The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6.h. MetCouncil Water Policy Review4ROSEMOU T EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL City Council Regular Meeting: March 17, 2015 AGENDA ITEM: Metropolitan Council Draft Water AGENDA SECTION: Resources Policy Plan Review Consent PREPARED BY: Andrew J. Brotzler, PE, Director of Public AGENDA NO. Works/City Engineer ATTACHMENTS: Proposed comment letter APPROVED BY: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to authorize the execution and submittal of a comment letter to Metropolitan Council on its Draft Water Resources Policy Plan. BACKGROUND The Metropolitan Council has prepared a Draft Water Resources Policy Plan and is accepting public comments through March 20, 2015. The attached proposed comment letter has been prepared for City Council consideration to submit to the Metropolitan Council. A copy of the plan is available online at www.metrocouncil.org/Wastewater-Water/Planning/2040-Water- Resources-Policy-Plan. SUMMARY It is recommended that Council authorize the execution and submittal of the attached comment letter. G:\Water\Southeast Groundwater Group Information\20150317 CCRM-Met Council Water Resource Policy Plan Comments.docx 4 ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA March 17,2015 Mr.Adam Duininck, Chair Metropolitan Council 390 Robert Street North St. Paul,MN 55101 Re: Draft 2014 Water Resources Policy Plan for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Region Dear Chair Duininck: On behalf of the City of Rosemount and City Council, thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Metropolitan Council Draft 2014 Water Resources Policy Plan for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Region. The goals and strategies that are identified in the plan related to wastewater, water supply and surface water planning, management and operation are important issues to the City of Rosemount. The City of Rosemount offers the following comments: General Comments: 1. The draft Water Resources Policy Plan has been released without the updated Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Master Water Supply Plan. Without this information,it is difficult to support the draft Water Resources Policy Plan,in particular the first bullet implementation strategy on page 19 that states: "(r)eview local water supply plans to ensure consistency with the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Master Water Supply Plan." 2. We appreciate the Met Council's use of terms such as 'an integrated water strategy' or integrating our roles in wastewater,water supply,and surface water', as there is an increasing concern that our groundwater use for drinking water and our discharge of wastewater to the surface water may not be a sustainable practice. 3. The draft Water Resources Policy Plan proposes to expand the Metropolitan Council's role in water resource planning beyond the statutorily defined roles and responsibilities creating a duplication of efforts already vested to State agencies and local governments. 4. The effect that the Metropolitan Council water supply planning and strategy development has on the local units of government that have traditionally been tasked with water supply should be recognized. The local governments have implemented funding mechanisms to build water infrastructure improvements and some of the strategies outlined would affect local governments'water supply jurisdiction as well as already established financial assets. 5. Water Resource Concerns and Water Policy do not follow typical jurisdictional boundaries and it is important to acknowledge the existence of State-Wide agencies that currently have jurisdiction over Water Resource Policy. There is a concern that the Met Council may be duplicating Water Resource Policy efforts with agencies that have the authority to enforce State-Wide policy (MnDNR,MPCA,MDH, and Various Watershed Districts). What SPIRIT OF PRIDE AND PROGRESS Rosemount City Hall • 2875 145th Street West • Rosemount, MN 55068-4997 651 -423-441 1 • TDD/TTY 651 -423-621 9 • Fax 651 -423-5203 www.ci.rosemount.mn.us Mr. Adam Duininck March 17,2015 Page 2 additional benefit would there be to include an additional regulatory agency within the Metropolitan Region? 6. There is a number of implementation strategies outlined in the plan; does the Met Council have a schedule for implementing these strategies? Local governments will be required to begin the comprehensive planning process in the next two years and how these strategies are implemented as well as Metropolitan Councils' timeline for implementation will be important for local governments to understand. 7. There are numerous implementation strategies identified throughout the plan that appear to have the potential to diminish the ability of local government units to control land use within their jurisdictions. The Plan should be developed to establish the Metropolitan Council's role to be the continued establishment of policy in consultation with local units of government. 8. Working toward"Sustainability of our Water Supplies" states that there are large industrial and agricultural demands in the region and particularly Dakota County. How will the Metropolitan Council engage these industrial and agricultural users in the discussion and development of sustainable water supplies? Specific Comments: 1. Page 17—states that the region can be roughly divided into six aquifer areas or subregions. The City encourages the Metropolitan Council consider the opportunities and constraints on in each subregion when evaluating the local water supply plans and discourages adoption of one size fit all strategies for the entire region. 2. Page 17—in the second Sustainable Water Supplies Implementation Strategies,please consider adding"and public,industrial and agricultural water demands" after"transcend community boundaries". 3. Page 18—Policy on Serving the Urban Areas: the Plan states that it will be used by the Metropolitan Council to support and plan;however,it seems as though the Plan cites other agency jurisdiction and State Statutes;it is not clear what role the Plan will have in the City's development of its comprehensive plans. 4. Page 42—Wastewater Reuse:The Minnesota Department of Health may need to be consulted when considering options for wastewater reuse as their jurisdiction may overlap the proposed use. This should be recognized in the WRPP as a challenge. 5. Page 42—Industrial and Irrigation Uses: The statement"Wastewater treatment with reverse osmosis to remove salts is very costly, and..."without additional evaluation appears to preclude continued evaluation and consideration for the enhancement of wastewater treatment for reuse. When considered with increasing concerns for water supply and water resources,the enhanced treatment of wastewater for different forms of reuse may be a cost- effective solution for the region. G:\Water\Southeast Groundwater Group Information\20150317 City Comments to MetCouncil re Draft 2014 WRPP Ltr final.docx Mr.Adam Duininck March 17,2015 Page 3 6. Page 42—Industrial and Irrigation Uses: Additional information should be added to support the statements that"Metro area industries have generally been successful with their own water conservation and reuse programs": and"There are very few high-volume industrial users of reused wastewater." It appears that there may be opportunities for the advancement of water conservation and reuse as initiatives in the metropolitan region and policies should be developed to support this. 7. Page 42—Industrial and Irrigation Uses: "Wastewater uses for irrigation are highly dispersed and seasonal, and account for approximately 20% to 30% of total water use." The intent of this statement is unclear and should be clarified. 8. Page 85—The Met Council should address how the Inflow and Infiltration goals are established and in what year each City can expect to serve as a baseline. To date, the Inflow and Infiltration goals have been established on a rolling average;however, this policy may need to be refined as Inflow and Infiltration concerns are continuing to decline. Thank you for your consideration of the above comments. We look forward to continuing to work with the Metropolitan Council as it develops the final Water Resources Policy Plan. Sincerely, William Droste,Mayor Rosemount City Council cc: Rosemount City Council Members Dwight Johnson, City Administrator G:\Water\Southeast Groundwater Group Information\20150317 City Comments to MetCouncil re Draft 2014 WRPP Ltr final.docx