For Minnesota’s stormwater professionals, effective regulation increasingly depends on collaboration between municipalities, state regulators and industry partners, according to a panel of stormwater leaders at StormCon 2026.

The session, “State and City Perspectives on Stormwater Collaboration,” brought together John Paulson, administrator of the Minnesota Cities Stormwater Coalition (MCSC); Duane Duncanson, municipal stormwater program supervisor with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA); Randy Neprash, stormwater regulatory specialist with MCSC; and Rick Baird, environmental services coordinator for the City of Mankato.

The panel explored Minnesota’s MS4 permitting process, municipal capacity, enforcement, water quality goals and the ways cities can work together to address challenges that extend beyond individual jurisdictions.

A central theme was that collaboration should not simply mean communication between regulated communities and regulators. The panelists described a broader network that includes cities, state agencies, watershed organizations, agricultural interests and other partners.

A collaborative approach to MS4 permits

Neprash highlighted the MCSC as one of the more distinctive features of Minnesota’s stormwater regulatory landscape.

The coalition was established in 2002, at the beginning of the federal Phase II MS4 program, and includes roughly 120 to 130 member cities. Its role is to represent municipal interests while working with MPCA on stormwater regulations and implementation.

Neprash said the coalition's goal is not to obstruct regulation but to help make MS4 requirements “meaningful and manageable” for cities.

That philosophy is particularly important during Minnesota’s MS4 general permit renewal process. Unlike a conventional public notice process, Minnesota uses a preliminary “pre-public notice” stage that allows stakeholders to review and comment on preliminary permit concepts before MPCA releases the formal draft permit.

The approach gives municipalities and other stakeholders an opportunity to influence permit language while it is still being developed.

“We've always believed that partnership needs to be an equal partnership,” Neprash said, emphasizing the importance of municipalities having a meaningful role in shaping requirements that they ultimately must implement.

Minnesota's Clean Water Fund expands partnerships

Duncanson described how Minnesota’s Clean Water Fund has enabled MPCA to work beyond the agency’s core regulatory responsibilities.

The fund was established following the state’s 2008 Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment, which increased the state sales tax by three-eighths of 1%. The funding is dedicated to several areas, including a Clean Water Fund intended to protect, enhance and restore Minnesota’s lakes, rivers, streams and groundwater.

Since 2010, MPCA has received approximately $425 million from the Clean Water Fund, according to Duncanson.

The money supports activities including water-quality monitoring, TMDL development and implementation, chloride reduction, watershed restoration and maintenance of the Minnesota Stormwater Manual.

Duncanson noted that MPCA has completed more than 3,200 EPA-approved TMDLs and relies heavily on partners to translate those plans into actions.

The Minnesota Stormwater Manual is another example. The resource contains roughly 1,400 pages covering 24 broad topic areas and had about 80,000 views from 29,000 users during the 90 days preceding the presentation. About 90% of users were from the United States, with visitors representing all 50 states, while the remainder came from approximately 50 other countries.

Cities face different capacity challenges

One challenge discussed throughout the panel was the substantial variation among Minnesota's MS4 communities.

Minnesota's permitted communities range from major metropolitan cities to communities with fewer than 1,000 residents. Their staffing levels, technical expertise, budgets and political environments can differ significantly.

That makes a one-size-fits-all approach difficult.

Paulson said MCSC helps address the disparity by sharing information and tools, facilitating connections between communities and encouraging experienced stormwater professionals to work with newer staff.

The coalition is also developing programming for newer stormwater professionals who may be responsible for complicated MS4 programs early in their careers.

Peer-to-peer relationships can be particularly valuable, panelists said. A smaller community may not have the resources to maintain a large stormwater staff, but it can draw on the experience of neighboring communities or other MCSC members.

Paulson described collaboration as something that can occur at multiple scales, from individual practitioners sharing solutions to regional groups addressing common watershed challenges.

Enforcement remains a critical municipal responsibility

Baird brought the municipal perspective to the discussion, emphasizing enforcement and illicit discharge detection.

With three impaired rivers surrounding Mankato, Baird said his department places a strong emphasis on identifying and stopping pollution sources within the city's jurisdiction.

He recommended maintaining a strong illicit discharge program, documenting violations and following up with repeat offenders.

Training also plays an important role. Baird said he prefers in-person training when possible because it allows staff to interact directly with employees and determine whether the information is being understood.

Construction oversight was another area of concern. Cities need to ensure they have long-term access to stormwater BMPs installed as part of development projects. Otherwise, future development can make maintenance difficult or even impossible.

Baird also cautioned municipalities against relying too heavily on regional stormwater facilities to accommodate new development. While regional ponds may provide capacity for public infrastructure, adding large amounts of new impervious area without appropriate onsite treatment can create problems.

He also urged cities to verify that proposed treatment systems actually comply with MS4 requirements and that they understand where treated or recycled water ultimately discharges.

Collaboration can extend beyond municipal boundaries

The panel also examined situations in which water-quality impairments cross jurisdictional boundaries.

For cities addressing a TMDL, the pollutant source may extend well beyond the municipality. Panelists said regional collaboration becomes particularly important when multiple jurisdictions share a pollutant-reduction goal or waste-load allocation.

In those situations, the community or organization with the greatest capacity — whether through staffing, finances or the size of its responsibility — often takes a leadership role.

However, panelists said the strongest approaches involve regional engagement rather than a single community acting alone.

Minnesota's watershed districts can also play an important role. Neprash noted that watershed districts, which have existed in the state since the 1950s, provide another mechanism for coordinating water-resource management across municipal boundaries.

Nutrient pollution presents another example. Panelists acknowledged that agriculture needs to be part of broader conversations about phosphorus and nitrogen loading, particularly when sources extend beyond municipal jurisdiction.

Road salt and street sweeping show collaboration in practice

The panel also pointed to Minnesota's work on chloride reduction and street sweeping as examples of how research, regulation and municipal implementation can come together.

Paulson discussed the state's smart-salting efforts, including tailored training for different groups such as roadway crews, parks staff and facility operators. Anti-icing practices have also become an important tool for reducing the amount of salt needed to maintain safe winter surfaces.

Street sweeping is another area where Minnesota has invested in research and implementation. Science-based credit calculators allow municipalities to estimate pollutant reductions associated with their sweeping programs and better understand where sweeping can provide the greatest benefit.

The panel also touched on polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in stormwater sediment. Cities have dealt with contaminated sediment from stormwater basins for years, but are now looking at potential beneficial uses and disposal options while learning from approaches being used in other states and Canada.

Flexibility requires communication

A recurring discussion point was the tension between standardized MS4 requirements and the need for communities to address local conditions.

Panelists acknowledged that Minnesota's general permit provides flexibility, allowing communities to establish priorities and determine how they will meet broader requirements.

That flexibility can create challenges for both sides. Municipalities sometimes want prescriptive instructions that clearly establish what they must do, while regulators need to evaluate programs that may use different approaches to achieve similar objectives.

Duncanson said flexibility can make audits more difficult because programs are not necessarily identical from one community to another. However, panelists generally agreed that allowing communities to tailor their programs to local conditions is valuable.

Neprash argued that communication is essential, particularly when cities believe a requirement could create unnecessary costs for ratepayers.

His recommendation was straightforward: municipalities should participate in stakeholder discussions, learn how regulators approach the issue and make sure their concerns are communicated early in the process.

Agriculture remains a major challenge

The final audience question focused on agricultural contributions to phosphorus and nutrient pollution — an issue that can be difficult for MS4 communities to address through municipal regulation alone.

Panelists acknowledged that cities and regulators can encounter limits to their legal authority when major pollutant sources lie outside the MS4 system.

Some Minnesota communities have nevertheless begun working with agricultural producers, soil and water conservation districts and other partners to identify opportunities for nutrient reductions.

Mankato, for example, is pursuing a roughly $6 million project involving a wetland that could capture agricultural phosphorus and nitrogen before it reaches the Minnesota River.

Panelists also discussed nutrient trading and other watershed-scale approaches that could allow reductions to be achieved where they provide the greatest water-quality benefit.

Relationships are an infrastructure asset

The panel ultimately returned to the idea that stormwater collaboration can take many forms.

It can involve formal organizations such as MCSC, regional working groups, watershed districts, state agencies or simply two stormwater professionals calling one another to compare solutions to a problem.

Paulson said the relationships developed through these networks can help municipalities solve problems more quickly and avoid having every community develop its own solution independently.

For Minnesota's stormwater community, the panel's message was that effective collaboration does not eliminate regulatory disagreements or resource constraints. Instead, it provides a framework for working through them.

As Neprash put it, Minnesota's experience demonstrates the value of relationships between regulators and regulated communities, particularly when both sides recognize that they share responsibility for protecting the state's water resources.