State staff outline expanded wellhead protection area, grants and timeline for Goodhue

State environmental and health staff told the Goodhue City Council on Feb. 26 that the city’s drinking-water protection area has expanded and that the municipality must complete a more detailed Part Two of its wellhead protection plan to identify and adopt management strategies.

The presenters said the Part Two plan will inventory potential contaminant sources, adopt prioritized management strategies and must be largely implemented by the city and partner organizations. “The nice thing about having a well protection plan is that it does give you access to Minnesota Department of Health Grants up to $10,000,” the presenter Pat said, adding that those grants do not require a local match and can be used to support items identified in the plan.

Why this matters: the expanded Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DSMA) brings additional agricultural land and new townships into the city’s protection boundary, increasing the number of property owners and units of local government that must be engaged in education and outreach. Presenters said an expanded DSMA typically requires a more intensive inventory of potential contaminants where vulnerability is high, and that prevention is generally more economical than installing or maintaining treatment systems.

Presenters described the DSMA’s time-of-travel layers used for planning: a 200-foot inner wellhead management zone, an emergency-response area modeled as the area where groundwater contamination could affect the distribution system within about a year, and a broader 10-year time-of-travel protection zone. The wider area means the city and partners must inventory features such as above- and below-ground storage tanks, feedlots and other potential contaminant sources and consider management strategies across multiple land uses.

State staff addressed nitrate concerns raised by local testing. They said the Minnesota Department of Agriculture is investigating whether elevated nitrate levels reflect point-source events or widespread nonpoint sources. Presenters noted that the area has not reached certain regulatory benchmarks discussed in the meeting transcript (speakers referenced values of "seven" and regulatory triggers at "eight" during explanation), and they emphasized this uncertainty: the city’s next steps should be monitoring, inventory work, and voluntary best-management practices with landowners.

Presenters also recommended partnership with local Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs), Minnesota Rural Water and state agencies. They highlighted that local projects have successfully used the small state Source Water Protection grants and cited an example where one community obtained roughly $95,000 in implementation funds and nearly $992,000 in competitive funding over multiple years.

Timeline and next steps explained to the council included drafting Part Two (often done by a hired consultant), a local-government review period of 60 days after a draft, a subsequent roughly 90-day state review, and then implementation time — overall permitting and approval processes that can take about six months after the draft is complete. Presenters said the city’s consultant (ISG, identified in meeting packets) is already involved in planning for Part Two and that staff will schedule outreach meetings for property owners, townships and other partners.

The presenters urged regular well testing for private wells and ongoing coordination with DNR monitoring efforts. They closed by answering technical questions about deeper backup wells, blended supply options and how historic groundwater age indicators can inform vulnerability analyses.

The city did not take formal action on the plan at the meeting; staff and consultants will continue development of the Part Two draft and bring it back for local review and public hearing.