Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.
•••
Despite its outstanding record in providing safe and sufficient drinking water for customers on public water systems, Minnesota is to be congratulated in developing a (draft) Drinking Water Action Plan (DWAP) that acknowledges future pressures. These include: aging infrastructure, climate change, shifts in the demography and distribution of Minnesotans, and emerging risks from contaminants and pathogens. The time scale is 10 years.
The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) has taken the lead in the process. It has consulted widely among professionals and is now asking for feedback from all by Oct. 17 (tinyurl.com/mdh-drinking-water). I have been pleased to be part of the discussions from the start.
The DWAP is comprehensive and clear.
But there are four important omissions that are linchpin for delivery of the rest and so need reconsideration.
First, drinking water is a complex interconnected system — so the policy framework needs to reflect this. In Minnesota, there are at least six state agencies involved in drinking water policy, not all of which have drinking water as their primary responsibility. Under these circumstances key issues can fall between the agency silos. This is what happened with nitrate contamination from agricultural production in southeastern Minnesota, prompting the intervention of the federal Environmental Protection Agency last year. The Minnesota Department of Agriculture leads on regulating fertilizer application. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency leads on groundwater protection. The MDH leads on the supply of safe drinking water. Integration and unambiguous leadership are essential for effective delivery. This is not yet part of the DWAP.
Second, stakeholder representation should be more explicit in the action plan. Just because the issues are complex and involve difficult trade-offs — for example, between removal of contaminants to increasingly lower levels, costs of treatment and ability to pay — there has to be more participation of those affected by the decisions in making decisions. This will be challenging because of the technicalities, and the decisions may be polarizing. Public confidence in drinking water will, nevertheless, depend importantly on developing a system that is able to balance preferences transparently and fairly.