Workforce will be more representative of the communities served. 

It should be noted that, as a part of the discussion, communication and agency coordination were identified as “implementation considerations” in that they would be needed (either as a strategy or something to manage for) to support success for any of the other focus areas. As such, these were requested to be incorporated into action plans to address priority focus areas. 

Table 3.3 reflects an action plan drafted by participants in a subregional water supply planning workshop series. We expect that actions not reflected here may emerge as important steps needed to be taken in subsequent years. This list, therefore, is a reflection of what was being considered in late 2023. The list has been organized according to the Metro Area Water Supply Advisory Committee’s 2022 proposed framework to achieve progress on regional goals (Figure 3.9). 

Figure 3.9: Regional framework for action, with subregional detail  

Actions to support success 

In late 2023 and early 2024, Central Metro subregional stakeholders identified several potential actions to address each of their focus areas. Table 3.3 below includes proposed actions, in the words of the subregional stakeholders who drafted them. While the focus is on work needed over the next 10 years, some actions are expected to be ongoing over the next 25 years or more.  

This action plan is intended as a high-level, long-term, collaborative planning tool. A refined work plan is expected to develop as collaboration gets underway and depending on resource availability. It is possible and expected that new actions may emerge as important steps that need to be taken in subsequent years.

Many different people and organizations are expected to be involved in the Central Metro subregional water supply work. Table 3.3 identifies a few examples that were identified by stakeholders in 2023 and 2024, but this list is incomplete.

The Met Council is committed to convene and support work planning and implementation for the Central Metro subregional water supply group (see the regional action plan in Table 3.2). Early work is expected to include revising and prioritizing actions and defining roles in more detail. 

East Metro subregional water supply action plan 

Figure 3.10: East Metro Subregion water supply planning area

Communities depicted in a color other than light orange overlap in multiple subregions. Data source: Water Supply Planning Atlas by the Met Council 

Water supply planning context and current conditions

Everything that happens on land impacts water, and water is all connected.

Communities in the East Metro subregion (Figure 3.10) are almost exclusively sourced by groundwater from the Prairie du Chien and Jordan aquifers. Just over half the communities in the East Metro subregion have municipal community public water supply systems, and the rest rely on privately owned wells. About three-quarters of the communities in the East Metro subregion have some land that has been identified as a Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA). Throughout, quality and quantity challenges already exist and already impact water supply.  

Overall water use peaked in the mid-to-late 2000s. Since then, communities have continued to grow, but overall water use has declined slightly. Increases in efficiency and wetter summers have likely led to this demand reduction. However, recent droughts and growth have led to a significant increase in water use, and use in some areas is approaching, and periodically exceeding, water appropriation permit limits and/or aquifer recharge rates.  

Increased impervious land cover, contaminants of emerging concern, groundwater/surface water interaction, and other quality concerns are also prevalent in the region. PFAS contamination is of particular concern, and the challenges with treatment add another wrinkle in considering water availability and the safety of water supply, especially for private well users.

With the region as a whole expected to grow by more than 650,000 people between 2020 and 2050, the East Metro subregion will also continue to see growth. Current estimates suggest that approximately 55,000 more people will be added to the East Metro subregion by 2050 compared to 2020.  

Additionally, climate change serves as a risk multiplier, amplifying the impacts that extreme heat, drought, an extended growing season, and flooding can have on water supply. As growth occurs, implications of PFAS contamination are realized, and climate continues to change, it is important to plan and collaborate now to ensure there is sufficient, reliable, and safe water supply for people, the economy, and the function of local ecosystems. 

The East Metro chapter of the Water Supply Planning Atlas contains more details in the description of current conditions and challenges. 

Stakeholder-defined vision of success for water supply planning in the East Metro subregion

Water planning in the East Metro subregion is successful if it achieves these shared goals:  

• Water supply planning and implementation includes considerations and strategies, as applicable, for conservation, reuse, and recharge.
• Resources are protected and water quality is improved with no new contaminants.
• All people have access to affordable, clean, safe water, regardless of personal income or community.

The following are needed to successfully achieve those goals in the East Metro subregion:

• A mix of voluntary practices, regulation, and planning is available.  
• There is public trust of water supply, and an understanding of its value, challenges, and needs.

Issues and opportunities

In the East Metro subregion, several issues and opportunities exist related to water supply planning, as identified through review of existing plans and studies or through the stakeholder engagement done in 2023-2024. They are listed in alphabetical order.

Agency coordination 

Communication, data sharing, transparency, coordination, efficiency, and general partnership between and with agencies could be enhanced.  

Agricultural contaminants

Agricultural contaminants and practices can negatively impact water supply as well as nearby surface water features. To support a sustainable water future as well as the ability to continue to grow food, it is important to increase implementation of best management practices that improve soil health and reduce pollution from nutrients and pesticides. 

Chloride

Partnerships and a shared voice are needed to pursue limited liability legislation and support best practices to reduce chloride contamination from road salt and water softeners. 

Climate change 

Climate change needs to be factored into future planning for water use as well as resilience to extremes and climate impacts.  

Communication 

Communication needs to be proactive, targeted, and tailored to specific audiences, and across platforms. At the same time, it needs to be coordinated and consistent, relatable, and contain the “why,” “what,” and “how” to inspire both understanding and action at household and policy-making levels. This kind of intentional and strategic communications approach can increase the extent to which water supply is understood and prioritized by the public and public officials.  

Contaminants of emerging concern 

The region’s water partners need to address emerging contaminants already known and begin to prepare to respond to ones not recognized yet. 

Data 

Data are lacking to fully understand groundwater resources, including:  

• The age and status of existing infrastructure
• Water quality
  • Ambient groundwater monitoring and point-of-sale testing
  • Emerging contaminants’ presence, especially for those with low detection levels
  • Groundwater and surface water interaction
  • Approaches for stormwater and sewage treatment in areas with karst
• Quantity: A subregion-wide database, informed by groundwater level and use monitoring and modeling, should be explored and developed to help determine:  
  • A water budget  
  • Alternative drinking water supplies  
  • Impact of high-capacity wells  
  • Impact of patterns of precipitation  
  • Impact of use on trout streams and lakes  

Funding 

The cost of testing and treatment of contaminated water is a challenge across scales. More funding is needed, particularly at the local level—beyond rate increases—for treatment at the municipal and household levels. Grant awards are not high enough, are not communicated about enough, or are too complicated to pursue. Low-income funding assistance is needed for privately owned wells. Strategies that maintain affordability are also needed so that everyone has access to affordable and safe drinking water.

General contamination 

Contamination from household hazardous waste, land spreading, leaky underground tanks, closed landfills, abandoned wells, mining, etc. must be reduced.

Jurisdictional coordination 

Water planning and development can be better coordinated within and across jurisdictions, such as proactive instead of reactive collaboration and funding. This could include: 

• Drinking Water Supply Management Areas:
  • Coordinated management of Drinking Water Supply Management Areas with overlapping jurisdictions (cities, watersheds, etc.) 
  • Coordinated management of nonmunicipal Drinking Water Supply Management Areas within a jurisdiction 
  • Incorporating all drinking water supply management areas (municipal and nonmunicipal) in land use and development planning 
• Enhanced linkages between watershed and groundwater management. 
• Collaboration with agencies regarding internal and external use of reuse water.
• Vertical coordination of water supply management from state to metro to county to city to household.
• Plain language education campaign/materials across the region on groundwater and aquifer recharge/science for public, policy makers, and decision makers.
• Balancing agency expectations for local plans and coordinating agency review processes. For example: aligning Met Council growth expectations with Department of Natural Resources-identified limitations on water supply sources to inform local ordinances, etc. 

Per- and polyfluorinated substances (PFAS) 

PFAS contamination of ground and surface waters has created public health concerns and water treatment challenges. PFAS chemicals can be long-lived in the environment, requiring significant time and financial resources to remediate. Eliminating exposure to and remobilization of PFAS is a goal to strive for, but challenges exist with capacity to provide testing, requiring the sealing of wells when a resident is connected to municipal supply, understanding groundwater surface water interaction, and funding of long-term mitigation.  

Private wells 

There is a lack of protection, guidance, and assistance for privately owned well users. 

Public trust 

Public trust can be lacking and takes time to be built.  

• Community members do not feel like they are being heard or that their concerns are being heard. 
• As science has improved understanding of health risk limits, the communication about what is “safe” has changed, and that has created doubt about government’s ability to keep residents safe.  

Subsurface sewage treatment systems 

Reduce contamination from subsurface sewage treatment systems through free testing, income- and non-income-based replacement assistance, and enforcement of performance rules.  

Source water protection 

Enhance source water and wellhead protection efforts for both known and emerging contaminants. 

Testing capacity and supplies 

Ensure capacity for water testing and treatment. 

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)

Track and contain contamination plumes especially near public wells.  

Water balance 

• Loss of recharge areas impacts water supply. With development still occurring, there is an opportunity to protect recharge areas, especially near groundwater-dependent natural resources.  
• Conservation efforts need to be able to keep pace with increasing population as well as climate change.
• Reuse should be supported in order to reduce groundwater demand 

Workforce 

There is a need to address workforce concerns, including retirements, technical training, and expertise, turnover, and ability to attract and retain staff. 

Prioritized focus areas and action plan

As part of the engagement process, stakeholders identified the following priorities from the focus areas for the East Metro subregion. Stakeholder-identified statements for what success looks like in 10 years are also included for each.

Agricultural contaminants

• Surface water features are delisted.
• There is no groundwater contamination from agricultural practices.
• Sustainable agricultural practices do not compromise food availability.

Chloride

• No new chloride impairments are identified.
• All drinking water wells are still useable.
• Some form of limited liability legislation is in place as an incentive to reduce overapplication/unnecessary use of salt by private contractors.  
• Feasible/viable alternatives to salt are being developed.  
• Metro communities adopt chloride-specific model ordinances.  

Contaminants of emerging concern

• Public will be informed of existing emerging contaminants, their fate (persistence) in water supply, and potential new/emerging contaminants.  
• State/local and regional leaders will have a plan for identifying emerging and potential contaminants, educate public about impacts and plans to address them.  

Jurisdictional coordination (inclusive of source water protection)

• Met Council fills a gap in the system, after evaluating who does what.
• Connect Met Council growth and MUSA planning to water use.  
• Jurisdictional work is coordinated—no duplication or contradiction.  
• Managing growth management with water supply, capacity, and natural resources.  
• Active communication—adaptive management.  

PFAS

• People have access to PFAS testing.
• Nonessential uses of PFAS are eliminated, following Minnesota’s PFAS Blueprint developed by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 
• Region takes a pragmatic approach to applying risk reduction techniques.  
• Funding is prioritized to mitigate risk to any degree.  
• PFAS-free drinking water is available for all.  
• The most harmful PFAS, as demonstrated by technology and studies, is managed.  
• There is funding for changing water quality regulations.
• Changing science and effects on standards are addressed. 

Privately owned wells and subsurface sewage treatment systems

• Owners know how to maintain systems and protect their health, supported by education of realtors about privately owned wells and subsurface sewage treatment systems.  
• Consistent standards for privately owned wells are established.  
• Privately owned wells and subsurface sewage treatment systems are incorporated into the other focus areas.  
• Access to affordable or free testing for contaminants of interest to the owner is available through a centralized public well and water testing system that allows for centralized data.

Water balance

• Aquifer levels are stable and managed, and there is sustainable water use for aquifers, ecosystems (no surface water impacts), and future generations (seven generations, approximately 150 years).  
• Sufficient land is available for all uses, including recharge and reserved land for uses needed in the future.  
• Future flood storage is accomplished.  
• Infiltration is implemented in the right locations. 
• Reuse 
  • More support is provided for reuse systems, including guidance for treatment and perhaps standards for residential reuse such as irrigation systems 
  • Use of reuse water increases, as do more coordinated and more holistic efforts.
  • Existing reuse of water is better understood and increased in volume. 
• Reduce volume of groundwater water needed, with a numeric goal identified.
• Perception change: people understand water is a finite resource. 

It should be noted that, as a part of the discussion, the following focus areas were identified as “implementation considerations,” in that they would be needed (either as a strategy or something to manage for) in order to support success for any of the other focus areas. As such, these were incorporated in action plans for these priority focus areas:

• Agency coordination
• Climate change  
• Communication
• Data
• Funding
• Public trust
• Workforce 

Table 3.4 reflects the action plan developed by participants to address the priority focus areas. It is possible and expected that actions not reflected here may emerge as important steps that will need to be taken in subsequent years. This list, therefore, is a reflection of what was being considered in 2023-2024. Items have been organized according to the Metro Area Water Supply Advisory Committee’s 2022 proposed framework to achieve progress on regional goals (Figure 3.11). 

Figure 3.11: Regional framework for action 

East Metro subregion actions generally fall across the framework steps. Refer to actions in Table 3.4. 

Actions to support success

In late 2023 and early 2024, East Metro subregional stakeholders identified several potential actions to address each of their focus areas. Table 3.4 below includes proposed actions, in the words of the subregional stakeholders who drafted them. While the focus is on work needed over the next 10 years, some actions are expected to be ongoing over the next 25 years or more.  

This action plan is intended as a high-level, long-term, collaborative planning tool. A refined work plan is expected to develop as collaboration gets underway and depending on resource availability. It is possible and expected that new actions may emerge as important steps that need to be taken in subsequent years.

Many different people and organizations are expected to be involved in the East Metro subregional water supply work. Table 3.4 identifies a few examples that were identified by stakeholders in 2023 and 2024, but this list is incomplete. For example, Washington County’s Groundwater Plan includes several actions similar to those identified in Table 3.4, and the county will have an important role to play ensuring that efforts are not being duplicated, and that clear roles/potential partnerships are identified within the county’s jurisdiction.

The Met Council is committed to convene and support work planning and implementation for the East Metro subregional water supply group (see the regional action plan in Table 3.2). Early work is expected to include revising and prioritizing actions and defining roles in more detail. 

Northeast Metro subregional water supply action plan  

Figure 3.12: Northeast Metro Subregion water supply planning area

Communities depicted in a color other than pink overlap in multiple subregions. Data source: Water Supply Planning Atlas by the Met Council  

Water supply planning context and current conditions

Everything that happens on land impacts water, and water is all connected. Communities rely on sufficient, reliable, and safe water supply for health, prosperity, and the function of local ecosystems.

Communities in the Northeast Metro subregion (Figure 3.12) are exclusively sourced by groundwater, mostly from the Prairie du Chien and Jordan aquifers. Most communities in this subregion operate municipal community public water supply systems that provide residents and businesses with water, but some communities do not have public water supply systems. In these communities, which are often more rural, residents get water from privately owned and operated wells. Additionally, all of the 27 communities in the Northeast Metro subregion overlap with or are adjacent to land that has been identified as a Drinking Water Supply Management Area.  

Northeast Metro subregion communities have some unique water resource limitations and associated water supply sustainability challenges. These include increasing water demand from a growing population, shallow aquifers connected to surface waters, the presence of a major groundwater divide, shifting climate trends, and legacy contamination. Communities and state regulators continue to collaborate on solutions to ensure water resources are protected and community needs are met, while use restrictions have been put in place by state regulators.

Overall water use peaked in the mid-to-late 2000s. Since then, communities have continued to grow, but overall water use has decreased slightly. Increases in efficiency and wetter summers have likely led to this demand reduction. However, recent droughts and growth have led to a significant increase in water use, and concerns about groundwater and lake-level drawdown—and what that means for future water supply and development—are significant in this subregion. Increased impervious land cover, contaminants of emerging concern, groundwater and surface water interaction, and other quality concerns are also prevalent in the region.

With the region as a whole expected to grow by more than 650,000 people between 2020 and 2050, the Northeast Metro subregion will also continue to see growth. Current estimates suggest that approximately 60,000 more people will be added to the area by 2050 compared to 2020.

Climate change also has the potential to amplify the impacts that extreme heat, drought, an extended growing season, and flooding can have on water supply. New issues resulting from human impacts continue to emerge that have the potential to further influence the quality and quantity of water available for drinking water supply. ​​With existing supply constraints and challenges, as well as a forecast of continued growth, now is the time to thoughtfully and collaboratively plan to ensure a safe and sustainable water supply—for individual communities, ecosystems, the region, and future generations.

The Northeast Metro chapter of the Water Supply Planning Atlas contains more details in the description of current conditions and challenges.  

Stakeholder-defined vision of success for water supply planning in the Northeast Metro subregion

Water supply planning for the Northeast Metro subregion is successful if the following outcomes are produced in the long term:

• Water supply is clean, affordable, and sustainable for humans and ecosystems.​
• There is regional sustainability and coordination with local control​.
• Growth and resource protection​ are balanced.
• Source water is protected​.

The following conditions are needed to successfully achieve those goals in the Northeast Metro subregion:

• Increased culture of stewardship  
• Increased trust of water and the water system​
• A streamlined and improved policy framework​
• Increased state and regional support for planning and plan implementation​
• Decisions are scientifically and financially sound​
• Current and emerging contaminants are understood and addressed 

Issues and opportunities

In the Northeast Metro subregion, several issues and opportunities exist related to water supply planning, as identified through the stakeholder engagement done in 2023-2024. They are listed here in alphabetical order.

Changing behaviors and social norms 

Humans impact the environment around them, and we all have a role to play to minimize that impact. Yet, people don’t always know, understand, and agree that water supply is something they can and should do something about. Compounding this is a need for a shifting of social norms.  

For example, the inertia of expectations and desire for things like green lawns will take effort and time to overcome. The education and outreach approach must be customized to specific audiences (different cities, ages, cultural backgrounds, privately owned versus public wells, levels of decision-making authority, etc.) to make the information relatable and help promote behavior and policy change. That said, a coordinated education initiative across communities with shared resources (such as mobile units) and tools could reduce cost and increase consistency in messaging. Achieving this will require more funding than is currently dedicated to outreach and education initiatives, and funding for something like this could also be used statewide.  

Contamination 

Various sources of humanmade or mobilized contaminants are impacting water supply – both in terms of what is available and the cost of treatment and remediation. Specifically, these include fertilizers and herbicides, subsurface sewage treatment systems, chloride, PFAS, TCE, pharmaceuticals, nanomaterials/compounds, disinfection byproducts, other contaminants of emerging concern, selenium, and manganese. Research, education, monitoring, testing, technological innovation, enhanced rules and enforcement are needed. This includes implementation of the Minnesota PFAS Blueprint.   

Funding 

As it stands, the cost for water does not reflect the true cost of accessing, treating, and distributing water or maintaining that infrastructure. Yet further changes spurred by quality and quantity challenges require new investments. A sustainable, consistent, long-term source of reliable funding for water quality and quantity initiatives is needed. This could be state and federal funding to support local and regional goals, adjusted and tiered rate structures and policy tools to better reflect the true cost of water, as well as incentives and grants to support further work.  

Governmental coordination 

Operating in silos creates challenges as water flows across jurisdictional boundaries, multiple communities tap the same water supply, and the management of water is distributed across agencies – though all water is connected.   

Agency coordination 

Generally speaking, continuing to work towards regional/state planning for water supply with common ground for all agencies is desired. Specifically, stakeholders are interested in seeing increased coordination and consistency between agencies, a streamlining of efforts, and an increase in understanding of the impacts of requirements (and the timing of those requirements) on local offices. Additionally, coordination within agencies is also desired. For the Met Council, there is opportunity at this time to ensure alignment and tie-ins between regional planning guidance and system statements.  

Jurisdictional coordination 

Working across community boundaries has many benefits, including:  

• • Provides the opportunity to reduce costs to individual communities in planning.
  • Reduces instances where neighboring plans conflict with each other.
  • Provides space for regional considerations and to share best practices or lessons learned, address the needs of multiple types of water systems, more broadly protect source water, and identify innovative opportunities and legislative priorities that meet the goals and needs of multiple communities.  

Integrated water management 

Pursuing an integrated approach to water supply management has benefits. But this requires rethinking who is in the room and their roles, including water suppliers and regulators, but also community development and land use planners, natural resource managers, watershed organizations, and counties. It also requires an integration of surface water and groundwater perspectives, increased agency cooperation, and a willingness to develop customized solutions that can achieve multiple benefits.   

Managing for uncertainty 

It can be challenging to plan for a future with so much uncertainty, including knowing what kinds of growth you’ll actually get, the impacts of climate change, or the outcomes of consequential, pending decisions that need to be made. 

Policy change 

Policy can be used to improve water quality and quantity conditions, but misapplied or reactive, it can also create burdensome requirements and restrictions that hinder the ability to pursue desired, sound actions. The region needs policy changes that create a legislative framework to support action with consistent (yet flexible) regulation, as well as tools to increase compliance. Achieving these changes will require political will, decision-maker understanding of water supply, and a willingness to collaborate.  

Privately owned well user support 

Well owners need more education and financial resources to maintain their systems and understand their local groundwater picture, but there are questions about where those resources should come from.  

Water quantity 

Quantity of groundwater is of major concern, especially in light of the White Bear Lake comprehensive planning effort. That effort focuses on ongoing questions about the future of groundwater availability to support water resources as well as growth in that area. While the Metro Area Water Supply Plan update and the White Bear Lake Area Comprehensive Plan each have their own predetermined purposes, statutory drivers, and timelines, there are actions that can be taken now to stretch groundwater supply:   

• Conservation. Efforts systematically rolled out to address high-volume users (residential and nonresidential, occupant-owned or rental) with monitoring to help target outreach to support smart conservation.  
• Reuse. Reuse can further increase efficiency by using water more than once, or using stormwater for nonpotable purposes, though this would require policy change and clarity.  
• Recharge. Start to consider wastewater as a resource that could support recharge.   

Workforce 

Communities are experiencing workforce-related challenges. There are not enough staff or ability to fund their roles currently, and retirements create concern around loss of institutional knowledge and qualified staff. There is a need to increase technical capacity and knowledge of water quantity and quality among new water supply staff. In addition to addressing these workforce challenges, there is also a variety of technical, scientific, education, and funding assistance that is needed to support communities to respond to and understand the nature of various challenges. Increasing internal staff while also increasing access to regional assistance can reduce the burden of plan implementation and system management experienced by local staff. Specific requests in this category include: ability to model aquifer volumes, shared educational materials, assistance in obtaining funding for infrastructure needs, and resources for risk communication.  

Prioritized focus areas and action plan

As part of the engagement process, stakeholders identified the following priorities from the focus areas for the Northeast Metro subregion. Stakeholder-identified statements for what success looks like in 10 years are also included for each.

Governmental collaboration  

Agencies

• • Shared data  
  • Not having overlapping work efforts between different agencies and communities  

Jurisdictions

• • Limited conflicting plans  
  • Consider scale of planning at aquifer level

Integrated water management

• • Having conversations about cost/benefit
  • Goal-oriented, achievable rules and regulations for organizations dealing with water resources  
  • Awareness among local governments about land use planning impacts to water resources  
  • Reducing complexity of local government involvement in decisions related to water resources  
  • More thoughtful coordination among agencies to integrate resource concerns/improvements 

Changing behaviors and social norms

• • Widespread acceptance (industry, business) of alternative land cover and related practices (for example, planting native or drought-tolerant species that then require less irrigation)  
  • Greater household awareness of water use and implementation of conservation practices  
  • Coordinated or standardized best management practices/conservation measures for the metro (and beyond)  
  • Coordinated/shared outreach and education resources for communities 
  • Regional agency for education
    • Uniform messaging
    • Removes the fear of local governments using a “cowboy approach” 

Contamination

• • Safe and clean drinking water from tap in both public and private spaces  
  • Expanded program for discovering and managing emergent contaminants that works collaboratively with other agencies  
  • Surveillance, remediation, prevention and funding for each  
  • Continued tracking of trends, such as road salt usage

Funding

• • Money for continued research/data collection  
  • Thoughtful allocation of costs  
  • Focus on priorities / competing interest 

Water quantity  

Conservation

• • Residential gallons used per person per day in cities is on a downward trend while peaking factors are reduced to below two times the January use  
  • Conservation planning is proactive and not reactionary  
  • Focus on finding biggest cost-effective actions and develop grant program for adoption  
  • Groundwater appropriation fees should cover costs for groundwater management

Reuse

• • Every community has the option to have a water reuse plan for irrigation  
  • Supported by agencies/jurisdictions – legislation/law  
  • Community understanding – education about use and water quality  
  • Saving water (drinking) – targets for amount-saved goals  
  • Stormwater  
  • Wastewater  
  • Recycled water  
  • Less-potable solutions

Recharge

• • Some percentage (to be determined) of water successfully recharged into aquifers 

Water availability  

Note: This topic was added by the group in the second subregional workshop to include growth and demand as well as quality-induced pressures on supply.

• Identified solution, acquired funding, started to implement projects  
• Reliable clean water source, sustainable  
• Make decision on whether we have to change – if we do, then solutions and move to projects

It should be noted that, as a part of the discussion, the following focus areas were identified as “implementation considerations,” in that they would be needed (either as a strategy or something to manage for) in order to support success for any of the other focus areas. As such, these were incorporated into action plans to address priority focus areas:

• Workforce​
• Managing for uncertainty​
• Policy change ​
• Funding
• Changing behaviors and social norms 

Table 3.5 reflects the action plan developed by participants to address the priority focus areas. It is possible and expected that actions not reflected here may emerge as important steps needed to be taken in subsequent years. This list, therefore, is a reflection of what was being considered in early 2024. The list has been organized according to the Metro Area Water Supply Advisory Committee’s 2022 proposed framework to achieve progress on regional goals (Figure 3.13). 

Figure 3.13: The framework for regional action  

Northeast Metro subregion actions generally fall across the framework steps, as can be seen in the action tables.

Actions to support success 

In late 2023 and early 2024, Northeast Metro subregional stakeholders identified several potential actions to address each of their focus areas. Table 3.5 below includes proposed actions, in the words of the subregional stakeholders who drafted them. While the focus is on work needed over the next 10 years, some actions are expected to be ongoing over the next 25 years or more.  

This action plan is intended as a high-level, long-term, collaborative planning tool. A refined work plan is expected to develop as collaboration gets underway and depending on resource availability. It is possible and expected that new actions may emerge as important steps that need to be taken in subsequent years.

Many different people and organizations are expected to be involved in the Northeast Metro subregional water supply work. Table 3.5 identifies a few examples that were identified by stakeholders in 2023 and 2024, but this list is incomplete. For example, Washington County’s Groundwater Plan includes several actions similar to those identified in Table 3.5, and the county will have an important role to play ensuring that efforts are not being duplicated, and that clear roles/potential partnerships are identified within the county’s jurisdiction.

The Met Council is committed to convene and support work planning and implementation for the Northeast Metro subregional water supply group (see the regional action plan in Table 3.2). Early work is expected to include revising and prioritizing actions and defining roles in more detail. 

Northwest Metro subregional water supply action plan 

Figure 3.14: Northwest Metro Subregion water supply planning area 

Communities depicted in a color other than green overlap in multiple subregions. Data source: Water Supply Planning Atlas by the Met Council 

Water supply planning context and current conditions

Everything that happens on land impacts water, and water is all connected.

The Northwest Metro subregion (Figure 3.14) covers a large portion of the metro with a variety of community types, ranging from urban to rural. In this part of the metro, a number of water quality and quantity challenges exist that are as diverse as the range of communities. Some resource limitations are related to the underlying geology. Other challenges relate to development, service needs, and water pollution.

Communities in the Northwest Metro subregion rely exclusively on groundwater for their water supply, and many communities do not have access to the most productive aquifers in the region. While most communities in this subregion operate municipal community public water supply systems, other communities do not have a municipal system. In those communities, residents and businesses pump water from privately owned wells for drinking water. Additionally, all of the 29 communities in the Northwest Metro subregion overlap with or are adjacent to land that has been identified as a Drinking Water Supply Management Area.  

Overall water use peaked in the mid-to-late 2000s. Since then, communities have continued to grow, but overall water use has declined slightly. Increases in efficiency and wetter summers have likely led to this demand reduction. However, recent droughts and growth have led to a significant increase in water use. Increased impervious cover, contaminants of emerging concern, groundwater/surface water interaction, and other quality concerns are also prevalent in the region.  

With the region as a whole expected to grow by more than 650,000 people between 2020 and 2050, the Northwest Metro subregion will also see growth. Current estimates suggest that approximately 140,000 more people will be added to the Northwest Metro subregion by 2050 compared with 2020.  

Population growth, as well as corresponding growth in employment and employment centers, will increase water demand. ​At the same time, climate change serves as a risk multiplier, amplifying the impacts that drought and flooding can have on water supply. ​As growth occurs, and climate continues to change, it is important to plan and collaborate to ensure there is sufficient, reliable, and safe water supply for people, the economy, and the function of local ecosystems. 

The Northwest Metro chapter of the Water Supply Planning Atlas contains more details in the description of current challenges.

Stakeholder-defined vision of success for water supply planning in the Northwest Metro subregion

Water supply planning for the Northwest Metro subregion is successful if the following outcomes are produced in the long term:

• There is adequate supply, and efficient use of that supply
  • Extraction does not exceed recharge or compromise surface water resources
  • Basic needs are met with clean, affordable drinking water for all
  • Infiltration is maximized in new development, and conservation is a norm
  • A diversity of supply is available—other sources, including reuse
• There is improved source water quality and reductions in contaminants of emerging concern (PFAS, chloride, microplastics)
• Climate resilience is increased

The following conditions are needed to successfully achieve those goals in the Northwest Metro subregion: 

• Increased understanding
  • Connections between groundwater, surface water, and stormwater management
  • Individual awareness and ownership of the need to reduce impacts
• Sufficient, sustainable funding for infrastructure, staff, adapting to new treatment needs, etc.
• Enhanced coordination around aligned goals—between city departments, between cities, between and with agencies, within agencies 

Issues and opportunities

In the Northwest Metro subregion, several issues and opportunities exist related to water supply planning, as identified through the stakeholder engagement done in 2023-2024. They are listed here in alphabetical order. 

Asset management  

Asset management is important to take care of and extend the life and usability of existing infrastructure. To do so, though, requires sufficient funding, planning (inclusive of conservation planning to reduce needs), and trained staff to maintain of water systems.  

Climate change  

Climate change is occurring. This leads to concern about impacts from drought and flooding, as well as uncertainty about future conditions.  

Changing behaviors and social norms  

Education and outreach to the general public is needed to increase understanding of groundwater management and the process of how water gets to the tap and all that entails. While the audiences may differ (ages, languages, public vs. privately owned well user, decision makers), there is a need for increasing the consistency of educational materials and messaging across the region to encourage personal action, shifting of social norms, and a view of groundwater conversation as a nonpolitical need to protect the finite resource for future generations. A coordinated education effort or programs (such as a K-6 outreach program, workshops for residents, privately owned well-user outreach, etc.) is needed to support this aim.  

Funding  

The current funding structure isn’t working. Water is cheap, but the work needed to ensure safe and sufficient water supply is not. As new requirements come out, they often do without a funding source to support compliance. Adjusting the rate structure to reflect the true cost of water and encourage conservation could support a more sustainable funding model, as would an increase in dedicated funding from the state to support compliance and system maintenance for all.  

Governmental collaboration  

Local governments experience different expectations and conflicting requirements from different entities (MDH, DNR, MPCA, Met Council, city councils, etc.). Differences across jurisdictional boundaries compound this to make regional water supply planning and plan implementation challenging.  

Agencies  

It would be helpful to see agencies align under shared goals, with roles and expectations clearly defined. As a part of this, reviewing and seeking adjustments where rules conflict with each other, sharing data, streamlining roles, and otherwise improving coordination within and across agencies would each make a difference for local communities. Additionally, there is desire to see increased collaboration between agencies and cities. 

Integrated water management  

Silos within water resource management can be broken down to pursuing multiple water-related benefits at once, rather than treating them as conflicting priorities or creating unintended consequences. Data to support a more integrated approach are needed, such as how to identify or monitor for ecosystem impacts.  

Collaboration into action  

Increased collaboration alone is not the goal. Rather, intentional collaboration – whether it is within cities, city to city, between cities and agencies, within agencies, or across agencies – can produce enhanced outcomes and action.  

Growth and planning  

As development occurs, it is important that it happens alongside a comprehensive understanding of groundwater management so that economic development goals are in line with groundwater and ecosystem protection. This could include more compact development or preserving space for parks and recreation infrastructure. Guidance for long-term population forecasting is also needed to support planning for appropriately sized growth.  

Private well users  

Education and water testing for users of privately owned wells is needed to protect public health and equip people with information to help them make informed decisions. Free well testing should be expanded for low-income private well users.  

Water quality  

Whether it is managing chloride (including legacy chloride in soil), addressing PFAS issues, keeping up with other emerging contaminants like microplastics, removing lead from the system, or engaging in research and education, groundwater contamination creates challenges for water supply. Sustained and increased funding is needed in order to keep water safe.  

Groundwater quantity/water balance  

Groundwater is a finite resource, and in order to provide a good foundation for growth and to meet future needs, action must be taken now.  

Conservation  

A decreasing trend for peak summer demand can help to reduce infrastructure needs, but will require more widespread adoption of conservation measures (and an increase in funding for these activities). For residents and businesses, this would include things like less lawn irrigation and a shift away from green turfgrass as a norm. For higher water volume users, this may mean appropriation permits are more strictly reviewed. Construction dewatering is also more strictly reviewed, with incorporation of injection wells to retain shallow groundwater.  

Reuse  

Stormwater reuse for practices like irrigation can reduce groundwater demand for nonpotable uses. Provision for grey water reuse in new buildings and developments could further reduce demand, though would require a change in plumbing codes.  

Modeling  

Dynamic modeling of groundwater is needed to understand movement, quantity, demand, impacts of high-volume users, and what a sustainable water balance would look like. This kind of data would support informed decision making for growth as well as degree of action required to meet water supply needs.  

Surface water sourcing  

As constraints on groundwater increase, investigating an expansion of surface water supply is warranted.  

Workforce

With recent and upcoming retirements of water operators and other experienced staff, there is a large hole in institutional knowledge that is only expected to increase in the coming years. There is a need for shared workforce planning and strategy to meet workforce needs, including mentorship programs, outreach to schools for recruitment, and introduction of water careers as options. Additionally, there is a need to fund existing and future staffing levels. 

Prioritized focus areas and action plan

As part of the engagement process, stakeholders identified the following as priorities from the focus areas for the Northwest Metro subregion. Stakeholder-identified statements for what success looks like in 10 years are also included for each.

Asset management  

• An understanding of quantity and quality of assets 
• An ability to forecast replacement and upgrade costs 

Governmental collaboration 

• Required information into one location and government agencies are able to split out what it is that they need, or at least a reduction of duplicative work  
• Full overarching model to see inputs and outputs is necessary for regional coordination to understand where conservation action or other action would be useful  
• Within government, planners and engineers understand each other and can anticipate results of each other’s actions 

Groundwater quantity and water balance (inclusive of growth and planning) 

• Understanding quality and quantity of supply (distinct aquifers)  
• Communicate where recharge areas exist. Recharge areas will be outside Met Council authority so would need to address how/who would set policies in the recharge area. 
• Define educational work plan—conservation and awareness of issues 

Water quality (inclusive of private wells) 

• Improved sampling methodologies (standards and locations)—individual well (raw water) vs. distributed  
• Increased/required testing of wells—make it available and affordable  
• Adapting to whatever new standards and requirements there are 

Workforce 

• Robust asset management/GIS system to capture institutional knowledge  
• Consistent pipeline of staff entering the field of water supply, distribution, treatment, and storage  
• High schools, technical colleges, and universities actively promoting public works  
• Succession planning for those retiring  
• Get kids excited about water  

As a part of the workshop discussion, participants identified the following focus areas as “implementation considerations,” in that they would be needed (either as a strategy or something to manage for) in order to support success for any of the other focus areas. As such, these were incorporated into the action plans to address priority focus areas: 

• Changing behaviors and social norms 
• Climate change 
• Funding 
  • Sustainability 
  • Short term (grants)

Table 3.6 reflects the action plan developed by participants at and following the second subregional workshop in order to address the priority focus areas. It is possible and expected that actions not reflected here may emerge as important steps needed to be taken in subsequent years. This list, therefore, is a reflection of what was being considered in late 2023 and early 2024. The actions have been organized according to the Metro Area Water Supply Advisory Committee’s 2022 proposed framework to achieve progress on regional goals (Figure 3.15).   

Figure 3.15: The framework for regional action 

Northwest Metro focus areas generally fall across the framework steps. 

Actions to support success 

In late 2023 and early 2024, Northwest Metro subregional stakeholders identified several potential actions to address each of their focus areas. Table 3.6 below includes proposed actions, in the words of the subregional stakeholders who drafted them. While the focus is on work needed over the next 10 years, some actions are expected to be ongoing over the next 25 years or more.  

This action plan is intended as a high-level, long-term, collaborative planning tool. A refined work plan is expected to develop as collaboration gets underway and depending on resource availability. It is possible and expected that new actions may emerge as important steps that need to be taken in subsequent years. 

Many different people and organizations are expected to be involved in the Northwest Metro subregional water supply work. Table 3.6 identifies a few examples that were identified by stakeholders in 2023 and 2024, but this list is incomplete.

The Met Council is committed to convene and support work planning and implementation for the Northwest Metro subregional water supply group (see the regional action plan in Table 3.2). Early work is expected to include revising and prioritizing actions and defining roles in more detail. 

Southeast Metro subregional water supply action plan 

Figure 3.16: Southeast Metro Subregion water supply planning area 

Communities depicted in a color other than blue overlap in multiple subregions. Data source: Water Supply Planning Atlas by the Met Council 

Water supply planning context and current conditions

Everything that happens on land impacts water, and water is all connected.

The Southeast Metro subregion (Figure 3.16) spans communities in Dakota County, ranging from highly developed older suburbs, to newer suburbs that have experienced significant growth in the last 30 years, to rural agricultural communities dotted with smaller town centers. Generally, as you move from north to south across the county, density decreases and the landscape becomes more rural.  

Water supply is provided by a combination of municipal and nonmunicipal public water suppliers and privately owned wells. Agricultural and commercial entities use water from the same aquifers for irrigation and industrial processes. Groundwater quality and quantity challenges exist throughout the county.

Communities in the Southeast Metro subregion rely almost exclusively on groundwater sources from the Prairie du Chien and Jordan aquifers for their water supplies. Many communities in this subregion operate municipal community public water supply systems that provide residents and businesses with water, but some communities do not have public water supply systems. In these communities, which are often more rural, residents get water from privately owned and operated wells. One community, Burnsville, uses a combination of surface water from a nearby quarry and groundwater, and provides treated water to the neighboring community of Savage. Additionally, 27 of the 32 communities in the Southeast Metro subregion have some land that has been identified as a Drinking Water Supply Management Area, and source water protection is an important goal for public and privately owned wells alike. Fertilizer and pesticide residuals have been detected in many wells in rural communities.  

Overall water use peaked in the mid-to-late 2000s. Since then, communities have continued to grow, but overall water use has declined slightly. Increases in efficiency and wetter summers have likely led to this demand reduction. However, recent droughts and growth have led to a significant increase in water use.  

With the region as a whole expected to grow by more than 650,000 people between 2020 and 2050, the Southeast Metro subregion will also continue to see growth. Current estimates suggest that approximately 80,000 more people will be added to the area by 2050 compared to 2020. As the Southeast Metro subregion continues to grow, more people will rely on municipal community public water supplies for their water needs. To deliver service to more homes and businesses, communities may need new infrastructure like additional wells and new service lines. Expansion of water supply systems comes with costs and is not without financial, social, or environmental risk. As the region continues to grow and develop, more land conversion to impervious surface is likely.

Communities rely on water supply for health, prosperity, and the function of local ecosystems. As growth occurs, and climate change continues to amplify risks for both quality and quantity, it is important to plan and collaborate to ensure there is sufficient, reliable, and safe water supply for people, the economy, and the function of local ecosystems. 

The Southeast Metro chapter of the Water Supply Planning Atlas contains more details in the description of current challenges. 

Definition of success for water supply planning in the Southeast Metro

Water supply planning for the Southeast Metro subregion is successful if the following outcomes are produced in the long term: 

• There is an adequate supply for people and ecosystems—one does not compromise the other​.
• Water is clean, safe, and drinkable.

The following conditions are needed to successfully achieve those goals in the Southeast Metro subregion:

• Communities proactively and collaboratively manage water in an integrated fashion​. For example:
  • New development preserves open space for infiltration and incorporates reuse​.
  • There is regional collaboration to support water sustainability​.
  • Norms have shifted to low-input crops and turf that support conservation​.
• All people understand water-related issues and take action to protect and conserve water​.
• Sound science informs decision-making. 

Issues and opportunities

In the Southeast Metro subregion, several issues and opportunities exist related to water supply planning, as identified through the stakeholder engagement done in 2023-2024. They are listed here in alphabetical order.

Agricultural systems change

The current corn and soybean paradigm is the result of market pressures. New, lucrative cash crops with lower water and fertilizer demand are needed–for both industrial as well as family farmers. Aquaponics, hydroponics, and urban agriculture should be considered for their impact on water supply, as well as new crops such as marijuana and hemp. 

Asset management

Asset management to take care of the infrastructure we have should be encouraged, while taking into account the variety of challenges aging infrastructure produces (emerging contaminants, extension of pipes, etc.).

Change of behaviors and social norms

Everyone both impacts water and has a role they can play to protect water. Yet, that role is not fully understood. Education for a variety of audiences (including decision makers, developers, and schools) is needed, as is the development of trust in government, encouragement of behavior change, and the evolution of social norms regarding water use and contamination (for example, green lawns, fertilizer). 

Climate change

Climate change, mixed with land use changes, will increase challenges already impacting water supply: more runoff and less infiltration, heat island impact, etc.

Contamination

Water supply faces several quality-related concerns, with greater concern expressed for PFAS and chloride management and response, but concern exists as well for nitrate. Technical and financial support for communities as well as users of private wells are needed, as are cost effective solutions to reduce inputs and remove pollutants. Additionally, there is also a need for guidance and support to respond to stricter maximum contaminant level requirements and changing regulations.  

Funding

Funding to incentivize practices that benefit water quality and quantity, promote reuse, support and expand staffing, and maintain and repair systems is needed. Whether through adjusting rate structures and fees, statewide or regional grants, or other funding sources, existing funding is not sufficient for the work needed.  

Governmental collaboration

Agencies: Agencies can enhance their coordination within and across their organization, and increase transparency about the ways they do work together. The wellhead protection process is a specific opportunity to improve interagency coordination.

Jurisdictional coordination: Partnerships, resource- and knowledge-sharing, collaborative planning, and aligning goals across jurisdictional boundaries can lead to sustainable water outcomes. As such, there is value to subregional collaboration, planning, and technical assistance to support local action, though funding to support subregional collaboration would be needed.  

Land use and development

Land use is changing as farmland is developed. Population growth has put pressure on water supply, with some communities already exceeding permits or looking to drill new wells. As planning for new development takes place, there is a need and opportunity to manage open space and infiltration opportunities and promote conservation. Opportunities to set development standards for soil health and depth, irrigation, pervious surface, turfgrass and other elements can also be used when that upfront collaboration is not available.  

Water quantity

Addressing water quantity concerns will require conservation, reuse (including stormwater and wastewater), and recharge. Each of these approaches has its own challenges which need to be addressed as well, including changes in codes or policies, developing certified training for practitioners, planning for land protection, research, and (in some cases) assessment of feasibility.  

Workforce

Staffing limitations impact the ability to apply for and track grants, enforce laws or policies, develop plans, create and implement programming, and more. Beyond just the number, there is a challenge with hiring qualified candidates while also facing a loss of institutional knowledge. There is a need to support existing staff, expand staff, provide certification and training, and create space for thoughtful planning and collaboration.  

Prioritized focus areas and draft action plan

As part of the engagement process, stakeholders identified the following as priorities from the focus areas for the Southeast Metro subregion. Stakeholder-identified statements for what success looks like in 10 years are also included for each.

Workforce

• There will be adequate staffing and expertise at state, county, municipal, and regional levels to sustain plans and to operate systems.
• Work toward grant funding. 

Contamination

• There will be financial/technical support for source water and privately owned well testing 
• Contaminants of concern will be prioritized based on location. 
• Maximum Contaminant Limits (MCLs) will be set for manganese. 
• There will be cost-effective approaches for contaminants (contaminants of emerging concern, PFAS, chlorides). 

Water quantity

• There will be clear reuse guidance. 
• Summer-to-winter use ratio will be reduced.
• We will have a dynamic model to give an accurate representation of sustainable/available groundwater.
• We will understand sustainability of groundwater on a very localized basis. 
• Water rates will appropriately reflect the value of the water. 

Agricultural systems change

• Lower nitrogen and phosphorus and biosolids applications to agricultural land. 
• Lower water consumption or alternative uses from data centers, large water consumers, Niagara bottling.
• New and emerging agricultural systems are considered (aquaponics and hydroponics and urban agriculture, as well as new crops such as marijuana and hemp).

Land use and development

• Infiltration rates are equal to predevelopment .
• Use is maintainable/sustainable. 
• Better understanding of water use of land use type (use versus surface water impact). 

Asset management

• Potable water leakage is reduced.
• Aging treatment plants/piping/pumping systems are replaced.
• The right maintenance is done at the right time. 
• Planning and funding of replacements. 
• Coordination between utility and surfacing (for example, conditions assessments). 

It should be noted that, as a part of the discussion, participants identified the following focus areas as “implementation considerations,” in that they would be needed (either as a strategy or something to manage for) to support success for any of the other focus areas. As such, these were incorporated as action plans to address priority focus areas were developed: 

• Funding
• Governmental collaboration
• Changing behaviors and social norms
• Climate change 

Table 3.7 reflects the action plan developed by participants at and following the second subregional workshop in order to address the priority focus areas. It is possible and expected that actions not reflected here may emerge as important steps needed to be taken in subsequent years. This list, therefore, is a reflection of what was being considered in late 2023. They have been organized according to the Metro Area Water Supply Advisory Committee’s 2022 proposed framework to achieve progress on regional goals (Figure 3.17).

Figure 3.17: The framework for regional action

Actions identified to address Southeast Metro subregion focus areas generally fall across the framework steps.  

Actions to support success 

In late 2023 and early 2024, Southeast Metro subregional stakeholders identified several potential actions to address each of their focus areas. Table 3.7 below includes proposed actions, in the words of the subregional stakeholders who drafted them. While the focus is on work needed over the next 10 years, some actions are expected to be ongoing over the next 25 years or more.  

This action plan is intended as a high-level, long-term, collaborative planning tool. A refined work plan is expected to develop as collaboration gets underway and depending on resource availability. It is possible and expected that new actions may emerge as important steps that need to be taken in subsequent years.

Many different people and organizations are expected to be involved in the Southeast Metro subregional water supply work. Table 3.7 identifies a few examples that were identified by stakeholders in 2023 and 2024, but this list is incomplete. For example, Dakota County’s Groundwater Plan includes actions related to some identified in Table 3.7, and the county will have an important role to play ensuring that efforts are not being duplicated, and that clear roles/potential partnerships are identified within the county’s jurisdiction.

The Met Council is committed to convene and support work planning and implementation for the Southeast Metro subregional water supply group (see the regional action plan in Table 3.2). Early work is expected to include revising and prioritizing actions and defining roles in more detail. 

Southwest Metro subregional water supply action plan  

Figure 3.18: Southwest Metro Subregion water supply planning area 

Communities depicted in a color other than yellow overlap in multiple subregions. Data source: Water Supply Planning Atlas by the Met Council 

Water supply planning context and current conditions

Everything that happens on land impacts water, and water is all connected. Water is medicine, water is food, water is survival. 
The Southwest Metro subregion (Figure 3.18) spans Scott County bounded by Dakota County in the east and the Minnesota River to the north and west. This area includes the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community as well as growing suburban and rural communities. Water sustainability, as well as the increasing costs and demand pressures of ever-increasing growth, are challenges here as they are in many communities across the metro. Density in this part of the metro generally follows development and growth patterns, with most people being located in the north and east part of the county.

Communities in the Southwest Metro subregion rely on a variety of drinking water sources. The majority of communities in this subregion do not have municipal community public water supply systems. In those communities, residents operate privately owned wells to get their drinking water. In rural centers and denser, more suburban areas of the subregion, communities operate municipal community public water supply systems that provide water services to residents and businesses. Communities with these municipal supplies primarily have groundwater as their source. In the north and east parts of the subregion, they can access the Prairie du Chien and Jordan aquifers. In the south and west parts, they may rely on the Tunnel City-Wonewoc and deeper aquifers.  

Savage receives some of its water from Burnsville, which gets water from a combination of groundwater and surface water sources. The Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community and Prior Lake have a longstanding collaboration and interconnected water supply system. Additionally, 16 of 20 of the communities in the Southwest Metro subregion overlap with or are adjacent to land that has been identified as a Drinking Water Supply Management Area.  

Overall water use peaked in the mid-to-late 2000s. Since then, communities have continued to grow, but overall water use has declined slightly. Increases in efficiency and wetter summers have likely led to this demand reduction. However, recent droughts and growth have led to a significant increase in water use. Increased impervious land cover, contaminants of emerging concern, groundwater/surface water interaction, and other quality concerns are also prevalent in the region.  

With the region as a whole expected to grow by more than 650,000 people between 2020 and 2050, the Southwest Metro subregion will also see growth. Current estimates suggest that approximately 80,000 more people will be added to the subregion by 2050 compared to 2020. 

As the Southwest Metro subregion continues to grow, more people will rely on municipal community public water supplies for their water needs. To deliver service to more homes and businesses, communities may need new infrastructure like additional wells and new service lines. Expansion of water supply systems comes with costs and is not without financial, social, or environmental risk.  

Municipalities and rural landowners all rely on sufficient, reliable, and safe water supply for health and prosperity. Safe water supply is also necessary to the function of unique community ecosystems in the Southwest Metro, like Boiling Springs and the Savage Fen. As growth continues and climate change amplifies water quality and quantity risks, it is important to plan and collaborate to ensure there is sufficient, reliable, and safe water supply for people, the economy, and the function of local ecosystems—now and for future generations. 

The Southwest Metro chapter of the Water Supply Planning Atlas contains more details in the description of current challenges.

Stakeholder-defined vision of success for water supply planning in the Southwest Metro subregion

Water supply planning for the Southwest Metro subregion is successful if it achieves the shared goal of sustainable water supplies.

The Southwest Metro subregion will have a sustainable water supply when:

• Water supplies (sources and infrastructure) are resilient to unknown impacts.  
• High-value water resources are protected from impacts of groundwater withdrawals and contamination (examples: Boiling Springs, Savage Fen, wetlands that support wild rice, and others).
• There is continued clean and plentiful water for communities and visitors.
• Aquifers are recharged and replenish supplies faster than they are withdrawn; groundwater supplies are able to withstand the effects of climate change and population growth.
• Growth is supported by investments in efficient expansion within capacity limits and that don’t reduce funding to preserve existing infrastructure. 

To successfully achieve a sustainable water supply for the Southwest Metro subregion:

• All the voices are heard as community plans are made and implemented – so that the full range of diverse water supply needs are met. For example, Tribes are affected by all decisions. Always have Tribes at the table for planning and public comment.
• Water supply sustainability is managed and assessed at the aquifer level. Community planners know what water supply capacity exists locally and area-wide to support growth and related water demand, including information about water supply quality threats and projects for the future.  
• Tools and data are available (like monitoring networks and models), and people are confident in the information they provide to support education and decision making.
• Local water plan objectives and implementation strategies are aligned (for example, stormwater versus wellhead protection), and neighbors are aware of each other’s plans and those plans are compatible.
• Policies and organizational cultures support public water suppliers and communities to collaborate and share resources.
• There is strong public support for sustainable water supplies, based on everyone’s (private well owners’ and municipal customers’) understanding of where their water comes from and goes and its connection to food and other community needs.  
• Wasteful and harmful water uses are reduced.
• Communities, specifically the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, have the ability to self-govern.
• Plans extend for 7 generations (~150 years).
• Climate variability is considered when permitting.
• Water rates reflect the true value of the resource.
• Nonpotable water is used for industrial purposes wherever possible and released cleaner than it started.
• Water regulations are enforced for conservation and efficiency measures, water allocation priorities during emergency, water quality, and source water protection.

Issues and opportunities

Achieving the identified success will require addressing barriers as well as advancing opportunities across the full water supply picture.  

Several issues and barriers make planning for a sustainable water supply challenging in the Southwest Metro subregion. These include:

• There is still uncertainty and gaps in information for factors like climate, geology in buried bedrock valleys, and emerging contaminants, etc. Gaps in monitoring networks exist, so effectively guiding decision-making for resources like Savage Fen, Eagle Creek and Boiling Springs is challenging.
• Current approaches to outreach and education isn’t very hands-on or conversational. Tap into Indigenous people as educators who know history from a young age; they may lack academic credentials but will share personal knowledge.
• Partnering across jurisdictions can cause tension and reduce political desire to work together. Reasons for this can include supply needs differing from city to city, perceived loss of control (what if partnerships fail?), and lack of a strong reason for and value of partnerships. Cities shy away from Met Council trying to regionalize water supply, but there may be value to that.  
• There is an ongoing need to address large water supply users, including commercial pumping interests – both those who have been in the area a long time and new large water users who are looking to move to the area (for example, agricultural irrigators, bottled water businesses, and data centers).
• The current business model for water supply service is broken; it isn’t equipped to handle current and emerging water supply challenges and solutions. For example, water supply and wastewater are disconnected.
• Agency and legislative work is needed to reduce siloed decision-making, address regulatory barriers to new approaches, and support communities’ abilities to enact local controls that support sustainable water supplies. Currently, there is the perception that no one entity oversees groundwater sustainability at the aquifer level in the Southwest Metro. Some reasons for this may include perceptions that this may result in additional levels of government and expensive changes to infrastructure that provide little area-wide benefit.  
• Ongoing resources (money, staff) are needed for this work at the state, regional, and local levels for efforts like shifting to more ambitious water efficiency and getting local information back from planning processes.   
• Users of rural privately owned domestic wells need more support to ensure safe and adequate supplies.
• Current and future land uses are associated with increased water use and water quality risks. This includes urban and suburban growth, agricultural irrigation and fertilizer, manufacturing and industry (examples include Amazon, Shutterfly, and others near the Minnesota River). In some cases, contaminants may be present and released without regulation.
• Lakes, rivers, and groundwater are connected and impacted by industrial, power plant, and mining use.
• Multi-year droughts like we are currently experiencing continue to put demand on water supplies.
• Financial resources have not been secured for the full range of water supply planning work that has been identified. In addition, some groups may be affected financially by water supply planning programs legislation, or regulations. Addressing financial needs will require collaboration among agricultural businesses and their specific associations, commercial and industrial businesses, and politicians at all levels of government.  

Many things are already in place and working well for water supply planning and plan implementation in the Southwest Metro subregion. These programs, practices and other strategies should continue to be supported and improved. Examples include:

• Met Council and partners utilizing the ‘One Water’ approach in regional planning.
• Where data and tools are available, they add good value. This includes existing groundwater and surface water monitoring networks (sites and data infrastructure), regional groundwater model information, and forecasts of groundwater levels for presentations.
• Existing collaboration is working well. Examples include updating county groundwater plans, agreements in place among agencies and communities, communities working together to talk about water quality and supply requirements, regional water policy and technical committees, and communities cooperating on projects, plans, and sharing resources and water.
• Existing sustainable water projects and programs are successful. Examples include projects that optimize pumping to manage aquifer drawdown, reuse water for irrigation, install more efficient fixtures, detect lead, and improve water quality through prairie restoration.
• Connections between local/subregional/regional planning that has led to grants and funding and partnerships.
• Communities and their neighbors in the Southwest Metro subregion have well-trained staff and state-of-the-art infrastructure.
• Currently, many communities (such as the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community) are independently able to provide safe, clean water.
• Where employee retention is strong (such as the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community) it helps with community water values adoption.
• Conservation groups in the Southwest Metro are also helping protect water supplies in their own ways, such as Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, and Arbor Day Foundation, among others. 

Additional work is also needed, particularly to address the issues and barriers discussed above. Examples:

• Gaps in data need to be filled, particularly for domestic residential wells and for unique resources like Savage Fen, Eagle Creek, and Boiling Springs.
• Partnerships between local water supply leaders and state organizations like Clean Water Council and the Minnesota Department for Employment and Economic Development should be strengthened and leveraged.
• Collaboration on regional model updates and outreach should start up again and be continuously supported.
• Water planning and management should be approached from an aquifer scale. Policy is needed to protect surface water and groundwater. Regional water policy and technical committees should focus more on water supply and hydrology challenges.
• Support better approaches to water appropriation permitting. For example, allow better matches between source water quality to water use, and consider cumulative impacts.
• Strengthen local planning and local plan implementation tools to link energy and water planning and support more sustainable water conservation/efficiency practices (including at Homeowners Associations, for example).
• More information is needed about what is the most sustainable way to treat, produce, and distribute water.
• Communities in the Southwest Metro subregion should communicate with the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community and hire American Indian staff.
• Improve the feasibility/business case of using reclaimed wastewater. 

Prioritized focus areas and draft action plan

To achieve the shared description of water supply planning success in the Southwest Metro subregion by 2050, considering the known issues and opportunities, work should be focused in six general areas: partnerships, education and engagement, enhancing data and tools, evaluating and managing water supply system capacity, efficiency, and plan alignment. These subregionally identified focus areas also relate to the Metro Area Water Supply Advisory Committee’s proposed framework to achieve progress on regional goals (Figure 3.19). 

Figure 3.19: The framework for regional action 

Southwest Metro subregion focus areas generally fall across the framework steps. 

Partnerships

If work focusing on partnerships is successful, in 10 years there will be ongoing regional communication and cooperation among the communities, conservationists, watersheds, and businesses of the Southwest Metro subregion on all efforts related to securing the future water supply. No community in the subregion will be an outlier in terms of its approach to water conservation or water supply planning. Water supply planning and conservation efforts will be coordinated and tap into the knowledge and experience of the Indigenous community. 

Education and engagement

If work focusing on education and engagement is successful, new water supply management-related technology will be understood and wanted – trusted – by citizens and their local governments. This work will tap into the knowledge and experience of the Indigenous community. People will also understand, seek out, and implement opportunities to reduce water through landscape practices. 
In 10 years, government staff and citizens should have access to and take part in more water supply education. Educational resources should tap into real world metro region examples (like White Bear Lake) and should with start young audiences. This will lead to changing expectations and habits.

Evaluating and managing water supply system capacity

If work focusing on evaluating and managing water supply system capacity is successful, we will understand what the most significant impacts to our water supply are, how they impact rural versus urban areas, the best areas for privately owned wells, and if a shift to shared resources and a regional supply makes sense (is it an economically sustainable model for areas with municipal sewer and water services?) As part of this work, we will finally figure out how to successfully retain, monitor, and infiltrate water on the landscape land to supply the aquifers. This supply will provide for and maintain a capacity and quality of water that is self-sustaining for future generations. Water supplies will be able to withstand the effects of climate change and population growth.

In 10 years:

• Consensus among local governments in the county as to what our system capacity is, including potential impacts to townships with reliance on wells over the long term.
• Reduced consumption 
• Reuse (stormwater is the most practical)
• Recharge 
• Plain language communication 
• Smart salting to reduce chloride levels in water for future reuse
• Active working plan in place for the goal of Water for All, with some regulation related to ag land tiling discharge and city stormwater discharge to nearby ravine and waterways with possibility for more holding ponds and water retainage

Efficiency 

If work focusing on efficiency is successful, public water supply systems will see fewer extremes between winter and summer use because of a change in the perception of traditional green lawn being better than other ecological landscapes.

In 10 years:

• Building and development codes are designed to prioritize efficiency rather than just allow or permit.
• Resources are available for communities to maintain green infrastructure.
• Better yard and lawn management is widespread (smart irrigation controllers).
• It’s easy for landowners to take advantage of funding and technical resources.
• There are increased opportunities for water reuse (to reduce pressure on existing sources).
• Prairie and natural areas are restored and protected.
• Conservation measures are promoted, specifically measures to curtail summer demands. How can we make a bigger dent on reduction and by approaching larger water users to look at reuse potential, etc.? 
• Develop a program to approach homeowners associations and commercial property owners and look at their irrigation demands. This might make a bigger dent as we have more control versus individual users.

Plan alignment

If work focusing on plan alignment is successful, in 10 years:

• There will be funding for groundwater planning.
• There will be useful plans.
• Comprehensive plans that are approved or accepted across state agencies especially for grants and funding such as city local water plans (submitted to Met Council and DNR) being accepted by the Board of Water and Soil Resources for Clean Water Fund Grants.
• Prairie and natural areas are restored and protected. 

Actions to support success

In late 2023 and early 2024, Southwest Metro subregional stakeholders identified several potential actions to address each of their focus areas. Table 3.8 below includes proposed actions, in the words of the subregional stakeholders who drafted them. While the focus is on work needed over the next 10 years, some actions are expected to be ongoing over the next 25 years or more.  

This action plan is intended as a high-level, long-term, collaborative planning tool. A refined work plan is expected to develop as collaboration gets underway and depending on resource availability. It is possible and expected that new actions may emerge as important steps that need to be taken in subsequent years.

Many different people and organizations are expected to be involved in the Southwest Metro subregional water supply work. Table 3.8 identifies a few examples that were identified by stakeholders in 2023 and 2024, but this list is incomplete. For example, as Scott County’s Groundwater Plan is developed, the county will have an important role to play to ensure that efforts are not being duplicated and that clear roles are identified for potential partners within the county’s jurisdiction.

The Met Council is committed to convene and support work planning and implementation for the Southwest Metro subregional water supply group (see the regional action plan in Table 3.2). Early work is expected to include revising and prioritizing actions and defining roles in more detail. 

West Metro subregional water supply action plan 

Figure 3.20: West Metro Subregion water supply planning area

Communities depicted in a color other than blue overlap in multiple subregions. Data source: Water Supply Planning Atlas by the Met Council 

Water supply context and current conditions 

Everything that happens on land impacts water, and water is all connected. Communities in the West Metro subregion rely on sufficient, reliable, and safe water supply for health and prosperity – now and for future generations; it is a fundamental human right.  

The West Metro subregion (Figure 3.20) spans a large area of the metro, stretching from the near western suburbs bordering Minneapolis and the communities around Lake Minnetonka to the more rural areas of western Hennepin and Carver counties. Water resource and supply system challenges exist in all communities and are as diverse as the areas the West subregion spans.  

The majority of communities in western Hennepin and southern Carver counties do not have public water supply systems. In those communities, residents and businesses operate privately owned wells to get their drinking water. In rural centers and denser, more suburban areas of the subregion, communities operate municipal community public water supply systems that utilize groundwater aquifers. Most communities with these municipal water supply systems have access to the Prairie du Chien and Jordan aquifers, but those sources dwindle as you move west through the subregion. Minneapolis provides surface water to some bordering suburban communities to serve specific neighborhoods or supplement local groundwater supplies.

This subregion is also home to a number of natural features that serve important social, cultural, and economic functions, including the Minnesota and Crow Rivers, Lake Minnetonka, Minnehaha Creek, and other streams and wetlands. Many of these features are connected to groundwater aquifers and supported by upwelling groundwater. A secure water supply is also necessary for the function of these local ecosystems.  

Additionally, 39 of the 44 communities in the West Metro subregion overlap with or are adjacent to land that has been identified as a Drinking Water Supply Management Area. In some cases, the overlapping nature of these management areas has presented both a challenge and opportunity for collaboration across community boundaries.  

Overall water use peaked in the mid-to-late 2000s. Since then, communities have continued to grow, but overall water use has decreased slightly. Increases in efficiency and wetter summers have likely led to this demand reduction. However, recent droughts and growth have led to a significant increase in water use. The water supply industry is likely to continue to encounter new impairments and other outside risks to a sustainable water supply, including those posed by climate change.

With the region as a whole expected to grow by more than 600,000 people by 2050, the West Metro subregion will continue to see growth. Current estimates suggest that approximately 155,000 more people will be added to the area. As the West Metro subregion continues to grow, more people will rely on municipal community public water supplies for their water needs. To deliver service to more homes and businesses, communities may need new infrastructure like additional wells and new service lines. Expansion of water supply systems comes with costs and is not without financial, social, or environmental risk.  

As growth in the West Metro subregion occurs under a climate continuing to change, alongside continual emergence of new impairments and risks, it is important to plan and collaborate to ensure there is sufficient, reliable, and safe water supply for people, the economy, and the function of local ecosystems. 

The West Metro chapter of the Water Supply Planning Atlas contains more details.

Stakeholder-defined vision of success for water supply planning in the West Metro subregion

Water supply planning in the West Metro subregion is successful if it achieves these shared goals: ​

• The quality and quantity of source waters is protected.
• Water is conserved and used efficiently​.
• Water supplies support public health and safety for everyone.​
• Responsible growth is supported by reliable and adequate local supplies.​

The following are needed to successfully achieve those goals in the West Metro subregion: ​

• Public trust and buy-in from Minnesota’s water agencies in planning, implementation, and enforcement​
• Shared, aligned policies and goals across communities and between local, regional, and state organizations​
• Consistency across systems, including public communications​
• Understanding that every city is different in its needs and how implementation happens​ 

Issues and opportunities 

In the West Metro subregion, several issues and related opportunities exist related to water supply planning. For example: 

• To address the challenge of cost and affordability, there may be opportunities to expand funding sources, explore how development can help pay for the water supply to support it, and to leverage new technologies. 
• To address the challenge of PFAS, there are evolving treatment opportunities that could be explored. 
• To address the challenge of public buy-in, there are opportunities for daily contact with communities and for strong emergency response. 
• To address the challenge of making meaning of science at a system scale, there are opportunities to provide technical assistance, plan across community boundaries, leverage industry standards, and lower barriers to test water. 
• To address the challenge of stewardship of expensive infrastructure, there are opportunities for asset management, ISO 55000, IAM, and securing reliable funding. 
• Opportunity to investigate new funding sources, approaches to water rates.  

Prioritized focus areas and action plan 

The following pages reflect an action plan drafted by participants in a subregional water supply planning workshop series. It is possible and expected that actions not reflected here may emerge as important steps needed to be taken in subsequent years. This list, therefore, is a reflection of what was being considered in late 2023. The list has been roughly organized according to the Metro Area Water Supply Advisory Committee’s 2022 proposed framework to achieve progress on regional goals (Figure 3.21). 

Figure 3.21: The framework for regional action 

West Metro subregion focus areas generally fall across the framework steps.

Relationships among water supply managers and planners 

Without a unified comprehensive plan and water supply plan that realistically includes the often-unforeseen or incompletely described water supply needs, communities will ultimately face challenges or conflicts in priorities between public works and community development goals. 

If work in this area is successful, in 10 years:

• Water supply stakeholders share a collaborative and mutual goal towards sustainability and water quality. There are clearly defined roles for agencies (DNR, MPCA, MDH, Met Council).
• There is a better tie between water supply and growth/land use chapters of comprehensive plans.
• There is a central program/software/website for suppliers to enter information and allow agencies to pull the information that they need (instead of suppliers submitting the same information to 2-5 agencies). 

Asset management and stewardship by public water systems 

The life cycle of water infrastructure is multigenerational, and successful management depends on workforce culture and business practices that are long-term focused. Asset management is a high priority for public water suppliers in the West Metro subregion, because asset management and how growth plays out limit new infrastructure.

If work in this area is successful, in 10 years:

• A state-side asset management program or policy helps identify critical water supply infrastructure that has high-risk needs.
• Local water suppliers have less need for peak capacity infrastructure, because people conserve more (demand planning and demand control). 
• We know what we have, what condition it is in, and what needs to be done next to keep the system running long into the future. 
• Policies and procedures are in place serving as a formal asset management plan. 

Making meaning of science 

A shared understanding of water supply conditions, based on data collected at all levels, supports policies and regional planning that results in the protection of the resource and the public. 

If work in this area is successful, in 10 years:

• There is a metro-wide dashboard/database managed by Met Council to directly inform regulatory reports (for example, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s Wastewater Infrastructure Needs Survey, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources’ water appropriation permits, Minnesota Department of Health, Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency’s emergency response plans, etc.).
• People with a wide variety of perspectives and expertise work together to collect and share data (different geographies; state, regional and local levels; practitioners and public). 
• Objective, reliable, and understandable data is collected (quantity, sustainability, resilience, meets local needs, public safety, stewardship).
• Information collected is usable. 
• This data guides and informs policy for resource management, development, and land use .
• There is communication and sharing of the data (accessibility, uniform database). 

Water conservation 

Water is a finite resource, and efficient use can help minimize the need for new investment in water supply infrastructure and protect natural resources which can be impacted by water levels.

If this strategy is successful, in 10 years:

• Triggers, outreach, and actions for drought response will be developed and implemented across the region, taking into consideration different water sources and users.
• Per capita water use will be reduced.
• Existing permit pumping limits will be consistently enforced.
• Use of grey water will increase.
• Communications about water restrictions will be improved so that suppliers and users understand them. 

Increased resiliency to the effects of extreme weather, drought, flooding 

The combination of extreme weather conditions and water demand (primarily from groundwater sources) requires coordination of ordinances, education, and enforcement to ensure adequate water supply during these times.

If work in this area is successful, in 10 years:

• Groundwater withdrawals for nonpotable use are minimized.
• There are fewer identified contaminants in the water supply. 
• There is more reuse.
• There are fewer instances of water use restrictions than today.
• There may be increased surface water use/storage.
• There is less irrigation across the board.

Meeting demand for current needs and future growth 

Strong partnerships are needed to create and support a consistent and streamlined approach to meeting growth demand objectives, recognizing any limits on water availability and based on a foundation of local water quality health.

If work in this area is successful, in 10 years:

• The planning process will be improved by starting with a focus on local water health, then getting input from regulators, then working on planning/land use, then development. A consistent and streamlined approach to meeting growth demand objectives, based on a foundation of healthy water supply, will be created.
• There will be a better educated population. 

Water quality 

Protecting water from contamination from existing and emerging contaminants protects public health and keeps costs low. Note: This includes agricultural contamination in surface waters, groundwater, and privately owned wells – water used for drinking, recreation, and other purposes.

If work in this area is successful, in 10 years:

• MDH, MPCA, DNR, and MDH are making progress to correct issues with contaminated groundwater and surface water.
• The scale of water quality treatment for groundwater and surface water is expanded to include small treatment plants and privately owned wells (particularly to address contaminants of emerging concern).  
• Contaminants don’t continue to get worse.
• Water suppliers are able to meet federal and state guidelines and regulations.
• The public trusts that water suppliers are distributing good quality water.
• Nitrate applications are limited to reduce nitrate pollution.  

The following resources are included in action plans for the priority focus areas above: 

FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS

Funding should be a focus because proper funding for the management of a public water supply system is critical. A priority for funding should be how to fund changing regulations and emerging contaminants.

COMMUNICATION AND EDUCATION

Clean water is a finite resource, and everyone plays a role in protecting it. When people understand their water sources, how they impact them, and how their utilities work to keep them safe, they are more likely to trust their water suppliers. Utilities that consistently earn and maintain the public trust over time will more effectively respond to future needs such as unregulated contaminants, because the public will feel the utility is making good decisions in the public’s interest. If communication and outreach is successful, cities will not have to be the heavy hand, because residents will make better choices. 

Actions to support success

In late 2023 and early 2024, West Metro subregional stakeholders identified several potential actions to address each of their focus areas. Table 3.9 below includes proposed actions, in the words of the subregional stakeholders who drafted them. While the focus is on work needed over the next 10 years, some actions are expected to be ongoing over the next 25 years or more.  

This action plan is intended as a high-level, long-term, collaborative planning tool. A refined work plan is expected to develop as collaboration gets underway and depending on resource availability. It is possible and expected that new actions may emerge as important steps that need to be taken in subsequent years.

Many different people and organizations are expected to be involved in the West Metro subregional water supply work. Table 3.9 identifies a few examples that were identified by stakeholders in 2023 and 2024, but this list is incomplete. For example, Carver County’s Groundwater Plan includes several actions similar to those identified in Table 3.9, and the county will have an important role to play ensuring that efforts are not being duplicated, and that clear roles/potential partnerships are identified within the county’s jurisdiction.

The Met Council is committed to convene and support work planning and implementation for the West Metro subregional water supply group (see the regional action plan in Table 3.2). Early work is expected to include revising and prioritizing actions and defining roles in more detail.