Washington County adopts 2025–2035 groundwater plan after multi-year review

The Washington County Board of Commissioners voted unanimously to adopt the Washington County Groundwater Plan 2025–2035, a county-led, 10-year framework to protect groundwater quality and quantity across the county.

The plan, presented by Jessica Colin Polarski, senior planner in the Department of Public Health and Environment (PHE), lays out four goals: ensure groundwater is safe to drink, maintain sufficient groundwater quantity, increase resident and business education about groundwater, and improve governance and coordination among local and state partners. The board approved a resolution adopting the plan after the Board of Water and Soil Resources approved the draft on June 25, 2025.

Why it matters: Washington County’s drinking water is supplied entirely from groundwater. The plan addresses competing water uses—domestic, commercial, industrial and agricultural—while identifying known contamination issues, including PFAS, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrates. The plan connects to other county and regional documents including the county comprehensive plan, the solid waste management plan, watershed plans and Metropolitan Council water planning documents.

County staff described a multi-step review process: workshops beginning in June 2023, three joint Groundwater and Technical Advisory Committee meetings, a public workshop in August 2024, an informal two‑week review that produced 82 comments from eight partners, a required 60‑day review that produced 101 comments from 14 partners, a public hearing on Feb. 18, 2025 (two well‑drilling community members spoke in person), and a 45‑day agency review that led to additional edits. Staff also said Metropolitan Council comments were incorporated and that the final draft was approved by the Board of Water and Soil Resources Central Region Committee and full board in June.

Key elements of the plan: chapter organization aligned with state statutory requirements, resource and land‑use summaries, and a Chapter 2 of goals, strategies and action tables. Staff added a proposed action to explore collecting additional groundwater level data with willing local partners and an action to “explore” potential delegation of well permitting and inspections from the Minnesota Department of Health to the county (delegation is permitted under Minnesota Statute 103B.255 but would require further analysis and a future board decision).

Public health and PFAS: Commissioners pressed for clarity on health studies and long‑term effects of PFAS exposure. Public health director David Brummell said the county has been promoting recruitment for the University of Minnesota’s 10,000 Families Study (started in 2017) to help build longitudinal evidence on PFAS and other contaminants; he said he would follow up with the board on expected timelines for first health results. Brummell also said the county has sought state funding for health studies but noted that the county’s allocation of opioid‑settlement-style environmental funds is limited to environmental uses and cannot be repurposed for health research.

Statutory review and next steps: County staff reminded the board that Minnesota Statute 103B.255 requires a 60‑day review, a public hearing, subsequent agency review and submission to the Board of Water and Soil Resources; after the state board’s approval, the county must adopt and implement the plan within 120 days. With the board’s adoption, staff said they would move into implementation and monitor opportunities for plan amendments if new policy or science warrants earlier changes.

Board action and vote: Commissioner Maron moved adoption of the resolution; Commissioner Begum seconded. Stephanie (clerk) read the resolution, which cites Minnesota Statute section 103B.255 and documents the review timeline and approvals. A roll‑call vote recorded five ayes and the resolution passed.

What remains open: staff said many implementation actions will require funding, partner coordination and additional data collection. The plan includes general outcome measures but not specific numeric targets for all actions; staff said performance targets will be developed through the implementation phase. The plan’s action to explore delegated well authority is explicitly exploratory and would come back to the board with analysis that evaluates impacts on well drillers, residents and county operations.

Commissioners asked staff to schedule a work session to review national and state health studies and other evidence about PFAS and similar contaminants; staff agreed to follow up and to provide the public feedback summary referenced during the plan process.