Clean Water Council Meeting Packet August 17, 2020 · 2020. 8. 14. · Clean Water Council Meeting Agenda . August 17, 2020 . 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. WebEx Only . 9:00 Regular Clean

Clean Water Council Meeting Agenda

August 17, 2020

9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

WebEx Only

9:00 Regular Clean Water Council Business

• (ACTION ITEM) Agenda - comments/additions and approve agenda• (ACTION ITEM) Meeting Minutes - comments/additions and approve meeting minutes• (INFORMATION ITEM) Chair and Council Staff update• (INFORMATION ITEM) Policy Committee Update & Budget & Outcomes Committee Update

9:15 Introductions: Time to Get Re-Acquainted and Re-Connected!

• New member: Jordan Vandal• What are you working on with water?• How are you coping with COVID-19?• What are you looking for from the Council before the end of the year?

10:00 Budget & Outcomes Committee Process

• New Revenue Target for Clean Water Fund• Review of Draft Recommendations, Summary of Public Comment• Matching up Proposals to the Strategic Plan• SWCD Funding Options

BREAK

11:00 Policy Committee: Policy Statements for Council Review/Approval

• Chloride Reduction: De-Icers• Chloride Reduction: Water softening• Well Testing Disclosure at Time of Sale

11:30 Summary of State-Tribal Relations Training

• Paul Gardner• Remarks from Representative of the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council

12:00 Cultural Competence & Inclusion Plan: Objectives, Strategies, Methodology, Timeline

• Topics and audiences to engage• Capitol Region Watershed District Diversity Strategic Plan

MEETING DATES FOR 2020: September 21; October 19; November 16; Dec 21

POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING DATES FOR 2020: August 28; September 25; October 23; November TBD [falls on Friday after Thanksgiving]; December TBD [falls on Christmas Day]

wq-cwc2-20h

BUDGET AND OUTCOMES COMMITTEE DATES FOR 2020: September 4; October 2; November 6; December 4

Clean Water Council May 18, 2020 Meeting Summary

Members present: Rep. Patty Acomb, John Barten, Kevin Bigalke, Sen. Karla Bigham, Pam Blixt, Richard Brainerd, Gary Burdorf, Tannie Eshenaur, Kelly Gribauval-Hite, Bob Hoefert, Frank Jewell, Jen Kader, Holly Kovarik, Jason Moeckel, Jeff Peterson, Whitney Place, Raj Rajan, Victoria Reinhardt, Todd Renville, Glenn Skuta, and Phillip Sterner. Members absent: Steven Besser, Warren Formo, Rep. Josh Heintzeman, Rylee Main, Sen. Carrie Ruud, and Patrick Shea.

To watch the WebEx video recording of this meeting, please go to https://www.pca.state.mn.us/clean-water-council/meetings, or contact Brianna Frisch.

Regular Clean Water Council (Council) Business • May 18 meeting agenda with moving We Are Water presentation to end of meeting, motion for approval by Victoria

Reinhardt, seconded by Raj Rajan, motion approved.• April 20 meeting summary, motion for approval by Dick Brainerd, seconded by John Barten, motion approved.• Chair and Council Staff update

o There may not be meetings held in person at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) for some time, butthe meetings will continue online.

o The June 15 meeting may be a University of Minnesota (UMN) Forever Green Initiative field day hosted online.There may be some issues due to Covid-19 on campus for approval of this event, so it is still tentative at thistime.

o June 15 will also be a meeting in the afternoon to comment about the recommendations and Budget andOutcomes Committee (BOC) process.

o There is a staff member at the MPCA who provides 15% of their time to the Council in the Communications area.They can help the Council with interagency communication for the Clean Water Funds (CWFs), and to helpinform the public about the use of these funds. There is some ongoing work to see what options ofcommunication can be provided to the public. For example, the Minnesota State Fair will have a wall segmentfor information on the Clean Water Funds at the MPCA’s Eco Experience.

o The Legislature finished last night. There were a few items to mention. There will be a special session in June.The Legacy bill (from Senators Ruud and Lillie), put together a finance bill to make adjustments. It cut back onsome requests, and some of the Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council (LSOHC) funds were passed. The CWFswere not included. The House and Senate did not agree on including those CWF reductions in there. A specialsession could include these. The other option is to un-allot them, which would reduce administrative spending(outlined in memo included in packet). The state agencies have been meeting to go over reductions forprograms impacted by cuts. The reduction is about 7% (versus previous 25% estimate). A spreadsheet providesCWF reduction estimates. Additionally, there are some reductions to stretch out activities (slow down theprogress due to less funding). The state agencies are working hard to meet these budget targets.

o Council members should complete a Conflict of Interest form if that has not been done yet.

Policy Committee Update (Webex 00:28:00) • There will be a meeting on May 22. They will be going over their drafted policies including well testing at time of

sale. Everyone interested is welcome.

Budget & Outcomes Committee (BOC) Update (Webex 00:28:30) • The BOC will meet to have more detailed presentations and questions answered with the state agencies. That

process will continue. Recommendations are anticipated to be ready in August.

Agency Presentations for FY22-23 (full proposals will be at Budget & Outcomes Committee June 5th)

• Great Lakes restoration/St. Louis River Area of Concern (AOC), MPCA (WebEx 00:29:00)o The St. Louis River Area of Concern (AOC) is one of 43 AOCs on the Great Lakes. It is the second largest AOC. The

legacy impacts are from historic contamination and habitat loss, in comparison to modern impacts from non-compliance issues and new stressors on the land. They are looking at legacy contamination by municipal and

https://www.pca.state.mn.us/clean-water-council/meetings

https://www.pca.state.mn.us/clean-water-council/meetings

mailto:[email protected]

industrial discharges, which are remediation projects. They are also looking at legacy habitat loss from dredging and filling of aquatic habitat, which are restoration projects. The outcomes are to have actions that address the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, which ends with removal and delisting of beneficial use impairments (BUI). They have three remaining BUIs (out of nine). Next year, they are looking at removing more BUIs if their remediation projects remain on time. Once these impairments are removed, the AOC can be delisted. There are many state and local partnerships working on this AOC. They are using different funds to pair with the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative funds. Using the current project estimates, for every dollar of CWFs, they are able to match $13.40 in federal and other funds. These CWFs are important to the AOC. They demonstrate the local cost-share preparedness and provides Minnesota a competitive edge for funds at the federal level. They provide critical flexibility to maintain schedules. They generate additional federal funding for the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) services through in-kind services.

o No questions. • Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) (WebEx 00:36:00)

o The Reinvest in Minnesota (RIM) is land selected for enhancing fish, wildlife, and native plant habitats to reduce erosion and protect water quality. It is a part of the Minnesota State Statute 103F.515. It is an easement that may be permanent or of limited duration (minimum of twenty years). There are over 7,000 across the state. It is voluntary and incentive-based.

o Minnesota CREP is a ten year agreement with the federal farm service agency. The agreement was signed in 2017 and covers 54 counties (Southern and Southwest Minnesota). The agreement is focused on water quality and habitat benefits, and it covers three specific practices (buffers, wetlands, and wellhead protection). Since 2017, more than 24,000 acres are protected. Of the total CWFs received for this program, 90% have been used locally. In addition, these funds also provide significant leverage for federal funds.

Questions: o Do you have an idea of the relative balance between permanent and limited duration easements for the overall

program? Answer: A vast majority of the programs would be perpetual easements. The exception is the floodplain riparian buffer easements. At this time, we are flexible on the relative balance between the permanent and limited duration on that program as we have started to flush out what the program would look like. We have heard twenty or thirty year easements, which are more palatable with landowners.

o What are you anticipating for budget requests for the 22-23 biennium for these programs? For CREP specifically, how will the outcome of this session's bonding bill impact this number (assuming it is passed in a special session)? Answer: Ideally, we thought we would be done requesting CREP funding for support of this current request. Due to reductions, we can no longer say that. Comment: We are waiting to see the impacts of revenue reductions.

• Critical Shoreland Protection-Permanent Conservation Easements, BWSR (WebEx 00:42:30) o These are permanent conservation easements to protect lands adjacent to public waters with good water

quality, but threatened with degradation. The targeted areas are in the Pine, Crow Wing, and Rum River Watersheds. This also provides source water protection for communities along the Mississippi River, including the Twin Cities. There are 1,645 acres protected in easements under the program.

o No questions. • Riparian Buffer – Permanent Conservation Easements, BWSR (WebEx 00:48:00)

o Landowners statewide are eligible for easements in the Riparian Buffer program to help comply with the buffer law. Criteria include current land use, erodibility, and a priority in watershed plans, and water quality impairments. The easements are scored and ranked. Native perennial vegetation is required. The highest priority applications are funded. There are funds leveraged by the LSOHC for permanent easements. There are also long-term easement options available. Since 2010, they have 640 riparian buffer easements, totaling to 7,700 acres. s

o No questions. • Wetland Restoration Easements, BWSR (WebEx 00:52:00)

o Wetland restoration easements hold water on the landscape. These are statewide, permanent conservation easements and help restore the wetlands and associated uplands back to their natural hydrology. The criteria consider the water quality and quantity benefits, restorability, as well as prioritization in watershed plans. Proposals are scored and ranked, with the highest priority applications funded. They are also able to leverage

LSOHC funds. The CWFs have not historically funded the wetland restoration easements, but the CWF appropriations have funded all or a portion of 113 wetland restoration easements (5,163 acres) as part of CREP.

o No questions. • Buffer and Soil Erosion Law Implementation, BWSR (WebEx 00:59:00)

o This funding is used by Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs) for buffer compliance funding including: technical assistance to landowners, monitoring and tracking progress/compliance of buffers, as well as assistance in local enforcement action. Statewide, the Buffer Law compliance numbers for public waters (50 feet) have now exceeded 99%. It is estimated that more than 98% of all applicable parcels are in compliance of the Buffer Law. There remains thousands of parcels that are noncompliant and enforcement work is underway. This last 1% will be a lot of work and time consuming.

Questions: o Regarding the 1%, why is it more time consuming? Answer: It is spread out across the state. It takes time to go

out to the landowners to ensure that those parcels are enforced. • Grants to Soil and Water Conservation Districts, BWSR (WebEx 01:03:00)

o This has been a program that was directed to BWSR from the Legislature, to help the SWCDs capacity. Historically, it has provided $24 million to SWCDs to support increased capacity to address four resource concern areas: soil erosion, riparian zone management, water storage and treatment, as well as excess nutrients. The legislature set a cap on their spending for administrative costs at 1% (pass through dollars to SWCDs is 99%).

o No questions. • Accelerated Implementation Assistance and Grants, BWSR (WebEx 01:06:00)

o This is a program to enhance the ability of local governments statewide to accelerate on-the-ground implementation efforts. Activities funded through this program include engineering and technical assistance through 8 regional technical service areas (TSAs), technical training and certification, as well as the use of targeting tools.

Questions: o For most fiscal years, the pass through has been substantial. However, for FY20 it has been quite low. Is there a

reason for that? Answer: It is the start, and the $1.94 million has gone out to the technical service areas to date (for 2020).

• Conservation Drainage Management Grants and Assistance, BWSR (WebEx 01:10:30) o This grant program supports Drainage Authorities to target priority drainage water quality projects. It requires a

partnership between the Drainage Authorities and the SWCDs. In the past five years, BWSR has awarded 26 of these grants across the state. It is a competitive process involving ranking criteria. There is an interagency review team. It involves an approved work plan and reporting.

o No questions. • Surface and Drinking Water Protection/Restoration Grants, BWSR (WebEx 01:13:30)

o This is one of the largest CWFs allocations for BWSR. Historically, there is a consistent high demand with one proposal approved for every three submitted. This program involves interagency approval. BWSR worked with the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) for a sub-grant. They awarded $2.2 million to ten projects that were in townships with high nitrate levels or in highly vulnerable drinking water supply management areas. They also used $1 million for cover crop demonstrations to increase the use of cover crops and related tillage practices in targeted areas. Over the past decade, this program has resulted in over 11,556 conservation practices. It is estimated to have reduced 176,791 tons of sediment and 189,279 pounds of phosphorus reduced.

Question: o Regarding the $1 million to the SWCDs, is that total or for each? Answer: That would be total.

• Grants to Watersheds with Approved Comprehensive Watershed Plans, BWSR (WebEx 01:20:00) o This program provides non-competitive performance-based funding to fulfill comprehensive plans developed

under the One Watershed One Plan (1W1P) program or the Metro surface water management framework. The local government water roundtable created a white paper in 2016 that recommended non-competitive clean water. Guiding principles include: accountability, consistent with nonpoint priority funding plan, protection and restoration focus, a single work plan, as well as leveraged funds. BWSR has developed a set of measures to assure investments are being spent on activities that will yield the highest return on investment.

Questions:

o Does BWSR feel like this is successful getting this funding oust to these LGUs to get this work implemented? Answer: Yes. It has been successful.

o The current formula does not include a funding factor for groundwater and drinking water. Will the next round? Answer: That is a good question. The board has discussed this and will be looking at incorporating some kind of groundwater factor. At least exploring that option for future biennials.

• Measures, Results, and Accountability, BWSR (WebEx 01:38:30) o This program provides BWSR funding to perform state oversight evaluation, communicating results, grants

monitoring and reconciliation. o No questions.

• Water Legacy Grants, BWSR (WebEx 01:41:00) o This would be a new proposal requested by the Council. BWSR would manage competitive grants of up to

$50,000. This would be eligible for local, regional, state, tribal, and national organizations. It would be to restore and protect both surface and groundwater. There would be a priority to projects with multiple conservation benefits. These would need to be in line with the state approved, local management plans.

o No questions. • Enhancing Landowner Adoption of Cover Crops for Drinking Water and Groundwater Protection, BWSR (WebEx

01:42:00) o This would be a new program. In 2020, BWSR completed a cover crop demonstration program. This program

would provide support for the Minnesota Office of Soil Health. It would have grants for implementing conservation cover and reduced tillage practices. It supports efforts to reduce nitrogen loss and increase cover crops in drinking water protection areas across the state.

o No questions. • Nonpoint Source Restoration and Protection Activities, DNR (WebEx 01:43:30)

o This program appropriation covers three programs. One is to support the One Watershed, One Plan (1W1P) projects. They assign a DNR staff lead, and help identify the resource issues and convey this to the project process. They also use technical assistance with stream erosion problems and projects. There is also forest stewardship planning in at risk watersheds (which was cut in FY20-21). There is interest in continuing to do that work which can be scaled up.

Question: o When the DNR is inviting input for the 1W1P process, are the staff providing information on those in-lake

practices that might be needed, or is that being driven from the local groups? Answer: It is probably from both the local interests and the DNR resource issues. It is probably a combination.

• Color Infrared Imagery Analysis, DNR (WebEx 01:53:30) o This tool helps identify where there is perennial vegetation. This is a collaborative proposal working with

agricultural fields, to help track the buffer process. Although recommended by the Council, the funding for this program in the last two bienniums did not pass in the Legislature. It is estimated to be about $650,000 for the biennium. It would involve a 5-year cycle rotation around the state, using the spring before crops are planted or in the fall after the crops have been harvested. It would be automated and efficiency, and involve some IT support and one part time staff member to manage the contracts.

o No questions. • Freshwater Mussel Restoration, DNR (WebEx 01:55:30)

o Minnesota has a lot of impairments for water quality (i.e., nutrients, fecal coliform). Mussels play a significant role filtering those out. They filter out suspended particles, including phytoplankton, E. coli, detritus, and other inorganic particles. Aggregations of mussels create habitat, and they provide other ecosystem services. They are nature’s water filter. There are 50 species that live in Minnesota, but 60% are imperiled (mainly due to damaged rivers and degraded stream habitat). Survey data provides statewide information on mussel status and abundance to guide understanding and restoration of system health. The goal is to re-establish important ecosystem goods and services provided by mussels. This proposal is to restore mussel species in the system where they have been able to reconnect mussels to the habitats. The idea is to do a pilot in a few different watersheds around the state. There is an estimated budget, which can be scaled up. It may be one of the missing pieces to help move Minnesota closer to cleaner water.

Question:

o How dependent are the funds from CWFs? Answer: In the past the DNR has received grants from different areas. That has allowed this ongoing start up research to move forward. They are looking to supplement that work (to continue it) and grow the capacity to accelerate the restoration in the waters around the state. Some stability would help, and provide some long term stability to plan ahead.

• Culvert Replacement Incentive Program, DNR (WebEx 02:08:00) o One of the problems being addressed with impairments across the state is fragmentation. An analysis of 32

dams throughout Minnesota found that the number of fish species decreased, on average, by 43% upstream of the first complete barrier dam. The removal of dams (12) resulted in the return of an average of 67% of the absent species. Culverts often function in similar ways. There are often hundreds of culverts and crossings within the watersheds. The inventory of these culverts helps identify possible issues, and can be a part of the watershed work. There are new designs which can be better for the environment (versus just conveying water capacity). Taking a geomorphic approach helps the environment, habitat, and maintenance. The proposal is to provide an incentive program, to help locals realize the benefits of this new design and help them manage these after construction until they are able to manage on their own. They spend a little more at the start, but save on maintenance costs overall. Since 2014, they have assessed and modeled 31 sites around the state, with 6 sites constructed already. It works, there is a strong positive response, so this is to help accelerate it. If a 25% cost share is provided, there can be more counties interested to move in this direction. It is a jump start, not a forever concept.

Questions: o How are the project sites selected? Answer: There are various items that lead to this selection. Permit reviews or

issues that happen, provide opportunities to bring up this kind of project. Our hope is many of the projects can be identified by the 1W1P plans, from the inventory. Funding would go to LGUs.

o What is the cost increase? Answer: Our estimate is about 25%. o Can you do the models ahead? Answer: We have standardized models, but each site needs to be reviewed and

adjusted accordingly. Then the flood levels are agreed upon. • Technical Assistance Program, Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) (WebEx 02:20:00)

o The MDA is responsible for developing and promoting fertilizer best management practices (BMPs) and demonstrating practices to the agricultural communities. This popular program demonstrates practices to protect groundwater. The technical assistance program helps farmers implement the following actions: edge-of-field monitoring (includes Discovery Farms Minnesota), on-farm trials (including Nutrient Management Initiative program), and also support for impaired water process. The MDA works with many partners including universities, local governments, individual farmers and crop advisors, private industry, non-profits, as well as other state and federal agencies to continue this work. In addition, there is a lot of data collection, which helps steer more efforts. There is a lot of value that comes out of these programs, a lot of outreach and education, there are many computer simulations and tools being used. In addition, MDA and project partners have received more than 30 data requests. Overall, it is a very helpful program, connecting different partners across the state.

Question: o Do you know how many are not able to participate or are turned away in the NMI side-by-side trials? Answer: At

some point the program is closed, but there are about two dozen on a wait list before the program is fully closed. To estimate, maybe twenty side-by-side trials a year.

• Vegetative Cover and Soil Health, MDA (WebEx 02:34:30) o This was a one-time appropriation. Economically viable vegetative cover grown on targeted cropland acres will

address non-point source pollution on a large scale, providing significant water quality benefits to Minnesota’s water resources. State agencies have aligned around vegetative cover as a strategy to address water quality. The goal is to identify opportunities to increase planting of vegetative cover using a market-based approach so it can be grown profitably by farmers. The focus is on existing perennials, winter annuals, and cover crops. This also includes forages like alfalfa or small grains like oats, winter wheat, or rye. There are lots of examples of opportunities included. There will be a final report published in summer 2020.

o No questions • AgBMP Loan Program, MDA (WebEx 02:39:30)

o This is a program that provides low interest financing for practices that reduce pollution. Every practice supported has to have a water quality benefit. It is an effective and efficient revolving loan. It is provided through local LGUs and lenders. The loans can be up to $200,000 dollars. The timeline is ten years with 3%

interest. The CWFs are one of several funding sources. A recent summary reveals that they have done over 2,000 loans, financing over $25 million dollars. It is a statewide program. Farm clients still need financing, regardless of the economy. These can be used for certain septic issues, following regulatory requirements. There is a high demand for these loans.

Question: o What type of demand is there for the septic systems versus the farm clients? Answer: The investment has

supported both, and the demand for both is high. • Minnesota Agricultural Water Quality Certification Program (MAWQCP), MDA (WebEx 02:49:00)

o MAWQCP is ultimately a risk assessment for farmers, looking at every field, parcel, and crop impact to water quality; it is site specific. It is on a 10-year contract with the state of Minnesota (MDA, MPCA, BWSR, and DNR). It looks at the physical field properties, nutrient management, tillage management, pest management, irrigation management, drainage management, and conservation practices, among other items. They identify the risks, then they implement practices to help mitigate the risks. MAWQCP partners with many entities to help connect with as many growers as possible. The MDA, MPCA, DNR, and BWSR will incorporate MAWQCP in all watershed approaches and programs. The agencies honor the contracts, and include certified growers when implementing new laws or rules. They also have funding from a USDA-NRCS Regional Conservation Partnership Program, which was renewed again for a second 5-year, $9 million award to the MAWQCP. They also have a MDA-MAWQCP supplemental grant (max of $5,000). They are working to use any and all available sources of funding to help this program. The program outcomes have reached 875 certified producers, 603,752 certified acres, and 1,827 new practices, among many other outcomes.

Questions: o What is a typical cost for a grower to achieve certification? Answer: We don’t know that. We do not charge

anything, and we hope the certification reveals no costs for them. However, if they are implementing conservation it can require costs. Doing any physical structures there can be a cost to that. We can help finance (up to 75% of the costs for structural interventions) and help find other finance opportunities. In looking at the land, there is a lot more investments on the fields that the farmers are doing, which does not get recognized.

o Is the "Influence of Intensified Environmental Practices on Farm Profitability" report online somewhere? Answer: Yes: https://agcentric.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/MN-Water-Quality-Sort-First-Look.pdf.

• We Are Water, MPCA/MN Humanities Council (WebEx 03:16:00) o This traveling exhibit program is a partnership between statewide organizations (Minnesota Humanities Center,

Minnesota Historical Society, MPCA, DNR, MDA, and MDH) work to connect the state partners work with the host partners communities (6 total around the state). It works when the state partners are focused on learning from those communities. We Are Water works to facilitate this communication, specifically regarding what success would look like in the host areas for those communities. We Are Water Minnesota provides resources, connections, information, time, and those host communities do a bunch of activities in their area to build Minnesotans relationships and responsibilities with the water.

o They use an engagement and education approach. It is equity-based community engagement through the Absent Narrative Approach, where they are building the capacity of traditionally white-led institutions to work in communities of color and indigenous communities. It also provides a platform to amplify organizations that led by people of color or indigenous communities, so it works. They work to bring together local communities to protect and sustain water. They are educating the public about the water where they live, which is inspiring action. It helps create relationships between people, groups, and with the water. They work with planning members of Minnesota’s diverse communities to do this work.

o In the next biennium they are looking to have six host sites. They are looking to do some fundraising to have additional host sites. The Covid-19 pandemic has delayed the exhibit schedule. However, they have adapted to have online and outdoor options for people to visit the scheduled We Are Water Minnesota exhibits, in order to continue doing this program in the coming year. The University of Minnesota in Morris will have an exhibit starting in August.

o No questions. Adjournment (Webex 03:27:59)

https://agcentric.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/MN-Water-Quality-Sort-First-Look.pdf

Pro

gram

Age

ncy

Program Name [grey lines=no request for FY22-23] Purpose

FY

22

-23

BO

C R

ec

FY

22

-23

ICT

Re

qu

est

(ora

nge

=no

n-I

CT)

Pri

ori

ty s

et

7/1

0/2

0

FY

20

-21

CW

C R

ecs

FY

20

-21

Ap

pro

pri

ate

d

$ P

ass-

Thro

ugh

(FY

22

-

23

ICT

Re

qu

est

bas

ed

on

FY

20

-21

%)

% P

ass-

Thro

ugh

$$

Dir

ect

to

DW

$$

Ind

ire

ct t

o D

W

Stat

e F

TEs

in F

Y2

0-2

1

Stat

e F

TEs

FY2

0-2

1

Gre

ate

r M

N

80 BWSR Tillage, Cover Crop and Erosion Evaluation

Estimates soil erosion & tracks use of tillage BMPs &

cover crops. $ 723,000 2 $ 850,000 $ 850,000 $ 600,090 83% -$ -$

43 BWSR Technical Evaluation [restoration evaluation]

Conducts 10 tech evaluations of CWF projects annually.

Required by law. $ 84,000 1 $ 168,000 $ 168,000 $ - 0% -$ -$

57 DNR

Tool Development and Evaluation [Formerly Applied

Research and Tools]

LiDAR evaluation of water flow ("digital dams") &

forestry BMPs, and development of fine-scale watershed

models. $ 1,065,000 1 $ 1,400,000 $ 1,400,000 $ - 0% -$ -$ 2.30 0.00

59 DNR County Geologic Atlas Part B Develops Part B county-level groundwater atlases. $ - 1 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ - 66% -$ -$ 0.00 0.00

56 MDA Agricultural Research/Evaluation

Competitive grants to evaluate agricultural conservation

BMPs. $ - 2 $ 1,325,000 $ - $ - 87% -$ -$ 1.25 0.50

56 MDA

MN Water Research Digital Library [aka Research

Inventory Database]

MDA curates state's searchable "one stop shop" for

water research. $ 80,000 3 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ - 0% -$ -$ 0.60 0.00

81 MDA Forever Green Agricultural Initiative (U of MN)

Competitive R&D grants for crops providing continuous

living cover. $ 4,000,000 1 $ 3,300,000 $ 4,300,000 $ 4,000,000 100% -$ 2,000,000$ 0.00 0.00

27 MDH

Pathogen Project [formerly Groundwater Virus

Monitoring Plan]

Finds pathogen pathways into groundwater and

develops mitigation. Now part of Source Water

Protection. $ - 3 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ - 50% -$ -$ 0.00 0.00

60 MDH Water Reuse

Staff/stakeholder workgroup to implement report

recommendations for promoting safe water reuse. $ - 3 $ 550,000 $ 500,000 $ - 0% -$ -$ 0.00 0.00

82B UMN Stormwater Research and Technology Transfer Program

Competitive grants to research & evaluate stormwater

BMPs. $ 1,500,000 2 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,200,000 80% 750,000$ 750,000$ 0.00 0.00

61 UMN County Geologic Atlas Part A Develops Part A county-level geologic atlases. $ 1,000,000 1 $ 1,000,000 $ 500,000 $ - 0% 1,000,000$ -$ 5.00 0.00

NEW UMN Chronic Wasting Disease and Water Would research waterborne transmission of CWD. $ 1,378,219 1 $ - $ - $ - 0% 275,644$ 1,102,575$ 0.00 0.00

67 UMN Carp Management Research & evaluation of carp BMPs to reduce nutrients. 3 $ 500,000 $ - $ - 0 -$ -$ 0.00

10 MPCA River and Lake Monitoring and Assessment

Intensive monitoring in ~8 watersheds/yr & annual

pollutant monitoring @ 197 sites annually $ 14,697,723 1 $ 16,000,000 $ 16,300,000 $ 2,309,008 16% -$ -$ 52.70 17.00

11 MPCA Groundwater Monitoring and Assessment

Sampling & data analysis from network of 270 ambient

wells. $ 1,905,058 1 $ 2,363,000 $ 2,364,000 $ 666,770 35% -$ 952,529$ 6.50 1.00

9 MPCA

Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies

(includes TMDL development)

Develops data-driven strategies to meet water quality

goals in each of 80 watersheds. ~8-10/yr. Required by

law. $ 13,851,227 1 $ 16,100,000 $ 15,100,000 $ 5,467,590 39% -$ -$ 31.20 25.00

4 MDA

Monitoring for Pesticides in Surface Water and

Groundwater

Pesticide analysis @ MDA lab for risk assessment,

planning, BMPs; 650 samples/yr; also $2.5M/yr from

Pest Reg Acct $ 700,000 2 $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ - 0% -$ 350,000$ 2.29 0.00

307 MDA Pesticide Testing in Private Wells

Free pesticide testing for 90,000 wells in 300 priority

townships. $ 870,000 2 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 478,500 55% 870,000$ -$ 2.07 1.82

23 MDH Contaminants of Emerging Concern Develop health-based DW guidance for ~5 CECs/yr $ 2,400,000 1 $ 3,000,000 $ 3,400,000 $ 43,636 2% 1,200,000$ 1,200,000$ 0.00 0.00

74 MDH Groundwater Restoration and Protection Strategies

Completes GRAPS for 6-8 1W1Ps/yr; training; makes GW

data public $ 1,125,000 1 $ 1,300,000 $ 1,100,000 $ 219,886 20% -$ 1,125,000$ 2.00 0.00

24 MDH Source Water Protection

Completes DWSMAs, public water supplier grants;

planning; surveillance $ 6,360,400 1 $ 5,494,000 $ 5,494,000 $ 488,905 8% 6,360,400$ -$ 14.00 5.00

NEW MDH Microplastics

Collect & analyze ~300 water samples statewide; was in

CEC program in FY20-21; legislative initiative $ - 2 $ - $ - $ - 100% -$ -$ 0.00 0.00

18 DNR Aquifer Monitoring for Water Supply Planning

1,125 wells statewide; 50 new wells/yr; planning help;

tech assistance $ 3,700,000 2 $ 4,650,000 $ 4,150,000 $ - 0% 3,700,000$ -$ 11.00 7.00

6 DNR Fish Contamination Assessment

Hg/PCB fish testing in 1385 lakes/114 rivers; would add

PFAS $ 135,000 2 $ 270,000 $ 270,000 $ - 0% -$ -$ 0.00 0.00

6 DNR Lake Index of Biological Integrity

Fish/aquatic plant surveys in 495 lakes for stressors;

proxy for fishable $ 2,000,000 2 $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 $ - 0% -$ -$ 14.00 14.00

76 DNR Buffer Map Maintenance Determines compliance with buffer law. $ 50,000 3 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ - 0% -$ -$ 0.20 0.20

5 DNR Stream Flow Monitoring Program

Continuous monitoring at 172 sites for volume,

chemistry, sediment $ 4,000,000 1 $ 4,400,000 $ 4,000,000 $ 615,385 15% -$ -$ 15.00 15.00

10 DNR

Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies-DNR

Portion

Adds geomorphology, hydrology, connectivity data to

WRAPS process; supports Watershed Health Assessment

Framework (WHAF) tool $ 3,800,000 2 $ 4,032,000 $ 3,800,000 $ - 0% -$ -$ 17.00 15.00

92A MPCA National Park Water Quality Protection Program

Replaces failing septic systems polluting Voyageurs

National Park. $ 2,200,000 2 $ 1,550,000 $ 1,550,000 $ 2,200,000 100% -$ 1,100,000$ 0.00 0.00

62 MPCA Clean Water Council

Funds 2 FTEs, communications, planning, Council

member expenses $ 600,000 1 $ 220,000 $ 220,000 $ - 0% -$ -$ 2.00 0.00

69 MPCA Public Information Campaign Would better communicate outcomes of CWF to public. $ - $ 500,000 $ - $ - 0 -$ -$ 0.00

63 LCC Legislative Coordinating Commission Website

Supports upkeep of LCC site with CWF project info.

Required by law. $ 7,000 1 $ 9,000 $ 9,000 $ - 0% -$ -$ 0.00 0.00

312 UMN

Quantifying the multiple benefits of clean water

investments

Review CWF for equity; estimate WQ goal costs; add

climate to 1W1P. $ 190,000 1 $ 343,000 $ - $ 190,000 100% -$ 57,000$ 0.00 0.00

29 MPCA

St. Louis River Area of Concern - Remedial Action Plan

Implementation Manage cleanup of St. Louis River/Duluth harbor $ 1,500,025 2 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 900,015 60% -$ 3,750$ 0.90 0.90

NEW MPCA We Are Water MN

Traveling water exhibit & local engagement at six sites in

FY22-23. $ - 1 $ - $ - $ - 100% -$ -$ 0.00 0.00

43 MPCA Enhanced County inspections/SSTS corrective actions

County grants for more SSTS inspections & income-

based assistance. $ 5,481,819 2 $ 7,876,000 $ 6,750,000 $ 5,043,273 92% -$ 2,740,910$ 1.80 1.80

NEW MPCA Unsewered community assistance

County incentives to help unsewered communities plan

solutions. $ - 3 $ - $ - $ - 100% -$ -$ 0.00 0.00

37 MPCA

Accelerated Implementation of MS4 Permit

Requirements

Technical assistance to cities to help comply with

stormwater permit. New general permit coming. $ 400,000 2 $ 450,000 $ 400,000 $ - 0% -$ -$ 1.00 0.00

38 MPCA Chloride Reduction

Tech assistance & grants to public entities to meet

chloride TMDLs. $ 524,053 1 $ 600,000 $ 500,000 $ - 0% -$ 131,013$ 1.00 0.00

39 MPCA NPDES wastewater/stormwater TMDL implementation

Adds stormwater & wastewater data to WRAPS; includes

TMDLs in permits; supports pollutant trades; maintains

MN Stormwater Manual $ 1,803,520 2 $ 1,800,000 $ 1,800,000 $ - 0% -$ -$ 5.95 0.00

7 PFA Point Source Implementation Grant (PSIG) Program

Municipal water treatment facility upgrades to comply

with TMDLs. $ 16,732,000 1 $ 18,000,000 $ 18,000,000 $ 16,732,000 100% -$ -$ 0.00 0.00

41 PFA Small Community Wastewater Treatment Program

Grants & loans to replace failing SSTS with community

SSTS. $ 200,000 1 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 200,000 100% -$ -$ 0.00 0.00

35 MC Water Demand Reduction- Efficiency - Grant Program

Metro city grants to replace inefficient residential

fixtures/sprinklers. $ 500,000 3 $ 1,000,000 $ 750,000 $ 500,000 100% -$ -$ 0.00 0.00

42 MC

Metropolitan Area Water Supply Sustainability Support

Program

Tech support to communities to use groundwater more

efficiently. $ 1,837,500 2 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 1,102,500 60% 1,378,125$ 459,375$ 3.00 0.00

17 MDA Irrigation Water Quality Protection

Funds irrigation UMN staff to educate on irrigation & N

BMPs. $ 270,000 1 $ 770,000 $ 300,000 $ 270,000 100% -$ -$ 0.00 0.00

15 MDA Nitrate in Groundwater

Support new N rule: 700-900 well tests/yr; 2 UMN

extension staff for BMP education & adoption; local

advisory teams; 7 BMP demo sites. $ 5,170,000 1 $ 5,170,000 $ 5,170,000 $ 1,500,000 29% 5,170,000$ -$ 11.00 4.00

32 MDA Technical Assistance

25 edge-of-field WQ monitoring sites; 100 farm

demonstration plots/yr; 150 events for 3,000 partners $ 3,000,000 1 $ 3,250,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 661,333 22% -$ 750,000$ 7.00 3.30

34 MDA AgBMP Loan Program

2,000+ Loans: Conservation tillage, septics, erosion

control, ag waste $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ - 0% -$ 75,000$ 0.50 0.00

33 MDA MN Agricultural Water Quality Certification Program

Tech assistance for 900+ farmers to adopt BMPs with

verified results. $ 6,000,000 1 $ 6,000,000 $ 6,000,000 $ 4,200,000 70% -$ 3,000,000$ 5.70 0.50

37 MDA Vegetative Cover and Soil Health

Remove obstacles to accessing markets for crops that

support WQ. $ 150,000 $ - $ - 31% -$ -$ 0.00

40 MDH Drinking Water Protection

Develop State Drinking Water Plan; implement Future of

DW report. $ 500,000 2 $ 300,000 $ 500,000 $ - 0% 500,000$ -$ 0.25 0.00

51 MDH Well Sealing Cost Chare

Sealing of unused public and private wells; now

absorbed into BWSR. $ 500,000 $ - $ - 0 -$ -$

NEW MDH Recreational Water Portal

Statewide recreational water testing portal to access

testing results, beach closures, and educational info. $ - 3 $ - $ - $ - 0% -$ -$ 0.00 0.00

9 MDH Private Well Protection

Studying contaminants in wells; outreach to 1.2M well

users to test and address contaminants. $ 1,725,000 1 $ 1,700,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 276,000 16% 1,725,000$ -$ 2.75 0.00

34 DNR Non-point Source Restoration and Implementation

Regional office tech assistance for 85 projects/yr

prioritized in 1W1P. $ 2,600,000 2 $ 2,400,000 $ 2,000,000 $ - 0% -$ -$ 6.50 6.50

45 DNR Color Infrared Imagery and Analysis

Monitor 1/5 of state/yr for 5 years for tracking perennial

cover/buffer $ - 3 $ 650,000 $ - $ - 0% -$ -$ 0.00 0.00

NEW DNR Freshwater Mussel Restoration

Collection, rearing, distribution of mussels as effective

water filters. $ - 3 $ - $ - $ - 0% -$ -$ 0.00 0.00

NEW DNR Culvert Replacement Cost Share

25% LGU cost share to improve connectivity, channel

stability for WQ $ - 2 $ - $ - $ - 0% -$ -$ 0.00 0.00

33 DNR Forests for the Future

Permanent targeted conservation easements in working

forestland. $ 1,500,000 $ - $ - 0 -$ -$ 0.00

16 BWSR

Watershed Management Transition (One Watershed,

One Plan)

Complete ~7 comprehensive watershed mangement

plans/year. $ 6,000,000 1 $ 4,540,000 $ 4,000,000 $ 3,759,398 63% -$ -$

20 BWSR Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)

Purchase & restore permanent easements to treat &

store water. $ 1,207,000 2 $ 20,000,000 $ 17,250,000 $ 1,119,536 93% 181,050$ -$

21 BWSR

Critical Shoreland Protection-Permanent Conservation

Easements

Protect threatened shoreline with easements to protect

good WQ. $ 2,550,000 1 $ 3,500,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 2,295,000 90% 255,000$ -$

25 BWSR

Working Lands Floodplain Easements [formerly Riparian

Buffer-Permanent Conservation Easements]

Purchase & restore permanent easements on riparian

buffers. $ 4,000,000 1 $ 9,750,000 $ 9,500,000 $ 3,621,053 91% 400,000$ -$

NEW BWSR Wetland Restoration Easement

Permanent easements for de-nitrification, rate & volume

control. $ 5,000,000 1 $ - $ - $ 4,500,000 90% 500,000$ -$

37 BWSR Targeted Wellhead/Drinking Water Source Protection

Easements & grants to LGUs in priority wellhead

protection areas. $ 2,000,000 1 $ 4,750,000 $ 4,000,000 $ 1,800,000 90% 2,000,000$ -$

24 BWSR Buffer Law Implementation

Oversight & grants to SWCDs for implementation of the

buffer law. $ 4,000,000 2 $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 3,200,000 80% -$ -$

22 BWSR Grants to Soil and Water Conservation Districts General support of SWCDs; Legislative initiative. $ - 3 $ - $ 24,000,000 $ - 99% -$ -$

18 BWSR Accelerated Implementation

LGU grants; technical assistance; analytical tools to

speed up projects. $ 10,000,000 1 $ 12,100,000 $ 8,000,000 $ 6,842,105 68% -$ -$

19 BWSR Conservation Drainage Management and Assistance

Grants & tech assistance to SWCDs/drainage authority

for WQ BMPs. $ 1,445,000 2 $ 3,000,000 $ 1,700,000 $ 587,633 41% -$ -$

26 BWSR

Surface and Drinking Water Protection/Restoration

Grants: (Projects and Practices)

Competitive grants for high priority conservation &

urban BMPs in local mgmt plans; 20% to DW. $ 23,000,000 1 $ 32,601,000 $ 32,000,000 $ 20,758,974 90% 4,600,000$ 2,300,000$

17 BWSR

Grants to Watersheds with Approved Comprehensive

Watershed Plans (Watershed-based Implementation

Funding)

Non-competitive grants to fulfill projects in approved

1W1Ps. $ 45,000,000 1 $ 29,422,000 $ 26,966,000 $ 40,153,846 89% 11,250,000$ -$

27 BWSR Watershed Partners Legacy (WPL) Grants

Small grants program modeled on Conservation Partners

Legacy. Requested by Council strategic plan. $ 1,000,000 1 $ 2,000,000 $ - $ 900,000 90% -$ -$

New BWSR Drinking Water Protection Program

Subsidy to de-risk use of continuous living cover crops in

DWSMAs. Proposed by Friends of the Mississippi River. $ 4,000,000 3 $ - $ - $ 3,500,000 88% 2,000,000$ -$

28 BWSR

Enhancing Soil Health and Landowner Adoption of Cover

Crops for Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection

Supports Ofc of Soil Health, grants to SWCDs for cover

crop & conservation tillage demo projects. Supports

Governor's climate initiative. $ 4,200,000 2 $ 500,000 $ - $ 3,780,000 90% 2,100,000$ -$

23 BWSR Measures, Results and Accountability Grants management, reporting, and oversight. $ 2,800,000 2 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ - 0% -$ -$

BWSR [inserted line for FTE calculation] 26.96 24.96

TOTAL $ - $233,017,544 $262,303,000 $261,261,000 $146,682,438 63% $ 46,215,219 $18,097,152 253.42 143.48

ICT $222,742,325 18% 7% 57%

Non-ICT $ 10,275,219

Total $233,017,544

CLEAN WATER FUND PROPOSAL FY22-23: BWSR Program Number: 80

Rationale/Background: Please describe how this program will protect, enhance, and restore water quality in lakes, rivers, and streams and to protect groundwater from degradation, or protect drinking water sources.

Program to systematically collect data and produce statically valid estimates of the rate of soil erosion state-wide and tracking the adoption of high residue cropping systems in the 67 counties with greater than 30% of land in agricultural row crop production

Applied use of this data are: 1)MPCA for creating residue mas for WRPAS and to inform HSPF modeling, 2) maps for One Watershed, One Plan development, 3) data on crop residue and cover crop for MN Nutrient Reduction Strategy, and 4) Daily Erosion Project which has potential for developing climate change scenarios.

Statutory citation that guides program activities, if applicable:

Funding Request

Describe the likely measureable outcomes of this proposal. (If this program has been funded previously by the Clean Water Fund, please describe the measurable outcomes, outputs, or results achieved to date and how close the program is to a goal, when applicable.)

Track tillage trends, cover crop adoption, and land cover in the 67 county area with greater than 30% of land dedicated to row crop production, with future expansion to forested zone

Long-term funding vision: If this proposal is funded, should the Clean Water Council expect future requests to increase, decrease, stay about the same, or not be needed? (Do not factor inflation into your answer.)

Stay about the same

Other Funds: Will this program receive or request other funding from non-CWF sources, or eventually leverage non-CWF sources? If so, please describe. If not, leave blank.

Supplement vs. supplant: Minnesota Statutes 114D.50 Subd. 3 requires that “any state agency or organization requesting a direct appropriation from the clean water fund must inform the Clean Water Council and the house of representatives and senate committees having jurisdiction over the clean water fund, at the time the request for funding is made, whether the request is supplanting or is a substitution for any previous funding that was not from a legacy fund and was used for the same purpose.” Indicate if this proposal will supplement or supplant previous funding.

FY10-11

FY12-13

FY14-15

FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 TOTAL FY10-21

FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$0 $0 $0 $1,000,000 $850,000 $850,000 $2,700,000 $723,000

Tillage, Cover Crop and Erosion Evaluation Program Contact Name: Matt Drewitz Phone 507-344-2821

Contact E-mail Address: [email protected]

Person filling out form: Marcey Westrick Phone 651-284-4153

Person filling out form e-mail address: [email protected]

Supplement

Pass-Through: Will part or all of this funding from the CWF be passed through to non-state entities such as SWCDs, universities or other local units of government? If yes, please be specific about how much will go to non-state entities and what type.

Yes

If this funding will be disbursed through competitive grants, loans, or contracts, or if recipients are not yet known, please list what entities have received this funding in previous fiscal years and how much. Feel free to e-mail separate documents to the Clean Water Council at [email protected]

83%

State FTEs: Indicate the number the full-time state employees supported by the CWF in this proposal

FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 0.5 00.00 00.00 00.50 00.50 00.50

Legacy Amendment Attribution: Minnesota Statutes 114D.50 Subd. 4(f) requires that “when practicable, a direct recipient of an appropriation from the clean water fund shall prominently display on the recipient's website home page the legacy logo…accompanied by the phrase "Click here for more information." In addition, the Clean Water Council has issued guidance on the use of the logo and attribution for any appropriation to the legacy amendment and the Legislature. Will you ensure that the legacy logo is displayed and attribution given to the legacy amendment in publicly available materials, when practicable? Yes




For a technical evaluation panel to conduct 10 restoration evaluations under Minnesota Statues, section 114D.50, subdivision 6.

Supports local project managers as they work to maximize outcomes

Statutory citation that guides program activities, if applicable: Minnesota Statues, section 114D.50, subdivision 6.

Funding Request


Up to 10 evaluations per year


Stay about the same



Supplement

FY10-11

FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 TOTAL FY10-21

FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$0 $168,000 $168,000 $168,000 $168,000 $168,000 $840,000 $84,000

Technical Evaluation [restoration evaluation] Program Contact Name: Marcey Westrick Phone 651-284-4153





No



FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 0.5 00.00 00.50 00.50 00.50 00.50



CLEAN WATER FUND PROPOSAL FY22-23: DNR Program Number: 57


The DNR maintains and provides access to LiDAR-derived elevation data that is widely used for targeting and designing implementation projects and for watershed modeling. We develop fine-scale watershed models that enhance our understanding of the effects of drainage, soil health, and different BMPs on water flow and water quality. We also assess relationships among disturbance patterns, BMP applications, and water quality in forested watersheds.

LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) elevation data provides a fine-scale, detailed digital representation of the landscape. This extremely valuable dataset is used to identify and design implementation projects, reducing the need for field assessments and enhancing accuracy of the predicted effectiveness of those projects. LiDAR data is also used as a foundation for watershed models. Modeling at the watershed scale using LiDAR requires additional modification of the data to replicate how water flows across the land. (In its raw form, the LiDAR data does not accurately represent water flowing under high points like road crossings). Recent work has focused on how to automate this process so the data is available for use in models and other targeting tools.

• Watershed Modeling.DNR modeling experts are using a high resolution computer model that replicates water and sediment flow. This model is much more detailed than the larger scale watershed model used by the MPCA, which means that it takes a relatively big effort to model a relatively small area. These fine scale model results are more robust and they take subsurface drainage into account. These results can be used to reduce the uncertainty in the larger scale models, improving the state’s ability to predict the sources of pollution problems and the effectiveness of our implementation efforts.

• Forestry Best Management Practices. We monitor the implementation of forest management guidelines and BMPs at selected logging sites in Minnesota’s forested watersheds, with a focus on potential impacts to water resources. We analyze data on BMP implementation along with watershed characteristics (slope, soils, etc.) and disturbance patterns (logging, blowdown, fire, etc.) to identify risks to water quality and strategies to reduce these risks. The final step is outreach to forest landowners, managers and loggers aimed at mitigating these risks and ensuring full implementation of water quality BMPs.


Funding Request

FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 TOTAL FY10-21

FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$550,000 $790,000 $1,350,000 $1,350,000 $1,350,000 $1,400,000 $6,790,000 $0 $0 $1,065,000

Tool Development and Evaluation [Formerly Applied Research and Tools] Program Contact Name: Jason Moeckel Phone 651-259-5240


Person filling out form: Jason Moeckel Phone 651-259-5240



Developed the standard for hydrologicaly modified digital dams to make LiDAR data useful in watershed modeling and for accurate travel time analysis.

Collection of 750,000 state funded breachlines associated with digital dams.


Stay about the same



Supplement


No



FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 2 02.00 02.30 02.30 02.30 02.30

Legacy Amendment Attribution: Minnesota Statutes 114D.50 Subd. 4(f) requires that “when practicable, a direct recipient of an appropriation from the clean water fund shall prominently display on the recipient's website home page the legacy logo…accompanied by the phrase "Click here for more information." In addition, the Clean Water Council has issued guidance on the use of the logo and attribution for any appropriation to the legacy amendment and the Legislature. Will you ensure that the legacy logo is displayed and attribution given to the legacy amendment in publicly available materials, when practicable? yes




The DNR works with the Minnesota Geological Survey (MGS) to accelerate completion of or updates to County Geologic Atlases that convey critical groundwater and geology information to local governments.

County Geologic Atlases provide information about the region’s geology and groundwater: location and depth of aquifers, direction of water flow, pollution sensitivity, connections to surface waters, and other characteristics like natural quality and age of groundwater. This information is essential for local planning and environmental protection efforts. Water supply planning, source water protection and well sealing programs are examples of local programs that need geologic and groundwater information. Other typical uses include providing information for permit applications, resource management, monitoring needs, and emergency response to contaminant releases.

The DNR works with the Minnesota Geological Survey (MGS) to develop County Geologic Atlases that convey geology and groundwater information and interpretations to government units at all levels, but particularly to local governments. The MGS focuses on geology (Part A reports) and DNR focuses on groundwater (Part B reports). Atlases are developed in response to requests by counties, who contribute money and data to the development of Part A reports.

Clean Water funding is used to improve the quality of County Geologic Atlases by collecting additional subsurface geologic samples, expanding the number of sites sampled for water chemistry, starting the process of installing a research well to collect stratified groundwater data from multiple aquifers, and purchasing and repairing equipment.


Funding Request


Completing 2-4 atlases a year provides valuable information to local governments form implementation projects.

FY10-11 FY12-13

FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 TOTAL FY10-21

FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$1,000,000 $0 $1,200,000 $500,000 $250,000 $300,000 $3,250,000 $0 $0 $0

County Geologic Atlas Part B Program Contact Name: Paul Putzier Phone 651-259-5692





Stay about the same


LCCMR and General Fund


Supplement


Yes


Fudns are provided to the Minnesota Geological Survey at the University of Minnesota for contract drilling to enhance geologic information.


FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 0 00.00 00.00 03.30 00.00 00.00



CLEAN WATER FUND PROPOSAL FY22-23: MDA Program Number: 56


The Agricultural Research/Evaluation is a competitive grant program to evaluate the effectiveness of best management practices in agricultural conservation and to inform comprehensive watershed management planning. Supports applied research projects to identify processes that affect water quality and evaluate the costs and benefits of specific agricultural practices. Most Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (WRAPS) reference data from this program.

This program supports research projects to identify processes that affect water quality and evaluate the costs and benefits of specific agricultural practices. As a result, best management practices (BMPs) will be developed and evaluated to protect and restore water resources.

Statutory citation that guides program activities, if applicable: 18B, 103H. MDA is the lead agency for developing and evaluating future BMPs.

Funding Request


Supported 40 research projects (8 active projects, 32 completed)

•17 of the supported research projects evaluate practices to reduce nitrate-nitrogen losses. Practices include emerging technologies such as nitrification inhibitors and optical sensing tools, vegetative cover for water quality benefits, treatment of agricultural drainage systems and updating BMPs to develop statewide guidance on appropriate application practices for nitrogen fertilizer.

•12 different organizations have been awarded research contracts through the program

Almost every WRAPS is using outcomes from this research in selecting practices, calculating the cost and benefits of practices and to support computer modeling.

Clean Water fund investment has leveraged millions of additional research dollars

FY10-11

FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21

TOTAL FY10-21

FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$0 $2,100,000 $2,100,000 $1,575,000 $1,325,000 $0 $7,100,000 $0 $0 $0

Agricultural Research/Evaluation Program Contact Name: Margaret Wagner Phone 651-201-6488


Person filling out form: Margaret Wagner Phone 651-201-6488 (O)

507-250-5946 (C)



Stay about the same


Researchers leverage CWF dollars with other federal and state grants.


Supplement


Yes


In FY14-19, 87% of funding was passed through in contracts. Recipients include the University of Minnesota and other universities and research organizations.


FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 0.75 00.00 01.00 01.25 01.25 01.25





The Minnesota Water Research Digital Library (MnWRL) is a user-friendly, searchable inventory of water research relevant to Minnesota. It provides “one-stop” access to all types of water research, including both peer-reviewed articles and white papers and reports.

MnWRL provides one-stop access to all types of water research, enabling water managers, researchers, engaged citizens and others to easily find, share, and coordinate research to support their efforts to protect, conserve, manage and restore water in Minnesota.


Funding Request


3,115 publications available on MnWRL

11,901 website visitors

12,015 search sessions conducted

3,409 PDFs downloaded


Stay about the same


FY10-11


FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$0 $350,000 $250,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $900,000 $0 $80,000

MN Water Research Digital Library [aka Research Inventory Database] Program Contact Name: Margaret Wagner Phone 651-201-6488



507-250-5946 (C)



Supplement


No



FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 0.59999999999999998 00.00 01.00 00.30 00.60 00.60





Develops new perennial and winter annual crops and associated cropping systems that preserve and enhance water quality, and supports the development of new supply chains that provide profitable markets for these crops. Funding will support the Forever Green Initiative in areas related to research, implementation, and partnership development.

The Forever Green Initiative is developing market-driven perennial and cover cropping systems specific to Minnesota that are necessary to protect and restore the state's surface and groundwater resources while increasing efficiency, profitability, and productivity of Minnesota farmers.

Perennial crops provide continuous cover on the land, while winter annuals and cover crops grow between the time when annual crops are harvested in the fall and a new planting is established in the spring. This is the time when fields are bare and most vulnerable to erosion and nutrient loss. More vegetative cover throughout the year slows runoff and soil erosion and reduces nutrient losses providing a direct benefit to surface waters in Minnesota. Perennial and cover crops also prevent nitrate-nitrogen leaching to groundwater by taking up excess soil nitrogen.


Funding Request


Supported 37 research projects through an RFP process administered by the University of Minnesota. Projects focus on Forever Green crops such as Kernza, hazelnuts, pennycress, camelina, winter barley, perennial sunflower, perennial flax, spring and winter pea.

Leverages millions of dollars from state and federal grants and investments from companies, foundations and commodity groups

•FY18-19: $1.5M from CWF and $6 M from other state, foundation, and company funding. FGI was also awarded $32 M in competitive federal grants.

FY10-11

FY12-13

FY14-15

FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 TOTAL FY10-21

FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$0 $0 $0 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $4,300,000 $6,800,000 $0 $0 $4,000,000

Forever Green Agricultural Initiative (U of MN) Program Contact Name: Margaret Wagner Phone 651-201-6488



507-250-5946 (C)


Performance measures for Forever Green implementation may include number of acres planted, number of vulnerable DWSMAs targeted, and engagement with local farmers, crop advisers, end users, and project partners.


Increase


The Forever Green Initiative leverages the CWF investment with state and federal grant dollars as well as funding from commodity groups, public and private companies, and foundations.


Supplement


Yes


100% of funding was passed through to the University of Minnesota, Forever Green Program


FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00



CLEAN WATER FUND PROPOSAL FY22-23: MDH Program Number: 27


Results from this study will be incorporated into ongoing source water protection activities.


Funding Request


▪ The annual stakeholder forum.




FY10-11

FY12-13

FY14-15

FY16-17

FY18-19

FY20-21 TOTAL FY10-21

FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $0

Pathogen Project [formerly Groundwater Virus Monitoring Plan] Program Contact Name: Phone Due to the COVID-19 situation and staff reassignments, please contact Tannie @ 651.334.5854.

Sarah - 651.201.4086

Contact E-mail Address: Due to the COVID-19 situation and staff reassignments please contact [email protected]

Person filling out form: Phone

Person filling out form e-mail address:




FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23

Legacy Amendment Attribution: Minnesota Statutes 114D.50 Subd. 4(f) requires that “when practicable, a direct recipient of an appropriation from the clean water fund shall prominently display on the recipient's website home page the legacy logo…accompanied by the phrase "Click here for more information." In addition, the Clean Water Council has issued guidance on the use of the logo and attribution for any appropriation to the legacy amendment and the Legislature. Will you ensure that the legacy logo is displayed and attribution given to the legacy amendment in publicly available materials, when practicable?





Funding Request


▪ Grantee projects.





FY10-11

FY12-13

FY14-15

FY16-17

FY18-19


FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $0

Water Reuse Program Contact Name: Phone Due to the COVID-19 situation and staff reassignments, please contact Tannie @ 651.334.5854.

Sarah - 651.201.4087






FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23



CLEAN WATER FUND PROPOSAL FY22-23: UMN Program Number: 0


Continuation of funding of $1.5M for the Urban Stormwater Research and Technology Transfer Program. The program completes urban stormwater research addressing priority needs for Minnesota communities, professionals and waters and provides technology transfer of research results; training, outreach and Extension education.

Investing in urban stormwater research provides resources to address high priority needs communities, professionals, and policymakers have about how management can be improved, how operation of practices can be enhanced and where increases in efficiency of practices and policies that protect, restore and minimizing the impacts of runoff and pollutants from the built, urban environment. Applied research allows the more efficient and successful choice of best management practices. In cases, research can discover new practices and methods to increase function of these tools used heavily and frequently across the state. Continuing to invest in research brings the opportunity to ensure the 'best' is achieved in the best management practice (BMP) paradigm. Investing a portion of the program in technology transfer also ensures the discoveries are shared with those in Minnesota that can most benefit from them and that effective outreach, training and resources are provided to them to incorporate this new science into decision making.


Funding Request


Ultimately the outcome of ths work are new and revised urban stormwater management practices and policies that protect and improve the health of Minnesota waters or mitigate and minimize the impacts to Minnesota water from urban runoff. The outcome of completed research is paired with the transfer of new knowledge to practicioners, policymakers, and professionals. Another outcome would be the incorporation of this work and new discoveries into stormwater management guidance policies and manuals such as the Minnesota Stormwater Manual. Outputs (measurements) for research include final reports, data, tools, models, formulas, revised design, installation, and operation and management guidelines. Outputs from technology transfer include training guides, the number of professionals, policymakers, and practicioners engaged and trained and the impact to their knowledge, skills, and adoption of use.

FY10-11

FY12-13

FY14-15

FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 TOTAL FY10-21

FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$0 $0 $0 $550,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $3,550,000 $750,000 $750,000 $1,500,000

Stormwater Research and Technology Transfer Program Program Contact Name: Jeff Peterson Phone 612-624-9282


Person filling out form: John Bilotta Phone 612-624-7708



Stay about the same


Yes. The Minnesota Stormwater Research Council will pool funds from cities, watershed units, agencies, and private industry to leverage and increase the overall budget for the program. Historically, $100-135K per calendar year have been pooled from thes


Supplement


Yes


The vast majority of these funds are passed on to complete qualified urban stormwater research projects. Those projects are chosen through a competitive, highly scientific and Minnesota applicable review process. Research teams include those from multipl


FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00





Provides planning-scale comprehensive geologic mapping and associated databases required for managing water and also mineral resources.

Geologic atlases provide maps and databases essential for improved management of ground and surface water. This is foundational data that supports management of drinking water, domestic and industrial supply, irrigation, and aquatic habitat. County Geologic Atlases are specifically identified as essential data in the Statewide Conservation Plan, and in the efforts of the Environmental Quality Board, DNR Eco-Waters, and the Water Resources Center at the University of Minnesota to design a sustainable water management process. The distribution of geologic materials defines aquifer boundaries and the connection of aquifers to the land surface and to surface water resources to enable a comprehensive water management effort.


Funding Request


To date, CWF has supported atlas production in 16 counties including: Houston, Winona, Brown, Redwood, Washington, Isanti, Wadena, Cass and Hennepin, Dodge and Olmsed counties. In-production atlases with CWF support include St. Louis, Lake, Dakota, Red Lake, and Lake of the Woods. Each atlas costs approximately $400,000 to complete. These funds will likely be used to complete one or more of the atlases that are currently in production; or will be used to start work in one of the 21 counties that we have yet to begin. All of the early non-digital atlases have been revised except Ramsey County, which we have just added to our update queue starting in 2021. We typically start 5 atlases each year. At our current pace, we are on track to complete the entire state by 2029.


Stay about the same

FY10-11 FY12-13

FY14-15 FY16-17

FY18-19 FY20-21 TOTAL FY10-21

FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$305,000 $0 $1,230,000 $0 $250,000 $500,000 $2,285,000 $500,000 $500,000 $1,000,000

County Geologic Atlas Part A Program Contact Name: Barbara Lusardi Phone 612-626-5119


Person filling out form: Barbara Lusardi Phone 612-626-5119



The annual budget for the County Atlas program is about $2 million. The bulk of our funding comes from the ENRTF as adminstered by the LCCMR. In recent years, our LCCMR award has been $2 million to spend within 3 years. In addition, we receive about $5


Supplement


No



FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 10 03.00 13.00 02.50 05.00





The Minnesota Center for Prion Research and Outreach (MNPRO) has assembled a multi-disciplinary research team with expertise in hydrology, soils, epidemiology, plant biology, and molecular biology. We are poised to collaborate with Minnesota watershed districts, affected and interested citizens, and other valued partners. Our mission is to conduct cutting-edge research on the complex ecosystems across Minnesota affected by chronic wasting disease (CWD). Despite the ecological variability, water is core to each ecosystem and key to deciphering the environmental persistence and spread of CWD. To accomplish our research objectives, MNPRO plans an integrated series of critical experimental, computational modeling, and field-based studies focused on the binding and bio-accumulation of CWD prions to micronutrients and soil/clay particles and transport through water.

MNPRO environmental research objectives:

1. Elucidating mechanisms for the persistence and spread of CWD through waterways, soils, and plants;

2. Characterizing the abundance of CWD prion in Minnesota surface and well water, soils, and plants;

3. Forecasting CWD contamination and spread based upon heterogeneity in landscape and hydrology;

4. Educating and involving Minnesota landowners in environmental sampling, risk assessment, and remediation; and

5. Developing and evaluating remediation strategies for prion contaminated waterws, soils, and plants

A CWD positive deer sheds prions into the environment, predominantly through feces and urine for up to 2 years. Additionally, natural decomposition of the animal upon death further deposits CWD prions. These elements create hotspots of nearly indestructible CWD prions, which remaining infectious for years in natural and agricultural environments.1 We currently do not know the extent to which CWD prions have contaminated soil, plants, and water within or surrounding CWD positive cervid farms and wild white-tailed deer identified throughout the state. Further, a prion’s durability facilitates their spread in the surrounding environment through many avenues, including associated with eroding soil and in water.2,3

Water can determine how far and how fast prions are transported from CWD positive regions, but to what extent does water carry infectious prions from the landscape to and through the water systems of Minnesota? Like other water quality concerns such as phosphorus and E. coli, CWD prions can move through the environment attached to soil and clay particles. Therefore, it is important to understand water runoff, erosion, and soil movement across the diverse landscapes in Minnesota where the CWD prion has been found. Different regions have different landscapes and the prion is likely to be more mobile in areas where fields are closely connected with streams and rivers.

Chronic Wasting Disease and Water Program Contact Name: Diana Karwan Phone 612-624-2774 (office)

203-806-6137 (cell)


Person filling out form: Marc Schwabenlander Phone 651-216-1240


Based on evidence from previous research, advanced investigation into CWD prion dissemination from water runoff and infiltration through the ground is warranted.3,4 Ascertaining water’s part in the spread of CWD is essential to securing the health of Minnesota’s deer and people and also, the success of a wide variety of economic sectors across the state. Therefore, it is essential to utilize MNPRO’s new chronic wasting disease detection tools for environmental-based investigations of Minnesota's surface and well waters, soils, and plants.

1. Miller, M. W., Williams, E. S., Hobbs, N. T. & Wolfe, L. L. Environmental sources of prion transmission in mule deer. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 10, 1003–6 (2004).

2. Johnson, C. J. et al. Prions adhere to soil minerals and remain infectious. PLoS Pathog. 2,e32 (2006).

3. Nichols, T. A. et al. Detection of protease-resistant cervid prion protein in water from a CWD-endemic area. Prion 3, 171–183 (2009).

4. Jacobson, K. H., et al. Transport of the pathogenic prion protein through soils. J. Environ. Qual. 39:1145-1152 (2010).


Funding Request


In multiple, Minnesota ecosystems:

1. Description of water's processes for transportation and spread of CWD

2. Baseline, relative measures of CWD prion abundance in surface and well water, soils, and plants

3. Prion remediation strategy analyses

4. Predictive models of CWD prion contamination and movement

5. Land owners and managers involvement in 1-3


Stay about the same


This program will request funding through internal UMN sources. Successful funding of this program and the subsequent data and information generated will lead to funding requests through national agencies such as the National Science Foundation, National

Supplement vs. supplant: Minnesota Statutes 114D.50 Subd. 3 requires that “any state agency or organization requesting a direct appropriation from the clean water fund must inform the Clean Water Council and the house of

FY10-11

FY12-13

FY14-15

FY16-17

FY18-19

FY20-21

TOTAL FY10-

21

FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $731,779 $646,440 $1,378,219

representatives and senate committees having jurisdiction over the clean water fund, at the time the request for funding is made, whether the request is supplanting or is a substitution for any previous funding that was not from a legacy fund and was used for the same purpose.” Indicate if this proposal will supplement or supplant previous funding.

Supplement


No



FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00



CLEAN WATER FUND PROPOSAL FY22-23: MPCA Program Number: 10


Surface water monitoring program collects data on lakes, rivers, and streams to complete assessments, conduct trend analysis, and identify areas for protection and restoration. Program includes 197 sites for annual pollutant load monitoring, and stream and lake monitoring at dozens of sites in up to 16 watersheds over the biennium. Funds passed through to local government units to assist with monitoring.

This effort is focused on monitoring and assessing Minnesota’s surface waters on a 10-year cycle, following the watershed approach, and tracking long-term trends in water quality. Monitoring and assessment are foundational to the watershed approach, as data are needed to identify impaired waters and those in need of additional protection activities; facilitate biological stressor identification; inform WRAPS, TMDL and One Watershed, One Plan development and implementation; and evaluate progress towards meeting clean water goals

Statutory citation that guides program activities, if applicable: Surface water monitoring is a state requirement under the federal Clean Water Act (Sections 303 (d) and 305(b)). The requirements for ensuring the continued evaluation of surface waters and the identification of impairments, delisting impaired waters prom

Funding Request


Maintaining an annual watershed pollutant load monitoring network of 197 stations across the state, completing monitoring and assessment on approximately 16 more watersheds to provide data for Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies and 1W1P. This information imacts our impairment rates, delisting of impaired waters, and health of watersheds.


Stay about the same


FY22

FY23

FY22-23

$15,000,000

$15,000,000

$15,200,000

$16,700,000

$16,550,000

$16,300,000

$94,750,000

$0 $14,697,723

River and Lake Monitoring and Assessment Program Contact Name: Pam Anderson Phone 651-757-2190


Person filling out form: Pam Anderson Phone 651-757-2190



MPCA historically (back to FY04) received an average of $1,250,000 per year for surface water monitoring and assessment activities from state and federal funds. MPCA has maintained this level of non-CWF funding for surface water monitoring and assessment


Supplement


Yes


On average 2.6 million has been passed through each biennium to LGUs, higher educational institutions, and non-profits


FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 36.00 44.80 42.80 41.30 52.70





MPCA's Ambient Groundwater Monitoring and Assessment Program

Groundwater monitoring and assessment to continue to support the MPCA and local and state partners track contaminant trends in an early warning well network, assess downward migration of key contaminants into drinking water aquifers, investigate potential new sources of contamination to the state’s groundwater, and better understand the interaction between ground and surface waters in specific areas. Groundwater quality data, modeling, and information about surface water and groundwater interactions will inform restoration and protection strategies developed by the MPCA and local and state partners, advancement of groundwater protection BMPs, and evaluation of their effectiveness in protecting groundwater for drinking, irrigation and healthy aquatic ecosystems.

Statutory citation that guides program activities, if applicable: Minn. Stat. 103A.204 - Groundwater quality; Groundwater Protection Act - Minn. Stat. 103H.001 (Prevent degradation of groundwater) and Minn. Stat. 103H.151 (Develop and promote BMPs).

Funding Request


Maintaining ambient well network of 270 wells focusing on shallow aquifers in urban areas; conducting annual sampling and data analysis of multiple pollutants at most sites; contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) in 40 network wells; providing groundwater data and analysis for Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Reports, WRAPS, GRAPS, and 1W1P.


Stay about the same



FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$2,250,000 $2,250,000 $2,250,000 $2,364,000 $2,363,000 $2,364,000 $13,841,000 $0 $1,905,058

Groundwater Monitoring and Assessment Program Contact Name: Catherine Neuschler Phone 651-757-2607


Person filling out form: Pam Anderson Phone 651-757-2607


MPCA historically (back to FY04) received an average of $225,000 per year for groundwater monitoring and assessment activities from state and federal funds. MPCA has maintained this level of non-CWF funding


Supplement


Yes


Funds passed through by contract to analytical labs (private, MDH, USGS), well drilling and siting (private well drillers), and equipment providers (private). Number and value of contracts varies by year.


FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 4.4500000000000002 03.00 02.90 03.60 03.90 06.50





Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (WRAPS), including TMDLs, are developed with local partners to set strategies for impaired waters and healthy waters, including pollutant reduction goals and timelines. They provide the watershed science needed to inform and guide local water planning and implementation efforts.

WRAPS and TMDLs are all about providing the science local water managers need to develop local water plans and implement them. Activities include watershed computer model development and use to identify key subwatesheds contributing high pollutant load, identification of stressors to fish and aquatic bugs, limited problem investigation monitoring, pollutant load allocations for point and nonpoint sources, and protection and restoration strategy identification. All of this builds on ambient monitoring, and feeds the One Watershed One Plan process.

Statutory citation that guides program activities, if applicable: 114D.15; 114D.20; 114D.26; 114D.35

Funding Request


This funding will enable continued development and completion of WRAPS and TMDLs. WRAPS for all 80 watersheds are required by statute to be completed by mid-2023. As of April 2020, 52 of the 80 watersheds are complete. This funding would enable us to complete the rest. Beyond the initial WRAPS for the 80 watersheds, this funding will also enable: use of the WRAPS and TMDLs in One Watershed One Plan projects; O+M for the watershed computer models and the SAM tool, for continued use in local watershed planning and implementation, and for wastewater effluent limit setting; further biological stressor identification and problem investigation monitoring; and where needed additional TMDL development and WRAPS updates.


Stay about the same


FY22

FY23

FY22-23

$18,000,000

$18,800,000

$18,800,000

$20,200,000

$19,000,000

$15,100,000

$109,900,000

$0 $13,851,227

Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (includes TMDL development) Program Contact Name: Glenn Skuta Phone 651-470-7572


Person filling out form: Glenn Skuta Phone 651-470-7572



CWF supplements other PCA funding from state general/environmental funds, and federal CWA Section 319 funds


Supplement


Yes


Funding has been passed-through to SWCDs, counties, watershed districts, and consulting firms. Roughly about 25% of this amount would be passed-through.


FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 34 34.00 31.50 35.20 35.40 31.20





Ongoing monitoring using clean water funded laboratory instruments which provides increased capability and greater capacity for pesticide monitoring. Clean Water funding has allowed the MDA to increase the number of detectable pesticides, increase the sensitivity of detection of certain pesticides, and increase the overall number of samples that can be analyzed on an annual basis.

Pesticide monitoring data is used to identify compounds and/or places where concentrations may exceed established water quality benchmarks, guidance values, and/or standards. This data is also used to identify trends regarding detection frequency and concentration of specific agricultural chemicals and to develop and evaluate the effectiveness of best management practices (BMPs) for specific compounds.

Statutory citation that guides program activities, if applicable: MS 18B.04, 103H.175

Funding Request


Clean Water funding has allowed the MDA to increase the number of detectable pesticides, increase the sensitivity of detection of certain pesticides and increase the overall number of samples that can be analyzed on an annual basis. Those samples include statewide pesticide assessments of municipal drinking water wells, lakes, rivers and streams and wetlands. Data are used to identify and characterize pesticide related impairments and to identify pesticides of concern in Minnesota. Data are also used to evaluate surface and groundwater quality as compared to drinking water standards.


Stay about the same


FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$675,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $4,175,000 $0 $0 $700,000

Monitoring for Pesticides in Surface Water and Groundwater Program Contact Name: Bill VanRyswyk Phone 507-344-3203



507-250-5946 (C)



Yes, the MDA will use these funds to enhance the impacts of dedicated funds from the pesticide regulatory account generated from pesticide sales. The MDA is also seeking LCCMR funds to update analytical equipment in the MDA laboratory.


Supplement


No



FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 00.00 02.25 02.25 02.54 02.29





Provides funding for free pesticide testing of private wells where nitrate is detected as part of the Township Testing Program. The Township Testing Program provides free nitrate testing to well owners in areas most vulnerable to groundwater contamination.

The Private Well Pesticide Sampling (PWPS) Project is a follow-up program to the Township Testing Program. The primary goal of the PWPS Project is to provide information to homeowners and the general public about the presence of pesticides in private drinking water wells.


Funding Request


By the end of FY21 it is anticipated that approximately 5,800 vulnerable private drinking water wells will have been tested for pesticide analysis. Over 30 wells were identified with pesticide concentrations above drinking water standards. Point-of-use water treatment systems were evaluated to provide well owners information on effective mitigation strategies for removing pesticides from drinking water.


Decrease


Yes, the CWF funds will leverage the impacts of dedicated funds from the pesticide regulatory account generated from pesticide sales that are also used for this project.

FY10-11

FY12-13

FY14-15

FY16-17

FY18-19 FY20-21 TOTAL FY10-21

FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$0 $0 $0 $0 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $0 $0 $870,000

Pesticide Testing in Private Wells Program Contact Name: Bill VanRyswyk Phone 507-344-3203



507-250-5946 (C)



Supplement


Yes


In FY18-FY19, 80% was passed through to analytical laboratory. For FY22-23 it is estimated 55% of the funding will pass through to the analytical laboratory.


FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 00.00 00.00 02.60 02.75 02.07





The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) develops human health-based drinking water guidance for new contaminants to aid in planning, monitoring, and mitigating impacts from Contaminants of Emerging Concern (CECs). The CEC initiative also actively engages agency and community stakeholders, conducts targeted monitoring studies, and provides funding for partners engaged in education and awareness. In FY22-23, we will continue the work of reviewing and evaluating chemicals, completing risk assessments for CECs, developing rapid assessments and new risk assessment methods, and providing public information materials. Without Clean Water Funds, MDH would have significantly reduced capacity to review contaminants that pose a threat to ecological and human health in Minnesota. MDH would revert to developing guidance for a limited number of contaminants that are already present in Minnesota groundwater—a significantly less proactive and protective effort.

The CEC initiative has a two-pronged approach to protecting groundwater from degradation. The first approach is through prevention. The CEC program uses CWF monies to promote educational messages such as safe disposal of medications and how safer choices can be made when pesticide are used in residential settings. We also hold a CEC Forum each fall that includes an educational lectures and group discussion about CECs such as microplastics or PFAS.

The second way the CEC initiative is working to protect groundwater is through the development of health-based water guidance values. There is not another program in Minnesota dedicated this. The CEC initiative strives to be ahead of environmental detects, developing guidance for contaminants that have yet to be found in Minnesota groundwater. In addition, the CEC initiative provides partners with context for environmental detects. Guidance values can come in the form of full guidance values that may take up to a year to develop, to more nimble types of guidance like pharmaceutical screening values and pesticide rapid assessments.


Funding Request


FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$1,300,000 $2,010,000 $2,500,000 $2,200,000 $2,200,000 $3,400,000 $13,610,000 $0 $0 $2,400,000

Contaminants of Emerging Concern Program Contact Name: James Kelly and Sarah Fossen Johnson Phone Due to the COVID-19 situation and staff reassignments, please contact Tannie @ 651.334.5854.

Sarah - 651.201.4080


Person filling out form: Sarah Johnson Phone 651-201-4080



▪ Number of guidance values, rapid assessments, and screening values completed and published.

▪ The annual stakeholder forum.

▪ Grantee projects.

We also summarize and capture program activities and highlights on a quarterly, annual, and biennial schedule. These are often qualitative evaluations, but also include number of technical assists we’ve provided, conferences we’ve presented at, and other quantitative measures of our work and reach.


Stay about the same



Supplement


Yes


See attached table.


FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23

Legacy Amendment Attribution: Minnesota Statutes 114D.50 Subd. 4(f) requires that “when practicable, a direct recipient of an appropriation from the clean water fund shall prominently display on the recipient's website home page the legacy logo…accompanied by the phrase "Click here for more information." In addition, the Clean Water Council has issued guidance on the use of the logo and attribution for any appropriation to the legacy amendment and the


Legislature. Will you ensure that the legacy logo is displayed and attribution given to the legacy amendment in publicly available materials, when practicable? Yes



The GRAPS program centers on report development for each participating watershed in the 1W1P process, which averages to be 6-8 per year. However, we have quickly learned that the information in the reports is only valuable when our partners have confidence in how to apply the data and information to their work. Therefore, we want to continue conducting targeted trainings at the annual BWSR Academy, along with the Minnesota Association of Watershed Districts (MAWD), as well as other venues when applicable. Furthermore, support the development of online groundwater modules to suit the needs to provide basic groundwater science to inform a variety of audiences. Continue the development of the interactive mapping/decision support tool to serve the needs of all interested parties that seek an easy to use database for state aggregated groundwater information. We are seeking to expand our current abilities to make the invisible, visible by developing 3 dimensional images of the subsurface that allows the user to interact with underlying geology to guide decision making. Finally we are evaluating the use of regional models to define aquifers and aquitards in a project watershed.

The GRAPS initiative has proven to be an effective model of state agencies collaborating to deliver a comprehensive overview of groundwater information in one document, eliminating barriers to local implementation. It results in a clearinghouse of information and shared goals to advance groundwater implementation. It is also one of the few approaches to consider the needs of private well owners within the framework of groundwater management.


Funding Request


FY10-11

FY12-13


FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$0 $0 $300,000 $250,000 $400,000 $1,100,000 $2,050,000 $0 $0 $1,125,000

Groundwater Restoration and Protection Strategies Program Contact Name: Carrie Raber and Steve Robertson Phone Due to the COVID-19 situation and staff reassignments, please contact Tannie @ 651.334.5854.

Sarah - 651.201.4082


Person filling out form: Carrie Raber Phone 651-201-4695


The number of GRAPS reports generated. Trainings and education opportunies created. The number of regional groundwater models developed. The continued enhancement of the decision support tool and 3D imagining of the groundwater subsurface at a watershed scale.


Stay about the same


No


Supplement


Yes


Past grantees: Pipestone SWCD, Stearns SWCD, Freshwater Society, and the Minnesota Geological Survey. A separate document has been created and provided to Paul Gardner.


FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 4 00.00 01.00 01.00 01.00 02.00





MDH’s mission is to protect, maintain, and improve the health of all Minnesotans. The work of the Source Water Protection Initiative contributes to MDH’s mission by providing a structured and orderly process for protecting sources of drinking water, and to thereby maintain and improve public health outcomes. The planning process is tied to financial assistance programs to facilitate implementation.

The Source Water Protection program continues to conduct source water protection work at the local level, in conjunction with public water systems. At the same time, MDH is working to integrate these activities with those of partners and stakeholders to increase the acceptance, effectiveness, and efficacy of implementation efforts. Core activities continue to focus on proactive planning and targetted implementation to protect groundwater and surface water sources of drinking water, future needs require more emphasis on characterizing water quality conditions of these sources. This information is needed to improve management and mitigation efforts to protect and improve drinking water supplies.


Funding Request


Engage community public water systems in source water protection planning and implementation; Update Source Water Assessments for all community public water systems using surface water by 2025; Complete source water protection planning for surface water systems by 2027; Provide financial assistance to facilitate source water protection implementation through grants.


FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$2,400,000 $2,830,000 $3,230,000 $3,800,000 $54,700,000 $5,494,000 $72,454,000 $0 $0 $6,360,400

Source Water Protection Program Contact Name: Sandeep Burman and Steve Robertson Phone Due to the COVID-19 situation and staff reassignments, please contact Tannie @ 651.334.5854.

Sarah - 651.201.4081


Person filling out form: Steve Robertson Phone 651-201-4648



Increase


Yes. MDH receives funding from EPA to support source water protection. That support has been static for years.


Supplement


Yes


MDH uses CWF appropriations to support three grant programs for public water systems. In FY18-19, over 200 grants were issued, totaling about $1.235M.


FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 07.00 11.00 11.00 13.00 14.00






Funding Request








FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23

FY10-11

FY12-13

FY14-15

FY16-17

FY18-19

FY20-21

TOTAL FY10-

21

FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$0

Microplastics Program Contact Name: Phone

Contact E-mail Address:







The DNR is developing and maintaining a statewide network of groundwater level observation wells. Work includes data collection and management, analysis, modeling, and work with stakeholders to ensure groundwater is managed sustainably, including small communities to develop water supply plans and developing Groundwater Restoration and Protection Stratedies (GRAPS).

The DNR manage's Minnesota’s observation well network to collect critical aquifer level data and flow dynamics needed to protect drinking water, water supplies, and natural resources that depend on groundwater. Includes analysis, modeling, and work with stakeholders to address sustainability management and planning. In Minnesota, growth in demand for water resources is outpacing population growth. As water use increases, planning for adequate water supply is crucial to preventing water shortages and protecting lakes, streams, and wetlands - especially sensitive groundwater dependent trout streams and calcareous fens.

Because groundwater is below the ground surface, we need long-term data collection from groundwater observation wells to understand trends in groundwater levels. We then relate the trend data to precipitation, land use changes, groundwater use, to evaluate if that use is sustainable over time. Long-term data sets are essential to understanding and properly managing this valuable resource.

The DNR’s network of 1,125 groundwater level observation wells provides critical information on aquifer levels, flow, and surface water/groundwater interactions that is essential for protecting drinking water, water supplies and water resources that are fed by groundwater.

In addition to maintaining the observation well network, we work with state and local partners to cooperatively manage and share groundwater level data through a new cooperative groundwater monitoring website. We also do modeling, aquifer tests, and other technical analysis to better understand how aquifers are depleted and replenished in response to human use and climate. The DNR has recently been analyzing groundwater/surface water interactions and developing groundwater sustainability thresholds to ensure groundwater pumping does not negatively impact water resources that depend on groundwater.


Funding Request


FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$1,100,000 $3,000,000 $2,750,000 $2,750,000 $2,750,000 $4,150,000 $16,500,000 $0 $0 $3,700,000

Aquifer Monitoring for Water Supply Planning Program Contact Name: Jason Moeckel Phone 651-259-5240





Outcome: Sustainable water supply that meets the needs of current and future generations.

Outputs: Installing about 50 new monitoring wells annually. Maintaining high quality water level data for the entire network available through the DNR website. Completion of GRAPS in support One Watershed One Plan. Completion of groundwater models.


Stay about the same


These efforts are also supported by state general fund and the water management account.


Supplement


No



FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 11 03.00 12.00 11.30 11.50 11.00





This program analyzes fish tissue to detect mercury and other contaminants. The information is used to determine whether lakes are impaired for these contaminants (MPCA), and in establishing fish consumption advisories (MDH).

Clean water funding is used to significantly increase (more than double) the number of lakes and rivers that are assessed for mercury contamination on an annual basis. Fish are collected during DNR Fisheries’ lake surveys (not paid for by this appropriation), processed for laboratory testing, and analyzed for contaminants. Funding is used to pay for program coordination and lab analysis of fish tissue for contaminants (analysis is done by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture’s lab). The data are shared with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Minnesota Department of Health. Long-term trends are summarized in the Clean Water Fund Performance Report.

Agencies are considering an expansion of these efforts to include analysis of PFAS (per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances) in fish tissue. PFOS contamination appears to be pervasive across Minnesota. PFOS doesn't follow typical bioaccumulation patterns that we've observed for mercury and PCBs. Enhanced and systematic sampling is needed to better undestand PFAS accumulation and revise fish consumption advice.


Funding Request


Annually testing 80 additional lakes for mercury levels in fish. Maintaining and revising fish consumption advice.


Increase


These efforts are also supported bye the Game and Fish Fund and state general fund.


FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$270,000 $270,000 $270,000 $270,000 $270,000 $270,000 $1,620,000 $0 $0 $135,000

Fish Contamination Assessment Program Contact Name: Ling Shen Phone 651-259-5138





Supplement


No



FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00





This program support MPCA’s water quality assessments in lakes with measurements of the biological integrity of fish and plant populations. “Biological integrity” refers to the types and abundance of species that are found in a lake, and how the population varies from what is expected in a high-quality lake in a given region of the state.

The Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) is used to identify and help prioritize lakes for protection and restoration. It's an analytical tool that can identify water pollution problems based on the type and abundance of certain species in a biological community and how it they vary from what is expected for a high-quality lake of that type. The IBI gives a holistic picture of lake condition over time, complementing other traditional water quality measurements (phosphorus, water clarity, toxic contaminants). Developing an IBI involves sampling a wide range of lakes, from high-quality systems to those with significant water quality impacts, plus detailed statistical analysis. A key element of this effort is collecting information about the entire fish community, including non-game fish that are often more sensitive to watershed and shoreline disturbance. Fishery managers traditionally have not sampled these fish communities, but now do for lakes that have been selected for biological assessment by the DNR and MPCA. The DNR participates in the MPCA watershed assessment process, providing the Fish IBI and plant IBI data and interpretation to identify impaired lakes, those meeting standards, and lakes of exceptional biological quality. In addition, the DNR is providing an analysis of the stressors contributing to impairment on lakes listed as impaired for fish IBI. DNR Fish IBI staff are also working with MPCA staff on developing standards to protect lakes supporting cold-water fishes.


Funding Request


Four different fish IBI's are now developed to represent a variety of Minnesota lakes. Over 495 lakes have been assessed for fish and stressors identifed. Seventy five lakes contain exceptional fish communities that can be targeted for protection.



FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$1,320,000 $2,300,000 $2,600,000 $2,600,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $13,820,000 $0 $0 $2,000,000

Lake Index of Biological Integrity Program Contact Name: Jacquelyn Bacigalupi Phone 218-203-4315




Stay about the same


These efforts are also supported by the Game and Fish Fund and Heritage Enhancement Fund


Supplement


No



FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 10 13.00 15.50 14.00 14.00 14.00





Develop, maintain and update a buffer protection map that identifies where 50 ft. (avg. width) buffers adjacent to public waters and 16.5 ft. buffers adjacent to public ditches as required in MS 103F.48

The DNR's role in Minnesota's new buffer law is to produce maps of public waters and ditch systems that require permanent vegetation buffers. The DNR produced the initial buffer protection map in July 2016 and has produced 3 updates reflecting over 2,500 changes that resulted from over 4,000 comments from DNR staff, SWCDs and local governments.

Statutory citation that guides program activities, if applicable: 103F.48

Funding Request


An updated buffer protection map identifying where buffers are required.


Decrease


General fund, Water Management Account and Water Recreation Account.

Supplement vs. supplant: Minnesota Statutes 114D.50 Subd. 3 requires that “any state agency or organization requesting a direct appropriation from the clean water fund must inform the Clean Water Council and the house of representatives and senate committees having jurisdiction over the clean water fund, at the time the request for funding is made, whether the request is supplanting or is a substitution for any previous funding that was not from a

FY10-11

FY12-13

FY14-15

FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 TOTAL FY10-21

FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$0 $0 $0 $650,000 $200,000 $200,000 $1,050,000 $0 $0 $50,000

Buffer Map Maintenance Program Contact Name: Steve Colvin Phone 651-259-5709




legacy fund and was used for the same purpose.” Indicate if this proposal will supplement or supplant previous funding.

Supplement


No



FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 0.20000000000000001 01.20 00.50 00.20





This program collects stream flow data, which is used to analyze total runoff, flood flows, calculate pollutant loads for MPCA’s water quality assessments, and sample bedload at select stations to analyze sediment transport in streams.

Clean water funds have allowed the DNR to expand a network of stream gages that are critical for MPCA’s water quality assessments. Funds are used to install/upgrade and calibrate stream gages and to collect, compile, analyze and distribute data collected at gage stations. The Cooperative Stream Gaging Website provides a portal for agencies and the public to see stream flow data, site photos, water quality information and links to other information. In addition, a Monthly Hydrologic Conditions Report provides general trend information on water resources using climatic data, lake and river gages, and groundwater monitoring information.

The stream flow information collected from these gage stations is used by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to calculate pollution loads for Total Maximum Daily Loads. They are also used to evaluate trends in base flow conditions, determine the frequency and magnitude of floods and low flows, assist in assessing changes in land use and watershed conditions and the potential effects of climate change. This information is used to inform comprehensive watershed plans (1W1P) and helps set goals and objectives for implementation efforts.

Statutory citation that guides program activities, if applicable: 103A.401

Funding Request


Continuously monitored flow at 147 sites. The program has achieved its goal for establishing long term monitoring sites. Current efforts are to maintain sites, service and replace equipment as needed, serve the data through a web application and support analysis of data for use by others.



FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$1,500,000 $3,700,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,900,000 $4,000,000 $21,100,000 $0 $0 $4,000,000

Stream Flow Monitoring Program Program Contact Name: Joy Loughry Phone 651-259-5686




Stay about the same


Other state funding sources are used to maintain previously established gage stations. CWF supplements that activity.


Supplement


No



FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 15 05.00 14.00 16.10 15.00 15.00





The DNR contributes specialized expertise in watershed science that helps the MPCA and local partners build watershed models, identify stressors, prioritize waters for protection, and develop watershed restoration and protection strategies. We do this through local participation in WRAPS teams and with a statewide Watershed Health Assessment Framework, which is a web-based tool for accessing watershed data and exploring watershed health concepts.

The DNR collaborates with MPCA and local partners to develop WRAPS. We bring specialized expertise in watershed science that helps MPCA staff create watershed models, identify stressors, and develop strategies for watershed protection and restoration.

Specifically, the MPCA collects and analyzes data on water quality (nutrients, sediment, toxic contaminants, dissolved oxygen, etc.) and biology (fish and aquatic invertebrates in streams). The DNR adds information and expertise in hydrology (water flow and water levels), geomorphology (stream stability and erosion), and connectivity (dams and other barriers that prevent natural movement of water, sediment, and fish). These five components of watershed health interact with each other to determine whether streams and rivers can support swimming, fishing, and aquatic life. The DNR’s expertise in hydrology, geomorphology, and connectivity helps the MPCA determine the cause of water quality impairments, such as too much sediment in a stream, or a fish or invertebrate population that has poor diversity or lacks pollution tolerant organisms (i.e., a low index of biological integrity (IBI) score).

For example, the MPCA may determine that a stream site has a low IBI score, too much sediment, and a lack of habitat. The DNR can further diagnose the problem to determine that the excessive sediment is caused by streambank erosion, which comes from an increase in peak water flows associated with a loss of wetlands, increased drainage and increased rainfall. Loss of riparian habitat and poorly designed road crossings (culverts) add to the problem. Getting to the root cause of the problem helps the WRAPS team think about long-term, sustainable strategies with multiple benefits for the watershed and water quality.

The Watershed Health Assessment Framework is a web-based tool for resource managers and others interested in the ecological health of Minnesota’s watersheds. The framework is based on the five components of watershed health described above. A suite of 18 health scores have been calculated to describe watershed characteristics at multiple scales. The tool give users access to extensive data without the need for GIS technology.


Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies-DNR Portion Program Contact Name: Barbara Weisman Phone 651-259-5147




Funding Request


Analysis of hydrologic change and sediment dynamics completed for each watershed or catchments, where the information is available.


Stay about the same



Supplement


No



FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 16 06.00 18.00 18.60 17.00 17.00



FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$2,100,000 $3,500,000 $3,700,000 $3,880,000 $3,772,000 $3,800,000 $20,752,000 $0 $0 $3,800,000




Continued efforts towards protecting the waters of VNP at the four main public access points of the park

Development of sanitary sewer infrastructure the eliminates failed septic systems

Statutory citation that guides program activities, if applicable: Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080, 7081, 7082, 7083

Funding Request


Creation of Sanitary Sewer Districts in Koochiching County, Crane Lake, Kabetogma, and recent formation of a district in Ash River. Additional funds will be allocated by the VNPCWJPB to further develop the 4 sewer districts as part of the Sanitary Sewer Comprehnsive Plan


Stay about the same


Yes, list other soruces


FY10-11

FY12-13

FY14-15 FY16-17

FY18-19 FY20-21 TOTAL FY10-21

FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$0 $0 $3,500,000 $0 $2,000,000 $1,550,000 $7,050,000 $2,200,000 $0 $1,395,000

National Park Water Quality Protection Program Program Contact Name: Wade Pavleck Phone 218-244-6880


Person filling out form: Keith Wiley Phone 218-725-5019


Supplement


Yes


All of the funding will be allocated to the VNPCWJBP and distributed the the 4 Sanitary Sewer Districts.


FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00





• Survey (from the Strategic Plan 4.3): Develop a set of questions by 2021 that can be used in occasional statewide surveys to determine the public’s understanding of water resources and quality in Minnesota. The Council will work with agencies and/or the University of Minnesota on a cost-effective method of surveying Minnesotans regularly on the same questions through 2034.

• Inclusion Plan: Develop cultural competency on the Council to incorporate the strengths of diverse communities in Minnesota. Develop an inclusion plan by 2021.

• Third-Party Reviews: The strategic plan requests that the Council provide for some regular reviews of larger programs. Third-party reviews can be expensive, but staff can do a survey of all current evaluation methods to see where gaps exist.

During FY22-23, the Council will build upon changes made in FY20-21 to better meet its mission in 114D.30.

• Staff changes: Paul Gardner was hired in January 2019 as the Council Administrator at 1.0 FTE. Brianna Frisch continues to provide administrative support at 0.85 FTE. The MPCA Communications team provides 0.15 FTE to support the Council’s communications strategy.

• Strategic plan: The Council approved its first strategic plan in early 2020. This plan will guide the Council’s activities and funding recommendations through 2034, with periodic reviews to adapt to changing circumstances.

• Outreach to stakeholders: The Council sought input on the outcomes of the Clean Water Fund and the performance of the Council in 2019, leading to many new strategies in the strategic plan. The Administrator has also made regular presentations to interested groups about the Council’s new direction.

• Communications: The Council started a weekly e-mail bulletin on upcoming meetings and updates on projects supported by the Clean Water Fund. Subscriptions tripled since July 2019. Staff is working with MPCA Communications on a consultant RFP to develop an inter-agency communications strategy on the Clean Water Fund. This strategy is required in M.S. 114D.35 Subd. 3.

• Legislative outreach: Staff has kept in regular communication with key legislators and their staff in both houses. A legislative update e-mail bulletin goes out twice a week during the session to update subscribers on bill introductions, hearing schedules, testimony, etc.

• Field Tour: The Council held a field tour of clean water projects in Southeastern Minnesota in September 2019.

Clean Water Council Program Contact Name: Paul Gardner Phone (651) 757-2384


Person filling out form: Paul Gardner Phone (651) 757-2384


Statutory citation that guides program activities, if applicable: M.S. 114D.30

Funding Request


New inclusion plan; new inter-agency communications plan; weekly e-mail to stakholders on upcoming meetings and Clean Water Fund projects; semi-weekly e-mail to stakeholders on legislation during legislative session; 2021 field tour; continued outreach to stakeholders


Increase



Supplement


No



FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 2 01.00 01.00 01.50 01.50 02.00


FY10-11

FY12-13

FY14-15

FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 TOTAL FY10-21

FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$0 $0 $73,000 $100,000 $100,000 $220,000 $493,000 $0 $0 $600,000


Legislature. Will you ensure that the legacy logo is displayed and attribution given to the legacy amendment in publicly available materials, when practicable? Yes

CLEAN WATER FUND PROPOSAL FY22-23: LCC Program Number: 63


Ongoing maintenance, security upgrades, and general updates to the Legacy website.

The LCC has been tasked with developing and maintaining a website that shows how revenues generated by the Legacy Amendment and the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund are utilized. The Legacy website can be accessed at: www.legacy.leg.mn. The LCC contracted with a website/database consulting firm to build and maintain the Legacy website. State agencies receiving legacy and environment & natural resources trust fund appropriations provide the statutorily required data that is displayed on the website. The LCC also developed an API, which permits agencies to import data from their databases directly to the website. Agencies can also enter project data through an on-line data entry form. The LCC staff provide technical support to the approximately 20 state agencies that report project data. Since the website was initially developed in 2010 upgrades have included an updated reporting structure, design enhancements, modifications to permit easier access and use by mobile devices, the addition of an interactive project map and the addition of interactive infographics that display the appropriations from each fund to the state agencies.

Statutory citation that guides program activities, if applicable: M.S. 3.303 Sub. 10

Funding Request


Legacy projects will be listed at legacy.leg.mn.gov


Stay about the same


FY10-11

FY12-13

FY14-15

FY16-17

FY18-19

FY20-21

TOTAL FY10-

21

FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$25,000 $13,000 $30,000 $0 $15,000 $9,000 $92,000 $7,000 $0 $7,000

Legislative Coordinating Commission Website Program Contact Name: Greg Hubinger/Sally Olson Phone (651) 296-2963 (GH)/(651) 296-9002 (SO)

Contact E-mail Address: [email protected]/[email protected]

Person filling out form: Sally Olson Phone (651) 296-9002


Each of the four legacy funds and the environment and natural resources trust fund have contributed to the costs for the development and maintenance of the website. Legacy fund liabilities are shared proportionately by the funds, based on their participat


Supplement


No



FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00





The UofM requests funding to expand our collaborative research with the Clean Water Council. We propose the following five activities designed to fill key knowledge gaps that pose barriers to strategic investments and tailored public communications around the benefits of the Clean Water Fund.

1. Visualize the co-benefits of clean water investments by watershed, including drinking water protection, recreation, wildlife, and carbon sequestration through a web-based tool.

2. Analyze the distribution of clean water investments to understand how CWC funds can enhance equity in the provision of clean water benefits and better address historic disparities in access to clean, safe drinking water.

3. Assess the Impacts of climate change on water resources, including a report and fact sheet on the climate resiliency of different BMPs and land management strategies designed to protect drinking water.

4. Estimate the potential costs of achieving each of the state’s water quality goals (meeting Gulf of Mexico hypoxia nutrient reduction targets, ensuring safe drinking water, protecting culturally important water bodies, etc.) in order to set public expectations through the expiration of the Legacy Amendment.

5. Assist agencies with incorporation of climate change considerations and drinking water planning into development of One Watershed One Plan/comprehensive watershed management plans, using engagement, analysis, surveys, focus groups, and participatory budgeting exercises.

The proposed activities will assist the state in tracking progress, evaluating outcomes, and promoting transparency in CWF investments. The proposal would fund public engagement and stakeholder collaboration at the watershed-level to support agency-led “One Watershed One Plan” processes, build capacity to maximize co-benefits of public investments in clean water, and set realistic targets for CWF investments. These activities respond to gaps identified by the CWC and partners in collaboration with the UofM that will improve the efficacy, efficiency, and long-term viability of clean water funding.


Funding Request

FY10-11

FY12-13

FY14-15

FY16-17

FY18-19 FY20-21

TOTAL FY10-21

FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$0 $0 $0 $0 $265,000 $0 $265,000 $95,000 $95,000 $190,000

Quantifying the multiple benefits of clean water investments Program Contact Name: Bonnie Keeler Phone 651-353-9294


Person filling out form: Bonnie Keeler Phone same

Person filling out form e-mail address: same


The outcomes of the work include: an updated web platform that visualizes the multiple benefits of CWF investments, a report on theequitable distribution of clean water benefits, a report and fact sheet on the climate resiliency of management practices designed to restore and protect clean water, cost projections for achieving clean water objectives, and stakeholder engagement via 1W1P processes and citizen outreach. Past funding to this UofM team resulted in a statewide survey of water values, downscaled climate projections, maps and datasets designed to quantify clean water benefits, and a memo on best practices for monitoring, planning, and implementation.


Decrease


Yes, we are always seeking funds from state, federal, and NGO sources to support our research activities.


Supplement


Yes


100% will go to UofM research staff and students


FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00





In 1987, the St. Louis River Area of Concern (SLRAOC) was designated as a bi-state (MN & WI) AOC by the U.S. and Canada under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. It is located at the very western end of Lake Superior and extends upstream in the St. Louis River estuary to the Fond du Lac dam. Of the 14 Beneficial Use Impairments (BUIs) that were identified by the International Joint Commission, nine (9) BUIs were identified by local stakeholders as being applicable to the SLRAOC. For each of the 9 BUIs, a removal target was selected along with a suite of management actions to be implemented to achieve the targets. That information is described in the annually-updated Remedial Action Plan (RAP). After completion of all the management actions for a BUI, a recommendation to remove the BUI can be submitted to EPA for approval. Once all the BUIs are removed, the SLRAOC will be eligible to apply for delisting.

The SLRAOC program has identified management actions that, once implemented, are intended to achieve the restoration targets established for each of the nine BUIs: (1) Fish Consumption Advisories, (2) Degraded Fish and Wildlife Populations, (3) Fish Tumors and Other Deformities [removed in 2019], (4) Degradation of Benthos, (5) Restrictions on Dredging, (6) Excessive Loading of Sediment and Nutrients [to be recommended to EPA for removal in April 2020], (7) Beach Closings and Body Contact Restrictions, (8) Degradation of Aesthetics [removed in 2014], and (9) Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat. Removal of all the BUIs are predicated on the remediation of contaminated sediment at the selected aquatic locations and the resultant improvement of water quality in the St. Louis River Estuary and Lake Superior (which is a drinking water source for the City of Duluth).

Statutory citation that guides program activities, if applicable: U.S.-Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement

Funding Request


CWFs applied to the SLRAOC will be used in FY22/23 to support implementation of the SLRAOC RAP. The CWFs will continue to be a critical source for meeting the non-federal partner share of implementation, which sets us ahead of other AOCs when requests for federal Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Funds are made. The SLRAOC program is very

FY10-11


FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$0 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $7,500,000 $0 $1,500,025

St. Louis River Area of Concern - Remedial Action Plan Implementation Program Contact Name: Barb Huberty, MPCA St. Louis River Area of Concern Coordinator Phone 218/302-6630


Person filling out form: Barb Huberty Phone 218/302-6630


dynamic and having the flexibility to assign CWFs to meet changing needs in a timely manner has been critical to our success leveraging federal funds. Anticipated expenditures fall into three broad categories: (1) supplementing the USEPA Management Assistance Award to co-fund salaries of staff involved in data management and program coordination (such as annual RAP updates, preparing documentation for BUI removal recommendations, and completing management actions not associated with construction projects), (2) supporting a variety of pre-design investigations needed to make remedial decisions and support remedial designs (these can be used as in-kind funds that leverage US Army Corps of Engineers funds for project design work), and (3) helping develop and implement needed institutional controls – including education and training to protect the SLRAOC investments.


Decrease


Yes! To date, financial contributions to implement the SLRAOC RAP have come from a combination of: private funds, municipal funds, MN Outdoor Heritage Fund, MN General Fund, MN Bond Fund, Natural Resources Damages Assessment Trust, federal Great Lakes Re


Supplement


Yes


As the remedial investigation, feasibility study, remedial alternatives analyses, and preliminary design processes continue at each site, a portion of this funding may be needed to hire contractors, such as Bay West or USGS or universities, to conduct add


FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 0 00.00 00.00 00.50 01.00 00.90



Legislature. Will you ensure that the legacy logo is displayed and attribution given to the legacy amendment in publicly available materials, when practicable? yes



We Are Water MN is a traveling exhibit and community engagement initiative that builds local capacity to support and engage in water restoration and protection. It is supported by a unique collaboration among the Minnesota Humanities Center, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Minnesota Historical Society, and the Minnesota Departments of Agriculture, Health, and Natural Resources. Local organizations host the exhibit and become an exhibit tour-cohort during their 2-year commitment to the program. Soil and water conservation districts, museums, arts organizations, and Tribal governments have all been hosts in the past.

The state agencies and host sites practice the Minnesota Humanities Center’s Absent Narratives Approach--an equity-based approach to partnership building and community engagement--which emphasizes building and strengthening relationships, recognizing the power of story and the danger of absence, learning from and with multiple voices, and amplifying community solutions for change. State partners provide training and reflective experiences for host sites, develop local content for the exhibit, and connect host sites with resources. Host sites build partnerships and plan public activities. All of this is designed to build Minnesotans’ relationships with and responsibilities to water and build local capacities for sustainable watershed management.

The project started in 2016 using a combination of grant and sponsorship funds. We are now in our third tour (2016-2017, 2018-2019, and 2020-2021). The state agencies have been contributing to the projects through grants and contracts with the Minnesota Humanities Center and staff time. Some of these dollars have been Clean Water Fund and some have been other state funds (see budget columns for details). Foundation and other non-state dollars have also been leveraged by the Minnesota Humanities Center. While the request over this biennium is an increase in Clean Water funds, the project budget for the two years overall remains flat. The amount requested reflects the true, full cost of the program. This FY22-23 Clean Water Fund request will support the continuation of this successful program.

We Are Water MN will work with new, additional communities throughout the state and continue to build community capacity for clean water. Because of the cohort nature of the program, we'll work with six communities over the course of the biennium and public activities will happen with three sites per fiscal year.

Foundation and non-CWF dollars will continue to be leveraged and the state planning team will expand to include the Board of Water and Soil Resources.

We Are Water MN Program Contact Name: Britt Gangeness (MPCA) and Jennifer Tonko (Minnesota Humanities Center) Phone Gangeness (651) 757-2262

Tonko (651) 772-4264


[email protected]

Person filling out form: Jennifer Tonko Phone 651-772-4264


We Are Water MN builds local capacity to support and engage in water restoration and protection. The importance of local and state capacities in meeting clean water goals is described in both the 2016 and 2018 Clean Water Fund Performance Reports. The capacities most important to develop and measure for clean water are described in these reports and are called the Social Measures Monitoring System.

Statutory citation that guides program activities, if applicable: 114D.35

Funding Request


We Are Water is a successful and proven initiative that builds strong local and statewide networks which promote positive social norms and enable the development of a communitywide vision for water stewardship. This request would serve six host sites over the biennium and should achieve similar outcomes as described below. The 2018-2019 cohort, which included 8 host sites, achieved the following:

· State employees on the project team are more comfortable working and planning with communities that are historically underrepresented. They also work across agencies more often on other projects outside of We Are Water MN.

· Host sites built and strengthened their networks. There were 240 partnerships across eight sites and nearly half were described as active or deep partnerships. We know these networks are new and different than before the project—30% were described as new relationships and nearly 40% were described as relationships with an organization or community not normally represented in the host site’s work. We continue to hear from past host sites that the relationships they began during We Are Water MN are enduring and leading to new opportunities and we hope to be able to measure this long-term impact in future evaluation efforts.

· Communities gathered together. Over 9,000 individuals attended 28 community events. These events strengthen informal social bonds, facilitated knowledge exchange and provided a shared sense of community and responsibility.

· Many people learned about water. Over 34,000 people attended the exhibit, including 1,500 school children. Based on a visitor survey of 457 attendees, a large percentage of respondents spoke to the value of how the exhibit advanced their learning, desire to share what they learned, and a willingness to take action: 51% identified that they learned something new from the exhibit, 54% expressed they felt a greater responsibility to water resources as a result of visiting the exhibit, 48% felt motivated to take personal action regarding the personal use of water.


Stay about the same


FY10-11

FY12-13

FY14-15

FY16-17

FY18-19 FY20-21

TOTAL FY10-21

FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$0 $0 $0 $35,000 $190,000 $0 $225,000 $270,000 $290,000 $560,000

This project leverages 37 hours/week (0.93 FTE) non-Clean Water Fund positions. Host communities who work with this project use funding they receive through the project to leverage additional funding in their communities. This project has historically sou


Supplement


Yes



FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00





State and county SSTS program support: Support technical assistance and County implementation of SSTS program requirements (M.S. 115.55) including issuing permits, conducting inspections, identifying and resolving non-compliant SSTS, and revising and maintaining SSTS ordinances.

While the state provides the overarching rules and guidance for the SSTS program, our county partners are required to implement the SSTS program by MN Stat. 115.55. Without base funding an enormous amount of county-level SSTS permitting and compliance work that is critical to protect groundwater would go undone (based on 2018 data): ~86 FTEs on the county level would be unfunded; 20% of wastewater treated by septic systems in the state would be largely unmanaged; over 10,000 permits for new and replaced systems (with soil verifications and construction inspections needed at all 10,311 sites) would not be issued; and reviews of ~15,000 compliance inspections would not be completed.

Statutory citation that guides program activities, if applicable: SSTS program activities are guided by:

M.S. 115.55 – provides authority for the program as a whole.

M.S. 115.03 subd. 1 (b) and (c) and (e) (2) and (e) (4) – provide need to address unsewered areas

M.S. 115.55 subd. 11 – straight pipe language, provides

Funding Request


Past appropriations have amounted to ~$8.3 million over the last 7 years. More than 90% of these funds have been passed through to the counties so they can operate their SSTS programs (assuring compliance with state and local SSTS laws), and provide funding to low income families to upgrade septic systems. The funding has allowed for over 850 system upgrades. The demand from counties for funding this program has, on an annual basis, exceeded the amount of funding available by an average of over $500,000/yr. Fully funding the FY22/23 request will allow us to be able to come close to meeting the full demand from counties to address the needs of low income homeowners in their communities. Without full funding, some homeowners will have to wait for future fun to become available

FY10-11

FY12-13


FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$0 $0 $6,900,000 $7,245,000 $6,870,000 $6,750,000 $27,765,000 $0 $5,481,819

Enhanced County inspections/SSTS corrective actions Program Contact Name: Dana Vanderbosch Phone 651-485-1290


Person filling out form: Dana Vanderbosch Phone 651-485-1290


before they can upgrade their septic systems. Funding not passed to counties supports some MPCA staff who inspect SSTS professionals that provide routine maintenance to installed systems. Counties are responsible for inspecting intstallers.


Increase


CWF supplements other state environmental funds


Supplement


Yes


Ninety-two percent of the entire appropriation for this item is passed through to counties so they can implement their delegated SSTS programs. About half is distributed in base grants for each county and the remaining half is available to counties throug


FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 02.10 03.00 03.00 01.80





Unsewered community assistance: Provide funding to facilitate bringing communities that are unsewered or have noncompliant wastewater systems into compliance. Funding will provide incentives to counties to help communities assess their noncompliance, facilitate development of possible solutions, and assess funding options.

There are hundreds of very small communities whose wastewater systems are either wholly or partially noncompliant, creating potential for groundwater contamination. These communities lack the knowledge and expertise to assess their wastewater problems, develop solutions, and navigate through funding processes. For the past year, a group of MPCA/LGU/U of MN stakeholders has been discussing how to assist communities with assessing and developing solutions for wastewater systems that are either failing or underdesigned. This proposal provides funding to support a currently unmet need that will better ensure protection of groundwater.

Statutory citation that guides program activities, if applicable: The issued encountered with noncompliant unsewered communities are covered by regulations in both the SSTS (program 4) and NPDES wastewater (Program 3) above

Funding Request


The MPCA, counties, the Southeast Wastewater Initiative and others have been working with unsewered communities to facilitate development of appropriate wastewater treatment for over 40 years. The efforts have resulted in upgrades to over 90 communities in the last 15 years. Of those, 11 have been completed within the last 5 years. The concern is that the current process results in only bringing a few communities back into compliance each year. We have several hundred communities remaining with inadequate or no treatment, 269 of these have 25 or more homes and 134 have 50 or more homes. The primary objective of this proposal is to increase the rate at which we bring communities into compliance. Secondary objectives include raising awareness of the issue in the communities, education and assistance in development of potential solutions and assistance in obtaining funding for development and implementation of the chosen solution.

FY10-11

FY12-13

FY14-15

FY16-17

FY18-19

FY20-21

TOTAL FY10-

21

FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Unsewered community assistance Program Contact Name: Dana Vanderbosch Phone 651-485-1290





Increase


The requested new CWF dollars would supplement a small amount of state-funded NPDES/SSTS staff time directed towards assisting communities with evaluating unsewered problems.


Supplement


Yes


All of this requested CWF $ would be passed through to LGUs or to a regional facilitator (ex. Minnesota Rural Water)


FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23





Municipal Stormwater Permitting technical assistance: For municipalities experiencing difficulties understanding and implementing the basic requirements of the municipal stormwater program.

This funding provides needed to support stormwater permittees who have requested templates, model ordinances, technical assistance, and guidance documents to facilitate complying with permits. This funding is particularly critical as MPCA and permittees will be working to comply with new permit requirements in the 2020 stormwater MS4 permit.

Statutory citation that guides program activities, if applicable: See below Program 3 NPDES wastewater/stormwater TMDL implementation

Funding Request


The Accelerated Implementation of MS4 Permit Requirements appropriation will be used to continue to enhance guidance and outreach materials and methods in support of our NPDES stormwater permitting efforts. Better understanding of permit requirements and enhancing compliance will have an improvement on water quality. Stakeholder feedback on past outcomes from these appropriated funds has been very favorable. A new MS4 permit will be implemented soon that will contain new requirements, especially related to implementation of TMDLs in stormwater permits to ensure pollutant reductions from stormwater are acheived. The acceleration funds will allow us to develop materials that specifically aid in helping permittees understand and comply with these new requirements. Past accomplishments include developing self-audit materials for permittees, a digital document library for easy online access to information, guidance on stormwater pond assessments, case studies for MS4 guidance, a concept for allowing credits for stormwater sweeping, guidance on green infrastructure, and updating both the MS4 and TMDL Toolkits


FY10-11

FY12-13

FY14-15

FY16-17

FY18-19 FY20-21 TOTAL FY10-21

FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$0 $0 $0 $0 $450,000 $400,000 $850,000 $0 $400,000

Accelerated Implementation of MS4 Permit Requirements Program Contact Name: Dana Vanderbosch Phone 651-485-1290




Stay about the same




Supplement


No



FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 01.00 01.00





Technical assistance and grants to public entities to help meet chloride TMDL requirements

This program offers grants to communities to upgrade/replace water softeners, provides money for training salt applicators as well as education and outreach to permit holders to support implementation of chloride reduction strategies.

Statutory citation that guides program activities, if applicable: See below Program 3 NPDES wastewater/stormwater TMDL implementation

Funding Request


The MPCA has been able to hold 60 Smart Salting Training Classes per year by leveraging federal 319 dollars with CWF monies. The federal dollars will not be available after August 2020. We expect that we will be able to provide four $100,000 grants to communities for water softener replacements.


Stay about the same




FY10-11

FY12-13

FY14-15

FY16-17

FY18-19


FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $524,053

Chloride Reduction Program Contact Name: Brooke Aseleson Phone 651-757-2205





Supplement


Yes



FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 01.00 01.00





Wastewater and Stormwater program support: Integration of watershed approach (WRAPS and TMDLs) with wastewater and stormwater permitting programs.

This funding provides support for implementing the wastewater and stormwater NPDES programs, particularly incorporating materials from the watershed approach. As stormwater and wastewater can be a significant contributor of pollutants to impaired waters, proper management of these waste streams by both stormwater and wastewater permittees is crucial to achieving the goals of TMDLs. This work includes: permitting, engineer review, compliance and enforcement, training and certification, assistance with the funding programs, effluent limit determination, EAW review, and data review.

Statutory citation that guides program activities, if applicable: Stormwater:

Clean Water Act, Section 402

MN Stat 115.01 – 115.09, specifically

115.03 Subd. 1. a-n. (issue permits, program authority)

115.03 Subd. 2 (Hearings and investigations)

115.03 Subd 5 (NPDES authority)

115.03 Subd 5. C, a-c (stormwater and desig

Funding Request


NPDES wastewater/stormwater TMDL implementation funding supports several staff in the MPCA's wastewater and stormwater programs. These staff are responsible for providing input into the development of Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy documents and TMDLs. Then, they ensure that TMDL wasteload allocations (i.e., pollutant reductions) are appropriately brought into wastewater and stormwater permits. Staff also facilitate water pollutant

FY10-11

FY12-13


FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$0 $0 $1,800,000 $1,800,000 $1,800,000 $1,800,000 $7,200,000 $0 $180,352

NPDES wastewater/stormwater TMDL implementation Program Contact Name: Dana Vanderbosch Phone 651-485-1290




trades in permits (point to point source and point to nonpoint source trades), and the development of tools to better analyze the relationship between point sources and surface waters. For example, wastewater monitoring data are available in a Tableau data browser with over 35,000 views since March 2016. The application lets users select data by a facility or area of interest. It plots results along with monitoring limits to provide context of facility performance. Private sector watershed professionals make extensive use of these data for development of TMDLs and WRAPS. Funding also supports the continued development of the Stormwater Manual, that is routinely used by both regulated and unregulated communities to properly manage stormwater.


Stay about the same


CWF supplements other state environmental and federal funds


Supplement


No



FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 06.50 08.00 06.00 05.95



CLEAN WATER FUND PROPOSAL FY22-23: PFA Program Number: 7


The PSIG program provides grants to help cities upgrade water treatment facilities to reduce discharge of nutrients and other pollutants to meet TMDL wasteload allocations and other regulatory requirements.

Through the water management framework, impaired and threatened water bodies are identified and restoration and protection strategies are developed to guide point source and nonpoint source implementation activities. The PSIG program provides grants to help municipalities construct wastewater, stormwater, and drinking water treatment projects when the MPCA determines that higher levels of treatment are necessary to meet water quality goals. These include projects to meet Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) wasteload allocation requirements and water quality based effluent limits for phosphorus, chlorides, and other pollutants. MPCA reviews projects for eligibility and ranks them on the annual Project Priority List.

Statutory citation that guides program activities, if applicable: MS 446A.073

Funding Request


Projects are designed to achieve specific effluent limits and wasteload reductions, and discharges are monitored to verify compliance. Since 2010, Clean Water Fund dollars have helped 108 municipalities implement wastewater and stormwater projects, including 48 wastewater projects to reduce phosphorus discharges to 1 milligram per liter or less, resulting in a total phosphorus reduction of more than 139,000 pounds per year. Additional projects have reduced discharges of nitrogen, chlorides, and mercury.


Stay about the same



FY22

FY23

FY22-23

$30,200,000

$30,920,000

$18,000,000

$18,000,000

$15,750,000

$18,000,000

$130,870,000

$16,732,000

Point Source Implementation Grant (PSIG) Program Program Contact Name: Jeff Freeman Phone 651-259-7465


Person filling out form: same Phone same


Since 2017, the PSIG program has also recevied funding from state general obligation bond appropriations. The Governor's bonding recommendations for 2020 include $75 million for the PSIG program.


Supplement


Yes


All funding is passed through to local units of government for construction projects. Projects must be ranked on the MPCA project priority list. The PFA accepts applications in July each year. Grants are not awarded until projects are approved and cert


FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00



CLEAN WATER FUND PROPOSAL FY22-23: PFA Program Number: 41


The Small Community program provides technical assistance grants and construction loans and grants to help small unsewered communities replace failing septic systems with community subsurface treatment systems.

Minnesota has many areas with significant numbers of noncomplying septic systems in close proximity that are polluting surface waters and groundwater. Local governments interested in community solutions submit projects to MPCA for ranking on the Project Priority List based on the density and condition of existing systems. The program provides technical assistance grants to help communities evaluate potential alternatives and prepare a community assessment report which is submitted for review to MPCA, and construction financing (loans and grants) for projects when they are ready to proceed.

Statutory citation that guides program activities, if applicable: MS 446A.075

Funding Request


Since 2010, 34 unsewered communities have received technical assistance grants (max $60,000 each) to conduct site assessments and evaluate potential wastewater treatment alternatives. Six communities received construction funds to build publicly-owned soil-based systems. Many others used other funding sources for regionalization or private system fixes.


Stay about the same


No


FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$2,500,000 $2,500,000 $4,000,000 $500,000 $250,000 $250,000 $10,000,000 $0 $0 $200,000

Small Community Wastewater Treatment Program Program Contact Name: Jeff Freeman Phone 651-259-7465


Person filling out form: same Phone same



Supplement


Yes


All funding is passed through to local units of government. Projects must be ranked on the MPCA project priority list.


FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00



CLEAN WATER FUND PROPOSAL FY22-23: MC Program Number: 35


The program provides grants to assist municipalities in metro area implementing water demand reduction and water efficiency measures to ensure the reliability and protection of drinking water supplies and support resiliency of water suppliers.

State regulators require water suppliers to reduce water use and increase water conservation and efficiency. Funding for this requirement has not been provided through other means. By providing financial assistance to incentivize communities to implement water demand reduction measures in municipalities, the program reduces reliance on groundwater which will help preventing groundwater degradation in locations around the region and will ensure the reliability and protection of drinking water supplies and will support resiliency of water suppliers.

Statutory citation that guides program activities, if applicable: Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.1565

Funding Request


In FY16- 17, Metropolitan Council awarded grants to nineteen communities in the metro area to implement water demand reduction measures that increase water efficiency, both indoors and outdoors. Water savings from the program is 55 Million gallons annually, water enough to supply 1,700 persons for a year. In FY20-21, the number of communities participated in grant program has doubled requesting more than the available fund. The expected water saving will be more then 55 Million gallons annually. The program continues to increase awareness about water efficiency and support water efficiency goals set by communities.


Increase

FY10-11

FY12-13

FY14-15

FY16-17 FY18-19


FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$0 $0 $0 $500,000 $0 $750,000 $1,250,000 $500,000

Water Demand Reduction- Efficiency - Grant Program Program Contact Name: ALI M ELHASSAN Phone 651-602-1066 (office) 916-990-8941 (cell)


Person filling out form: ALI M ELHASSAN Phone 651-602-1066 (office) 916-990-8941 (cell)



This grant program uses matching funds from local water suppliers to incentivize wise use of our precious water resources.


Supplement


Yes


All fund will be distributed to LGUs- Municipal Water suppliers- through competitive grants


FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00



CLEAN WATER FUND PROPOSAL FY22-23: MC Program Number: 42


The program Implements projects that address emerging drinking water supply threats, provides cost-effective regional solutions, leverages inter-jurisdictional coordination, supports local implementation of water supply reliability projects, and prevents degradation of groundwater resources.

The region’s steady population growth, increased groundwater pumping, changing land use, and variable weather and climate is challenging some communities’ ability to meet current and future demand. This program supports efforts to ensure supplies of potable water are adequate for the region’s current and projected population; to ensure uninterrupted economic growth and prosperity; to avoid competition and conflict over water supply; and to foster regional collaboration to address water supply challenges and limitations in a manner that takes advantages of regional and sub-regional resources.

Statutory citation that guides program activities, if applicable: Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.1566

Funding Request


recommend measures to improve use of groundwater, enhance groundwater quality and surface water features, highlight groundwater-surface water interaction risk factors for communities and provide recommendations to prevent and address these risks and achieve water security through integrated water management, conservation, and reuse. The success Indicators are increased number of communities received technical support from the council through facilitated sub-regional workgroups and projects implemented, and achieve intended long-term outcome that is to sustainably use groundwater in a reliable approach with other available resources. From 2005 to 2018, number of communities received technical support from the council through facilitated sub-regional workgroups increased 65%. reduced groundwater use in the region is another measure of success for this program.


FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$800,000

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$1,950,000

$1,900,000

$2,000,000

$9,650,000

$1,000,000

$1,000,000

$1,837,500

Metropolitan Area Water Supply Sustainability Support Program Program Contact Name: ALI M ELHASSAN Phone 651-602-1066 (office) 916-990-8941 (cell)


Person filling out form: ALI M ELHASSAN Phone 651-602-1066 (office) 916-990-8941 (cell)



Increase



Supplement


Yes


%60 - %65 of fund will be used to fund projects scoped by LGUs- Municipal Water suppliers- through competitive contracts


FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 3.5 01.50 03.00 03.00 03.00 03.00





Funding supports an irrigation water quality specialist who develops guidance and provides education on irrigation and nitrogen best management practices and supports the development of irrigation scheduling program for counties with high number of licensed irrigators. The irrigation specialist is located in University of Minnesota - Extension.

Funding supports an irrigation water quality specialist who develops guidance and provides education, outreach and promotion of irrigation and nitrogen fertilizer best management practices. Adoption of these practices will help to reduce nitrate-nitrogen leaching in irrigated agricultural fields.


Funding Request


This position provides direct support to irrigators regarding best management practices, irrigation scheduling, and soil water monitoring. In 2019, she reached 2,000 farmers, crop consultants and co-op dealers at field days and events. Gave 25 presentations, wrote six new blog posts, articles for the Irrigators Association newsletter, and three extension articles which were viewed more than 5,000 times. This position has active research trials which provide information to update best management practices.


Decrease


Yes, this position and related research is supported with other funding including grants obtained by the irrigation specialist position.

FY10-11

FY12-13


FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$0 $0 $220,000 $220,000 $220,000 $300,000 $960,000 $0 $0 $270,000

Irrigation Water Quality Protection Program Contact Name: Margaret Wagner Phone 651-201-648



507-250-5946 (C)



Supplement


Yes


100% of funding was passed through to support a position at the University of Minnesota-Extension


FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00





Funding to implement Minnesota’s Nitrogen Fertilizer Management Plan and Groundwater Protection Rule for preventing and responding to nitrate contamination of groundwater from nitrogen fertilizer use. Includes support for: private well testing; groundwater monitoring; nitrogen fertilizer BMP promotion and adoption; Extension staffing; local advisory teams to work with farmers; technical support; and demonstration projects such as Rosholt Farm.

Funding is being used for activities that help identify potential sources of nitrate-nitrogen contamination and evaluate and implement practices at the local level to reduce nitrate-nitrogen in groundwater.

Statutory citation that guides program activities, if applicable: 103H and 18C. MDA is the lead agency for addressing nitrate in groundwater and developing and evaluating best management practices (BMPs) and other agricultural practices to protect water resources.

Funding Request


The Nitrogen Fertilizer Management Plan and Groundwater Protection Rule are being implemented. Partnerships have been established in vulnerable areas in support of groundwater protection including working with 38 local government units on nitrate monitoring and reduction activities and working with local farmers at seven (7) regional on-farm nitrogen fertilizer BMP evaluation sites.

Two UM Extension Educator positions are supported to work directly with farmers and dealers on nutrient issues where groundwater is impacted (located in the southeast and Central Sands regions).

Approximately 34,818 private well owners have participated in either a one-time (snap shot) or long-term nitrate testing.

• 700-900 private well owners have participated in long-term nitrate testing annually, since 2011 in the Central Sands Private Well Network, and since 2009 in the Southeast Network.


FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$1,125,000 $1,700,000 $5,000,000 $5,171,000 $4,171,000 $5,170,000 $22,337,000 $0 $0 $5,170,000

Nitrate in Groundwater Program Contact Name: Dan Stoddard Phone 651-201-6291



507-250-5946 (C)


• 32,217 wells private wells in vulnerable townships have been tested through MDA’s Township Testing Program (2013-2019). Work completed in 344 vulnerable townships within 50 counties.


Increase


Yes, this program receives support from the General Fund and dedicated funds from the Fertilizer Account generated from fertilizer sales.

The MDA leverages CWF dollars with other state and federal grant applications.


Supplement


Yes


In FY14-FY19, 46% of funding was passed through in contracts to local partners (SWCDs, counties, etc.), University of Minnesota researchers, University of Minnesota-Extension, and analytical laboratories.


FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 00.00 08.20 00.00 10.40 11.00





Funding supports on-farm demonstrations and enhances outreach and education to the agricultural community and local government partners. Demonstration projects evaluate the effectiveness of conservation practices and support collaboration with agricultural stakeholders and peer-to peer learning among farmers.

Technical assistance activities are a primary vehicle to work with the agricultural community to promote best management practices. This funding is used to evaluate the effectiveness of conservation practices, demonstrate practices that protect water, and enhance outreach and education to the agricultural community and local government partners.

Statutory citation that guides program activities, if applicable: MS 18C, 103H.175

Funding Request


As of 2019, the MDA has directly engaged more than 3,000 ag producers, crop advisors and local partners at more than 150 education and outreach events. The MDA supports approximately 100 nutrient management initiative on-farm plots each year engaging 100 farmers and 30 crop advisers.

The MDA maintains more than 25 active edge-of-field water quality monitoring stations around the state. Edge-of-field data have been used for education/outreach and for a variety of computer simulations including PTMApp, Adapt-N, SWAT, and the Runoff Risk Advisory Tool. Data are used to support the State’s Watershed Approach and referenced in numerous WRAPs reports. MDA and project partners has shared edge-of-field monitoring data more than 30 times to support modeling and research by other research organizations.


Stay about the same


FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$2,660,000 $1,550,000 $3,000,000 $2,250,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $15,460,000 $0 $0 $3,000,000

Technical Assistance Program Contact Name: Margaret Wagner Phone 651-201-6488



507-250-5946 (C)



Yes, staff have leveraged federal EQIP dollars for implementation in the Root River watershed and applied for small grants to enhance demonstration sites.


Supplement


Yes


In FY14-FY19, 21% was passed through in grants and contracts. Recipients include local project partners (SWCDs), farmers, and landowners.


FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 00.00 00.00 06.85 07.00 07.00





This program provides revolving low-interest loans for eligible activities that reduce or eliminate water pollution. The program is administered by local governments, has very low transaction costs, and repayments fund additional projects.

AgBMP loans can be used for any practice that reduces pollution. The purpose is to encourage agricultural best management practices that prevent or reduce runoff from feedlots, farm fields and other pollution problems identified by the county in local water plans

Statutory citation that guides program activities, if applicable: MS 17.117

Funding Request


As of May 2020, the AgBMP Loan Program used Clean Water Fund dollars to support 2,004 loans totaling an amount of $25,886,230. By practice type, 180 loans were for agricultural waste management projects, 51 for conservation

tillage equipment, 983 for structural erosion control, and 736 for septic systems upgrades or relocations.


Increase


Yes, the AgBMP loan program receives funding from five sources. The majority of funding has been from the Federal State Revolving Fund (73%) and the Clean Water Fund (17%).


FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$4,500,000 $9,000,000 $400,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $14,350,000 $0 $0 $150,000

AgBMP Loan Program Program Contact Name: Dwight Wilcox Phone 651-201-6608



507-250-5946 (C)


The AgBMP Loan program has leveraged $24,566,389 for practices to support clean


Supplement


Yes


All dollars are available as loans. This is a revolving loan program so as loans are repaid they go back into the corpus of the program and are used again for additional loans. As of May 2020, $14,350,000 invested has resulted in $25,886,230 in loans.


FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 00.75 00.30 00.50 00.50 00.50





The MAWQCP is a first of its kind partnership between federal and state government and private industry. This innovative and nationally recognized voluntary program targets water quality protection on a field by field, whole farm basis. It comprehensively identifies and mitigates agricultural risks to water quality and protects and restores water resources, improves and expands soil health, and builds and quantifies climate resiliency in Minnesota agriculture.

The Minnesota Agricultural Water Quality Certification Program (MAWQCP) is a voluntary opportunity for farmers and agricultural landowners to take the lead in implementing conservation practices that protect our water. Those who implement and maintain approved farm management practices will be certified and in turn obtain regulatory certainty for a period of ten years.

Statutory citation that guides program activities, if applicable: MS 17.9891 – 17.993

Funding Request


As of June 1, 2020, the MAWQCP has 883 producers and 610,714 acres with 1,840 new practices implemented, resulting in:

•37,625 tons of sediment prevented per year

•105,255 tons of soil saved per year

•46,599 lbs of Phosphorous loss prevented per year

•37,886 C02-equivaelent tons of GHG emissions reductions per year

•Up to 49% reduction in Nitrogen losses

Since late 2019:

FY10-11

FY12-13


FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$0 $0 $3,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 $19,000,000 $0 $0 $6,000,000

MN Agricultural Water Quality Certification Program Program Contact Name: Brad Jordahl Redlin Phone 651-201-6489



507-250-5946 (C)


•13 Soil Health Endorsements

•14 Integrated Pest Management Endorsements

•9 Wildlife Endorsements


Stay about the same


Yes, through 2019 the MAWQCP program has leveraged over $11 million, including $9 million in federal funding through Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP). In 2020, the MAWQCP was awarded a renewal for the RCPP for an additional $9M through 202


Supplement


Yes


In FY14-FY19, 51% was passed through in grants and contracts. Recipients include SWCDs, project partners, farmers, and landowners.


FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 00.00 03.75 05.80 05.40 05.70





This is a Clean Water Council Initiative. While the federal Safe Drinking Water Act provides a basic level of protection for drinking water, this activity engages local and national experts to develop an action plan and policies that go beyond current regulatory requirements to address emerging threats and ensure long-term safe drinking water in Minnesota.

The next phase of this initiative will focus on developing a state drinking water plan and implementation of a number of the recommendations from the University of Minnesota's Future of Drinking Water report.

Continue development of public health policies and implement recommendations that addresse individual emerging threats and ensure long-term safe drinking water in MN by engaging local and national experts. Use the recommendations of the expert and stakeholder panels to create a statewide drinking water protection strategic plan that includes both public and private drinking water and fully integrates drinking water protection into the watershed management framework used by the Executive Branch water agencies. More specifically, develop a framework to manage risks from unregulated contaminants, consider establishment of an outside advisory group, and increase public engagement in and understanding of drinking water challenges.


Funding Request


Completed: A report describing the sources of lead in drinking water, cost and benefits of removing lead in lead service lines and premise plumbing, and potential strategies to reduce exposure to lead.

FY10-11

FY12-13

FY14-15

FY16-17

FY18-19 FY20-21 TOTAL FY10-21

FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$0 $0 $0 $0 $300,000 $500,000 $800,000 $0 $0 $500,000

Drinking Water Protection Program Contact Name: Tom Hogan and Tannie Eshenaur Phone Due to the COVID-19 situation and staff reassignments, please contact Tannie @ 651.334.5854.

Sarah - 651.201.4085


Person filling out form: Tannie Eshenaur Phone 651.334.5854


A University of Minnesota report on the Future of Drinking Water report that includes recommendations from a stakeholder group and expert panel on actions needed to protect Minnesota's drinking water.

Future: State Drinking Water Plan

A risk management framework for unregulated contaminants

A public engagement strategy

An external advisory group


Stay about the same



Supplement


Yes


possible contracts to the UM or external experts


FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.25





Establish a statewide inventory of public beaches

Develop a statewide portal for beach monitoring results and closures

Create a secure login for entities conducting beach monitoring to enter and manage test results online

Provide education to Minnesotans via the portal on preventing illness and recreational water stewardship

Currently there is no single entity that tracks the monitoring or closure of public beaches statewide. While many people assume all beaches are monitored, beach testing is conducted at the discretion of the entity responsible for the beach (often a local public health agency). The creation of a statewide recreational water testing portal would allow Minnesotans to go to one online location to access information on any recreational water testing conducted or beach closures currently in place. Additionally, the portal would allow for users to be made aware of any alerts currently in place at the beach of interest, such as the appearance of harmful algal blooms or major pollution events.


Funding Request


# of beaches monitored and reported via online portal

# of beach closures posted on online portal

Beach surveys to monitor knowledge, attitudes and behavior

FY10-11

FY12-13

FY14-15

FY16-17

FY18-19

FY20-21

TOTAL FY10-

21

FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Recreational Water Portal Program Contact Name: Trisha Robinson Phone Due to the COVID-19 situation and staff reassignments, please contact Tannie @ 651.334.5854.

Sarah - 651.201.4084


Person filling out form: Tannie Eshenaur Phone 651.334.5854



Stay about the same


There is a modest EPA grant for monitoring 40 out of 80 beaches on Lake Superior. There are no other funds to support this proposal


Supplement


No



FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00





The Private Well Protection Program works to ensure all private well users in Minnesota (1.2 million people) have safe drinking water. This program supplements the work fo the MDH Well Management Section (which ensures all wells are constructed and sealed properly) by evaluating the occurrence and distribution of contaminants in well water, promoting regular private well testing, and helping households address well water quality issues.

This program helps identify what contaminants are in well water, helps private well users and owners understand how their well water is affected by human activity, and helps households make sure they are consuming safe drinking water.

Statutory citation that guides program activities, if applicable: M.L. 2019, Chp. 2, Art. 2, Sec. 8 (d)

Funding Request


Percent of private well owners testing their well water at the freqency MDH recommends

Percent of private well owners with elevated arsenic who take action to reduce their exposure to arsenic in drinking water


Increase

FY10-11

FY12-13


FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$0 $0 $650,000 $650,000 $800,000 $1,500,000 $3,600,000 $0 $0 $1,725,000

Private Well Protection Program Contact Name: Chris Elvrum

Frieda von Qualen Phone Due to the COVID-19 situation and staff reassignments, please contact Tannie @ 651.334.5854.

Sarah - 651.201.4083


Person filling out form: Frieda von Qualen Phone 651-201-4547



Potentially, we keep our eyes open for grant opportunities through CDC and other federal funders.


Supplement


Yes


Previous grantees: Becker SWCD, U of MN Water Resources Center, Stearns SWCD

Additional grantees include SWCDs, local public health, and local partners to promote private well testing and provide financial assistance for addressing water quality issues i


FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 3.75 00.00 01.00 02.50 02.50 02.75





The DNR supports local planning and implementation work for clean water. These includes engaging in One Watershed, One Plan projects, conservation planning assistance, technical assistance with implementation projects, and targeted forest stewardship planning for water quality protection.

DNR assigns one staff person in each 1W1P watershed. That person works with staff in multiple DNR disciplines (Ecological and Water Resources, Forestry, Fish and Wildlife, Park and Trails, Lands and Minerals) to ensure that DNR’s input in the planning process is coordinated, integrated, relevant, and useful.

DNR experts work with local partners to target, select, and find funding for water quality improvement or protection projects. DNR provides design assistance, and help with installation of projects like stream restorations or stream crossings so that those projects incorporate multiple conservation benefits while addressing the root causes of pollution problems. DNR staff also work with local communities on implementation through their local floodplain and shoreland ordinances. We developed new model floodplain and shoreland ordinances with higher standards for water quality and are conducting reviews of communities’ existing ordinances to identify gaps which may result in degraded water resources if they are not addressed or opportunities for protection through changes to zoning.

DNR foresters work with land owners, and SWCDs to write and implement forest stewardship plans in the upper Mississippi River watersheds for lakes that support tullibee, an important cold water fish that serve as food for walleye and other game fish. Landowners with a stewardship plan qualify for cost share dollars and incentive programs that prevent development on the property and therefore protect water quality. Healthy forests in watersheds of tulibee lakes are a key to ensuring water quality or these sensitive species. This program was developed in partnership with the Minnesota Forest Resources Council’s Landscape committees.


Funding Request



FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$500,000 $2,400,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,900,000 $2,000,000 $10,800,000 $2,600,000

Non-point Source Restoration and Implementation Program Contact Name: Barbara Weisman Phone 651-259-5147




DNR staff actively paricipate in all 1W1P planning projects. DNR staff are providing technical assistance on about 85 implementation projects per year, many projects are multi-year efforts. DNR has enabled completion of more than 259 forest stewardship plans covering 27,687 acres of forest in targeted watersheds.







FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 01.00 06.00 06.30 06.50 06.50





The objective of this program is to provide information to LGUs regarding the coverage of perennial vegetation within riparian buffer zones on an ongoing 5-yr cycle. This information will support LGUs in their assessment of compliance with the requirements of the state’s buffer program. The perennial vegetation monitoring information will be created by collecting and analyzing color infrared imagery for about 1/5 of the state each year, covering the entire state every 5 years.

There are approximately 104,000 miles of watercourses in Minnesota that required to have perennial vegetative buffers in an effort to help protect water quality. Local units of government are primarily responsible for this evaluation, but given the scope of the effort, relying solely on a labor-intensive field inspection approach will be inefficient. Adding a statewide remote sensing effort would complement the field inspection efforts by providing information that could be used to focus follow-up inspections.

The proposed approach would rely on high-resolution, multi-spectral imagery that includes a color-infrared component. The most effective timing for imagery acquisition to assess perennial vegetation is during spring, leaf-off conditions before annual crops have started to grow. This period maximizes the difference in appearance between bare fields and perennial vegetation. This imagery is not otherwise available from other programs.

Imagery would be acquired through a competitive bid process. Given the relatively short time-window for spring, leaf-off conditions, the acquisition would need to occur over a 4 to 5 year period. Overall, this program would provide a complete statewide assessment of perennial vegetation cover every five tears. We propose to acquire 0.5-meter resolution, map-ready aerial imagery over a four year period with one additional year for potential mop-up acquisition for imagery that can’t be acquired due to weather issues. This imagery would then be processed to compute a vegetation index and the resulting product would be provided for both viewing and download through a web-based map application (similar to what MnTOPO does for lidar data).


Funding Request

FY10-11

FY12-13

FY14-15

FY16-17

FY18-19

FY20-21

TOTAL FY10-

21

FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$0

Color Infrared Imagery and Analysis Program Contact Name: Jason Moeckel Phone 651-259-5240





Regularly updated and maintained aerial imagery that supports compliance with MN riparian buffer law.


Stay about the same


There are opportunities to use Federal and local government matching funds.


Supplement


No



FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 0.5 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00





The DNR has developed the expertise to hatch and grow freshwater mussels and restore populations in Minnesota rivers. We propose to scale up production of native mussel species and place them into their natural habitats. Funding would support collection, rearing, distribution and monitoring costs.

Freshwater mussels are natures water filter, removing bacteria and excess nutrients, they also provide habitat and food resources for other organisms. Mussels are a key component of the ecological system. However, freshwater mussels declined largely because of dams and other fish barriers. Even after removing these barriers, many mussel species are no longer present in sufficient numbers to repopulate rivers and streams. This restoration program would alleviate this constraint by restoring mussels in sufficient numbers to become self-sustaining populations.


Funding Request


Restored populations of freshwater mussels, improved water quality and delisting of impaired waters.


Stay about the same


Federal funds & LCCMR

Supplement vs. supplant: Minnesota Statutes 114D.50 Subd. 3 requires that “any state agency or organization requesting a direct appropriation from the clean water fund must inform the Clean Water Council and the house of

FY10-11

FY12-13

FY14-15

FY16-17

FY18-19

FY20-21

TOTAL FY10-

21

FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Freshwater Mussel Restoration Program Contact Name: Jason Moeckel Phone 651-259-5240




representatives and senate committees having jurisdiction over the clean water fund, at the time the request for funding is made, whether the request is supplanting or is a substitution for any previous funding that was not from a legacy fund and was used for the same purpose.” Indicate if this proposal will supplement or supplant previous funding.

Supplement


No



FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 0





The DNR is proposing a cost share program to accelerate the adoption of alternative culvert designs by providing finanical and technical support to local governments. The concept is to provide up to 25% cost share on projects that apply channel moprhology metrics, which improve biological connectivity, channel stability, reduce flood stage and lower long term maintenance costs.

Replacing culverts that are not functioning properly with the preferred design approach will restore biological communities by allowing greater fish passage, improve water quality be stabilizing streambanks and allowing water to access the floodplain.


Funding Request





FY10-11

FY12-13

FY14-15

FY16-17

FY18-19

FY20-21

TOTAL FY10-

21

FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Culvert Replacement Cost Share Program Contact Name: Jason Moeckel Phone 651-259-5240







FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23





Accelerate implementation of the State's Watershed Approach through the statewide development of watershed-based local water planning that is synchronized with Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (WRAPS) and Groundwater Restoration and Protection Strategies (GRAPS) by providing technical assistance, program oversight, and grants to local governments.

Local governments develop plans with priortized, resource-focused implementation plans based on data, state strategies, and local values. Plans are comprehensive and address protection and restoration.

Statutory citation that guides program activities, if applicable: M.S. 103B.801

Funding Request


up to 7 plans completed per year.


Increase



FY10-11

FY12-13

FY14-15

FY16-17

FY18-19

FY20-21

TOTAL FY10-21

FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,000,000 $6,000,000

Watershed Management Transition (One Watershed, One Plan) Program Contact Name: Julie Westerlund Phone 651-600-0694




Supplement


Yes


60%


FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 00.00 01.40 02.10 04.70 06.50






Funding Request








FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 00.00 00.00 23.90 06.30 00.00

FY10-11

FY12-13

FY14-15

FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 TOTAL FY10-21

FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$0 $0 $0 $18,000,000 $3,000,000 $17,250,000 $38,250,000 $0 $0 $1,207,000

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) Program Contact Name: Sharon Doucette Phone 651-539-2567








To purchase permanent conservation easements to protect lands adjacent to public waters with good water quality but threatened with degradation. Easement focus is in the headwaters of the Mississippi Basin for protection of tributaries and the Mississippi River, to provide source water protection for numerous Twin Cities and rural communities along the Mississippi River

Protects high quality lakes and source water in the Upper Mississippi Basin


Funding Request


Additonal acreage of permanent protection around high quality lakes and source water protection areas in the Mississippi Headwaters


Stay about the same



FY10-11

FY12-13

FY14-15

FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 TOTAL FY10-21

FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$0 $0 $0 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $7,000,000 $2,550,000

Critical Shoreland Protection-Permanent Conservation Easements Program Contact Name: Sharon Doucette Phone 651-539-2567




Supplement


Yes


90%


FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 00.00 00.00 01.90 01.90 01.90






Funding Request



Decrease







FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$6,900,000 $12,000,000 $13,000,000 $9,750,000 $9,750,000 $9,500,000 $60,900,000 $0 $0 $4,000,000

Riparian Buffer-Permanent Conservation Easements: Program Contact Name: Sharon Doucette Phone 651-539-2567





FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 01.50 02.80 18.50 11.10 02.20




Funds will acquire permanent conservation easements and restore wetlands in priority areas statewide. Will hold water in upper watershed areas for de-nitrification, rate and volume control.

Acquire permanent conservation easements and restore wetlands in priority areas statewide that will hold water in upper watershed areas for de-nitrification, rate and volume control.


Funding Request


Increase in wetland acres


Increase



Supplement

FY10-11

FY12-13

FY14-15

FY16-17

FY18-19

FY20-21

TOTAL FY10-

21

FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000,000

Wetland Restoration Easement Program Contact Name: Sharon Doucette Phone 651-539-2567





Yes


90%


FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00





For conservation easements on wellhead protection areas under Minnesota Statutes, section 103F.515, subdivision 2, paragraph (d), or for grants to local units of government for ensuring long-term protection of groundwater supply sources in wellhead protection areas. Priority to be placed on land that is located where the vulnerability of the drinking water supply is designated as high or very high by the commissioner of health, where the drinking water supply is identified as Mitigation Level 1 or 2 by the Minnesota Groundwater Rule, where monitoring has shown elevated nitrate levels, where drinking water protection plans have identified specific activities that will achieve long-term protection, and/or on lands with expiring Conservation Reserve Program contracts.

Implements long-term land management protection in wellhead protection areas


Funding Request


Additional acres of permanent or long-term protection in highly or very highly vulnerable well head protection areas.


Increase




FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$2,300,000 $3,600,000 $2,600,000 $3,500,000 $3,500,000 $4,000,000 $19,500,000 $2,000,000

Targeted Wellhead/Drinking Water Source Protection Program Contact Name: Sharon Doucette Phone 651-539-2567





Supplement


Yes


90%


FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 00.50 00.60 02.00 02.70 02.70





Provides program oversight and grants to support local governments in their implementation of the statewide buffer law.

Funds are made available on a non-competitive, formula-based basis to SWCDs to support their local implementation of the buffer law


Funding Request


Continued enforcement of Minnesota's Buffer Law


Stay about the same



Supplement

FY10-11

FY12-13

FY14-15

FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 TOTAL FY10-21

FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$0 $0 $0 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $15,000,000 $4,000,000

Buffer Law Implementation Program Contact Name: Tom Gile Phone 507-206-2894





Yes


80%


FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 00.00 00.00 03.00 03.00 03.00





Included based on past Legislative decisions. Not an agency recommendation.


Funding Request








FY10-11

FY12-13

FY14-15

FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 TOTAL FY10-21

FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$0 $0 $0 $22,000,000 $22,000,000 $24,000,000 $68,000,000 $0 $0 $0

Grants to Soil and Water Conservation Districts Program Contact Name: Kevin Bigalke Phone 651-215-6338





FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 00.00 00.00 00.00 03.50 03.50




Enhance the capacity of local governments to accelerate implementation of projects and activities that supplement or exceed current state standards for protection, enhancement, and restoration of water quality in lakes, rivers, streams, and groundwater. Activities include: 1) increase technical assistance through regional technical service areas (TSAs), 2) technical training and certification, 3) inventories of potential restoration or protection sites, and 4) developing and using analytical targeting tools that fill an identified gap.

1) Increases technical assistance through regional technical service areas (TSAs), 2) provides technical training and certification to soil and water conservation district, 3) inventories of potential restoration or protection sites, and 4) developing and using analytical targeting tools like PTMApp that fill an identified gap.


Funding Request


Increased capacity of local governments


Stay about the same



FY10-11


FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$0 $6,600,000 $8,000,000 $12,000,000 $7,600,000 $8,000,000 $42,200,000 $10,000,000

Accelerated Implementation Program Contact Name: Kevin Bigalke Phone 651-215-6338





Supplement


Yes


80%


FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 00.00 02.50 04.60 07.40 07.40





Implementation of a conservation drainage/multipurpose drainage water management program in consultation with the Drainage Work Group to improve surface water management by providing funding under the provisions of 103E.015.

Directed at Drainage authorities to targets priority drainage systems that are impacting water quality.


Funding Request


Increase in implementation of conservation practices such as sidewater inlets, grassed waterways and storate and treatment wetlands in high priority drainage systems


Stay about the same



Supplement

FY10-11

FY12-13

FY14-15

FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 TOTAL FY10-21

FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$0 $0 $0 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,700,000 $4,700,000 $1,445,000

Conservation Drainage Management and Assistance Program Contact Name: Tom Gile Phone 507-206-2894





Yes


85%


FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 00.10 00.70 00.70 01.20 01.20





Competitive grant program and incentive funding to protect, enhance and restore water quality in lakes, rivers and streams and to protect groundwater and drinking water by implementing priority actions in local water management plans. Up to 20% of funds dedicated to drinking water protection activities.

Increase implementation of voluntary conservation across MN


Funding Request


Implementation of high priority conservation and urban best management practices


Decrease




FY22

FY23

FY22-23

$6,000,000

$29,100,000

$21,400,000

$20,380,000

$19,500,000

$32,000,000

$128,380,000

$23,000,000

Surface and Drinking Water Protection/Restoration Grants: (Projects and Practices)

Program Contact Name: Marcey Westrick Phone 651-284-4153




Supplement


Yes


90%


FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 03.90 08.00 07.90 03.70 03.70





A non-competitive, performance based grants program for local government units to implement projects on a watershed scale that protect, enhance, and restore surface water quality in lakes, rivers, and streams, protect groundwater from degradation, and protect drinking water sources. Projects must be identified in a water or comprehensive watershed plan developed by local governments and approved by the Board of Water and Soil Resources. This may include those under the One Watershed, One Plan or under the Metropolitan Surface Water Management frameworks and county groundwater plans.

Provides non-competitive funding to local government partnerships to implement prioritized and targeted activities identifeid in the plan that will yield the highest return on investment for cleaner water


Funding Request


Implementation of high priority action items identified in Comprehensive Watershed Management Plans .


Increase



FY10-11

FY12-13

FY14-15

FY16-17

FY18-19 FY20-21 TOTAL FY10-21

FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$0 $0 $0 $0 $9,750,000 $26,966,000 $36,716,000 $45,000,000

Grants to Watersheds with Approved Comprehensive Watershed Plans (Watershed-based Implementation Funding)

Program Contact Name: Marcey Westrick Phone 651-284-4153





Supplement


Yes


91%


FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 00.00 00.00 00.00 04.40 05.40





This is based on CWC interest and request. Included in CWC Strategic Plan. Program is for water quality improvement projects to protect, enhance, and restore water quality in lakes, rivers, and streams and protect groundwater from degradation. BWSR would manage this reimbursable program to provide matching grants from $5,000 to $50,000 to local, regional, state, and national nonprofit organizations, tribal governments and including government entities. Projects will be evaluated and prioritized based on alignment with state-approved and locally-adopted comprehensive watershed management plans or related scientific information.

Increase implementation of voluntary conservation across MN


Funding Request


Increases in water quality imrpovement projects


Stay about the same



FY10-11

FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19

FY20-21

TOTAL FY10-21

FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$0 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $1,500,000 $0 $0 $7,500,000 $1,000,000

Watershed Partners Legacy (WPL) Grants Program Contact Name: Marcey Westrick Phone 651-284-4153




Supplement


Yes


90%


FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 00.00 00.70 00.70 00.00 00.00





Drinking Water Protection Program: We request the Council recommends $4M in CWF money for the Board of Water & Soil Resources (BWSR) for the Drinking Water Protection Program.

Building on BWSR’s 2018 Working Lands Watershed Restoration Feasibility Study and Program Plan, this program promotes market-based CLCs (perennial crops and winter annual crops that can be harvested and sold) into current DWSMA cropland rotations to protect community drinking water without taking cropland out of economic production.

BWSR, working in collaboration with our state agencies (MDH, MDA, MPCA), the University of Minnesota Forever Green Partnership and local governments, will screen and select target DWSMAs for implementation, and refine target crop subsidy levels based on local markets and cropping conditions (as informed by the Working Lands study).

Once DWSMAs are selected, BWSR will work with project partners coordinate de-risking and technical assistance for participating producers. De-risking payments are modest financial support to help “de-risk” the transition to new /diversified crop rotations for participating producers - delivered through multi-year de-risking cost-share contracts. Technical assistance provides the agronomic “know how” for participating growers from experts familiar with the production of emerging CLC crops – including the University of Minnesota Forever Green Initiative.

With these resources in place, participating producers have the adequate economic and agronomic incentive to transition to diversified CLC crop rotations without compromising farm prosperity. By deploying CLCs in target DWSMAs, this effort will protect vulnerable community drinking water supplies while also helping market-based CLC crops establish a foothold on the landscape, in turn accelerating supply chain and market demand necessary for these crops to “scale up” over time.

Of Minnesota’s vulnerable DWSMA acres, roughly 118,000 are planted in annual row crops that are prone to leaching nitrate into community water supplies. The best protection for these DWSMA acres is “continuous living cover'' (CLCs).

The Drinking Water Protection Program is designed to deliver market-based CLC protection for these acres, at favorable costs to the state, without compromising agricultural productivity.

Targeting initial market-based CLC cropping systems to DWSMA acres is the ideal opportunity to deploy CLCs on the landscape in a clustered fashion that maximizes technical assistance and supply-chain efficiency while ensuring high-priority environment & public health outcomes.

Unlike land retirement, the market-based approach offers a cost-effective means to establishing CLC coverage on DWSMA acres while maintaining agricultural productivity. Unlike voluntary cost share BMPS, the market-based

Drinking Water Protection Program Program Contact Name: FMR: Trevor Russell / Agency Contact: Suzanne Rhees (BWSR) Phone (612) 388-8856


Person filling out form: Trevor Russell - FMR Phone (612) 388-8856


approach has the potential to become self-sustaining over time as markets mature, allowing CLC coverage to scale up well beyond our current conservation delivery abilities.

With sufficient funding at this level, we can realistically secure protection for most (or perhaps all) of our most at-risk community wells by 2034 - the kind of achievement voters will certainly consider when choosing whether or not to renew the Legacy Amendment when it expires.


Funding Request


Depending on cropping mix and contract duration, this program will deliver between 5,000 and 35,700 acres of CLC coverage in target DWSMAs (assuming $3.5M in de-risking payments).

Rationale: Total acreage protected depends on two variables. (Variable 1 - Crop Mix): The Working Lands study included farmer surveys indicating initial de-risking payments of about $35/acre for winter annuals (cover crops) and $125/acre for perennials. Whichever approach producers choose influences cost and therefore acres. (Variable 2 - Contract Duration): the time period for which each given acre is receiving de-risking payments influences total acres available for protection within a given appropriation.

An example max/min acreage scenarios between on these two factors leave us with this:

- 100% CCs with 2 year contracts: $1.25M/yr @ $35/acre = 35,700 acres

- 100% CCs with 4 year contracts: $625K/yr @ $35/acre = 17,800 acres

- 100% Perennials with 2 year contracts = $1.25M/yr @ $125/acre = 10,000 acres

- 100% Perennials with 4 year contracts: $625K/yr @ $125/acre = 5,000 acres

We could reasonably aspire to double these acreage figures with federal match.


Stay about the same


Preliminary state investment has the potential to provide substantial non-state match in three forms: (1) Federal Match: State money allows for pursuit of matching federal funds - such USDA and NRCS grants (like RCPP) that are a potentially lucrative sour

Supplement vs. supplant: Minnesota Statutes 114D.50 Subd. 3 requires that “any state agency or organization requesting a direct appropriation from the clean water fund must inform the Clean Water Council and the house of representatives and senate committees having jurisdiction over the clean water fund, at the time the request for

FY10-11

FY12-13

FY14-15

FY16-17

FY18-19

FY20-21

TOTAL FY10-

21

FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $4,000,000

funding is made, whether the request is supplanting or is a substitution for any previous funding that was not from a legacy fund and was used for the same purpose.” Indicate if this proposal will supplement or supplant previous funding.

Supplement


Yes


We estimate that of the $4M requested, approximately $3.5M will pass through directly to participating producers in the form of de-risking contracts. The bulk of the remaining $500K will be used to deliver technical / agronomic assistance to producers thr


FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 1 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00





The program provides both applied research by the Minnesota Office for Soil Health and implementation of conservation cover practices and reduced tillage to reduce nutrient loss.

Increase implementation of cover crops in drinking water protection areas across MN


Funding Request


Increase in the statewide total of cover crops planted


Increase



Supplement

FY10-11

FY12-13

FY14-15

FY16-17

FY18-19

FY20-21

TOTAL FY10-

21

FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,200,000

Enhancing Soil Health and Landowner Adoption of Cover Crops for Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection

Program Contact Name: Tom Gile Phone 507-206-2894





Yes


90%


FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00





To provide state oversight and accountability, evaluate and communicate results, support program and outcomes development, provide reporting tools, and measure conservation program implementation of local governments support programs and measure the value of conservation program implementation by local governments, including submission to the legislature a report from the board.

Provide state oversight and accountability for grants to local government, support program and outcomes reporting, evaluate results and measure the value of conservation program and project implementation by local governments.


Funding Request


Legilsative reports and reporting. Oversight and accountability of grant and easement programs.


Increase




FY22 FY23 FY22-23

$590,000 $2,100,000 $1,900,000 $1,900,000 $1,900,000 $2,000,000 $10,390,000 $2,800,000

Measures, Results and Accountability Program Contact Name: Angie Becker-Kudelka Phone 612-616-5112




Supplement


No



FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 FY20-21 FY22-23 00.10 04.10 05.10 09.80 09.80



Summary of Public Comment to Clean Water Council Proposals to the Clean Water Fund As of 17 August 2020

Entity Program #

Agency Program Name Comments

Nature Conservancy 312 UMN Quantifying the Multiple Benefits of Clean Water Investments Supports Nature Conservancy 32 MDA MDA Technical Assistance Supports Nature Conservancy 21 BWSR Critical Shoreland Protection-Permanent Conservation Easements Supports Nature Conservancy New BWSR Wetland Restoration Easements Supports Nature Conservancy 28 BWSR Enhancing Soil Health and Landowner Adoption of Cover Crops for

Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Supports

Nature Conservancy 19 BWSR Conservation Drainage Management and Assistance Supports Nature Conservancy 25 BWSR Riparian Buffer-Permanent Conservation Easements More info needed;

also consider reforestation, haying, grazing; encourage a less than permanent option

Land Stewardship Project

81 MDA Forever Green Agricultural Initiative Supports; also in support of a soil health approach generally

Cargill 28 BWSR Enhancing Soil Health and Landowner Adoption of Cover Crops for Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection

Supports

Minnesota Corn Growers

19 BWSR Conservation Drainage Management and Assistance Supports


32 MDA MDA Technical Assistance Supports


28 BWSR Enhancing Soil Health and Landowner Adoption of Cover Crops for Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection

Supports


33 MDA MN Agricultural Water Quality Certification Program Supports


24 BWSR Buffer Law Implementation $5 million not needed with 99% compliance; consider buffer tax credit


25 BWSR Riparian Buffer-Permanent Easements More information needed; offer a less permanent option

Minnesota Cities Stormwater Coalition

55 MDA Research Inventory Database Supports


58 MDH Water Reuse Supports


59 UoM Stormwater BMP Performance Evaluation & Technology Transfer Strongly supports


9 MPCA Watershed Restoration & Protection Strategies (WRAPS) and TMDL Development

Support for stormwater funding required to stay on track


312 UMN Quantifying the Multiple Benefits of Clean Water Investments Interested; should include stormwater regulation & BMPs


new MPCA We Are Water Interested; exhibit could meet MS4 permit requirement for outreach


37 MPCA Accelerated Implementation of MS4 Permit Requirements Strongly supports and requests increase; new general permit will increase need


38 MPCA Chloride Reduction Program Supports


39 MPCA NPDES Wastewater/Stormwater TMDL Implementation Supports


7 PFA Point Source Implementation Grant (PSIG) Program Strongly Supports

League of Minnesota Cities

7 PFA Point Source Implementation Grant (PSIG) Program Supports




37 MPCA Accelerated Implementation of MS4 Permit Requirements Supports


39 MPCA NPDES Wastewater/Stormwater TMDL Implementation Supports

Metro Cities 42 MC Metropolitan Area Water Supply Sustainability Support Program Supports Metro Cities 35 MC Water Demand Reduction Grant Program Supports Minnesota Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts

16 BWSR Water Management Transition (One Watershed One Plan) Strongly Supports

Minnesota Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts

17 BWSR Grants to Watersheds with Approved Comprehensive Management Plans

Strongly Supports

Minnesota Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts

22 BWSR Soil and Water Conservation District Capacity Funding Working on alternatives to CWF

Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities

7 PFA Point Source Implementation Grant (PSIG) Program Supports




312 UoM Quantifying Multiple Benefits of Clean Water Investments Urge inclusion of WWTPs and DW systems


39 MPCA NPDES Wastewater/Stormwater TMDL Implementation Require that TMDL go through public comment before wasteland allocations go in permits; consider requiring pilot credit training projects

City of Edina 59 UoM Stormwater BMP Performance Evaluation & Technology Transfer Supports Cannon River Watershed Partnership

New MPCA We Are Water Supports

Cannon River Watershed Partnership

81 MDA Forever Green Agricultural Initiative Supports


New BWSR Drinking Water Protection Program (continuous living cover) Supports


22 BWSR Soil and Water Conservation District Capacity Funding Find a non-CWF solution


New MPCA Unsewered Community Assistance Support

St. Louis County 92A MPCA Voyageurs/National Park Water Quality Protection Program Support National Park Service 92A MPCA Voyageurs/National Park Water Quality Protection Program Support Frontier Resort 92A MPCA Voyageurs/National Park Water Quality Protection Program Support Koochiching County 92A MPCA Voyageurs/National Park Water Quality Protection Program Support Kabetogama Township 92A MPCA Voyageurs/National Park Water Quality Protection Program Support Arne Wuorinen, Orr MN 92A MPCA Voyageurs/National Park Water Quality Protection Program Support Crane Lake Water and Sanitary District

92A MPCA Voyageurs/National Park Water Quality Protection Program Support

City of White Bear Lake 35/42 MC Water Demand Reduction-Efficiency Grant Program and Metropolitan Area Water Supply Sustainability Support Program

Supports

City of Burnsville 35/42 MC Water Demand Reduction-Efficiency Grant Program and Metropolitan Area Water Supply Sustainability Support Program

Supports

City of Eden Prairie 35/42 MC Water Demand Reduction-Efficiency Grant Program and Metropolitan Area Water Supply Sustainability Support Program

Supports

City of Prior Lake 35/42 MC Water Demand Reduction-Efficiency Grant Program and Metropolitan Area Water Supply Sustainability Support Program

Supports

City of Minnetonka 35/42 MC Water Demand Reduction-Efficiency Grant Program and Metropolitan Area Water Supply Sustainability Support Program

Supports

City of Shorewood 35/42 MC Water Demand Reduction-Efficiency Grant Program and Metropolitan Area Water Supply Sustainability Support Program

Supports

City of Chanhassen 35/42 MC Water Demand Reduction-Efficiency Grant Program and Metropolitan Area Water Supply Sustainability Support Program

Supports

City of Lakeville 35/42 MC Water Demand Reduction-Efficiency Grant Program and Metropolitan Area Water Supply Sustainability Support Program

Supports

1 of 11

Date: August 3, 2020 To: Frank Jewell, Clean Water Council Chair

Todd Renville, Budget and Outcomes Committee Chair, Clean Water Council Paul Gardner, Clean Water Council Administrator

From: Katrina Kessler, Assistant Commissioner, MPCA Jess Richards, Assistant Commissioner, DNR Angie Becker Kudelka, Assistant Director, BSWR Daniel Huff, Assistant Commissioner, MDH Whitney Place Assistant Commissioner, MDA Sam Paske, Assistant General Manager, Metropolitan Council Env. Services Division Jeff Freeman, Executive Director, Public Facilities Authority RE: Interagency Recommendations for FY2022-2023 Clean Water Fund Budget The Clean Water Fund Interagency Coordinating Team (ICT) appreciates the opportunity to provide this initial set of FY22-23 budget recommendations for consideration by the Clean Water Council (CWC). We are committed to collaborating transparently with the CWC to develop a shared set of recommendations for consideration by Governor Tim Walz for the FY22-23 biennium and view this as a key step in the process. The attached spreadsheet outlines the ICT’s recommendations in detail and this memo provides context to the proposed budget with particular consideration given to the priorities the Budget and Outcomes Committee (BOC) of the CWC identified during their July 20, 2020 meeting. As a whole these recommendations preserve work that is necessary to maintain momentum toward the goals of the Clean Water Land and Legacy Amendment and avoid reductions that may require a long-term rebuild of state and local government capacity. I. Budget Recommendations by Agency Collectively the budget recommendations are grounded in the watershed approach to protect and restore the state’s abundant and diverse water resources. As you know, the watershed approach is a systematic, data driven, iterative process that allows state agencies and local partners to coordinate to maximize Clean Water Fund investments. It inspires and supports local and state partnerships and includes consideration of water quality, quantity, groundwater, drinking water, habitat and recreation. The following paragraphs summarize the proposed FY22-23 budget for activities led by each of the ICT member agencies. This budget represents more than a 10% reduction from the cumulative FY20-21 appropriation to the agencies in recognition of decreased economic activity. This budget does not assume a pass through appropriation from the Board of Soil and Water Resources to supplement Soil and Water Conservation District capacity. II. MPCA Lake, River and Stream Chemical, Biological and Trend Monitoring (AKA Water Quality Assessment) FY20-21 Appropriation: $16,000,000 FY22-23 Proposal: $14,822,123 BOC Priority: 1 Groundwater Trend Monitoring FY20-21 Appropriation: $2,364,000 FY22-23 Proposal: $1,985,914 BOC Priority: 1

2 of 11

Rationale: Monitoring is foundational to assessing water quality, the development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (WRAPS), Groundwater Restoration and Protection Strategies (GRAPS) as well the development and implementation of One Watershed One Plans (1W1P). As more WRAPS, GRAPS and 1W1P are implemented monitoring remains critical. The proposed amount preserves core monitoring capacity while scaling back some analytes and monitoring locations. The reduction will preserve the ability to assess trends and inform point source and non-point source implementation efforts. Watershed Restoration and Protection Plans (WRAPS) (AKA TMDL Development) FY20-21 Appropriation: $15,100,000 FY22-23 Proposal: $13,994,287 BOC Priority: 1 Rationale: The WRAPS appropriation has been reduced over the last few biennia in recognition of the goal of applying more of the CWF to implementation, while still completing 1st generation WRAPS for the entire state by 2023. The proposed budget is reduced again and represents the amount needed to stay on track for the first round of WRAPS by 2023, and allows for resources to revisit WRAPS as appropriate in the second round in consultation with local partners. Chloride Reduction Grants FY20-21 Appropriation: $500,000 FY22-23 Proposal: $524,053 BOC Priority: 1 Rationale: This program is losing critical support from EPA’s Clean Water Act Section 319 Grant program at the end of this Federal Fiscal Year. The proposed budget amount will allow the MPCA to minimally meet the demand for Smart Salting Training Classes and to offer grants to communities looking to offset costs to reduce their chloride discharges via water softeners, a critical step in meeting state wide chloride reduction goals. Subsurface Treatment System Grants (septic systems) FY20-21 Appropriation: $6,750,000 FY22-23 Proposal: $6,481,819 BOC Priority: 2 Rationale: This appropriation provides critical funding to local units of government to operate their respective SSTS programs. The appropriation also provides funding to low income homeowners to replace noncomplying septic systems. Both county SSTS programs and grants to low income families protect groundwater and connected surface water. Reduced funds for this work means less technical assistance to help small unsewered communities evaluate alternatives and less money to assist low income families to fix their septic systems. Wastewater and Stormwater Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) implementation FY20-21 Appropriation: $1,800,001 FY22-23 Proposal: $1,800,001 FY20-21 Appropriation: $400,000 FY22-23 Proposal: $400,000 BOC Priority: 2 Rationale: These two appropriations represent the minimum amount of funding needed to provide technical assistance tools to local units of government and to support staffing to accelerate the implementation of stormwater and wastewater permitting programs that protect lakes and streams. Proper management of stormwater and wastewater waste streams is crucial to achieving the goals of TMDLs. Cuts to this appropriation would make it difficult for the MPCA to assist local units of government and other permit holders in meeting the new municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permit requirements, and would slow the development of wastewater permits that provide lake and stream protection. St. Louis River Area of Concern (AOC) Restoration FY20-21 Appropriation: $1,500,000 FY22-23 Proposal: $1,500,000 BOC Priority: 2 Rationale: This appropriation supports coordination of the AOC program with over two-dozen federal, tribal, state and local partners. It also contributes to the budgets for 16 remediation and restoration projects that are EPA-approved management actions in the Remedial Action Plan for the AOC. Specific to the remediation

3 of 11

projects, the state dollars leverage 65% of the project costs from federally administered Great Lake Restoration Initiative funds and, where it is designated as in-kind funding, it increases the federal budget with a 65% match. To date, each CWF dollar has been paired with $13.40 of funding from other sources. The availability of CWFs demonstrates Minnesota’s cost-share preparedness that gives us a competitive edge to receive federal funds. It also provides critical flexibility that allows us to get answers, make science-based decisions, and maintain schedules to remain in EPA’s top funding tier. Cuts to this fund would likely contribute to project delays that would move us out of EPA’s priority funding tier, which would further delay project funding, increase inflation-related projects costs, and delay delisting. Clean Water Council Staff FY20-21 Appropriation: $200,000 FY22-23 Proposal: $600,000 BOC Priority: 1 Rationale: This appropriation funds the equivalent of 2 FTEs within the MPCA to provide administrative, communications and planning support to the CWC. This appropriation is larger than previous biennium because it represents the true cost of running and staffing the CWC. Previously those costs came out of other MCPA appropriations that are designated for other high priority activities. III. DNR Stream flow monitoring FY20-21 Appropriation: $4,000,000 FY22-23 Proposal: $4,000,000 BOC Priority: 1 Rationale: Stream flow monitoring is foundational to assessing water quality, the development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (WRAPS), and developing and implementing One Watershed One Plans (1W1P). As more WRAPS and 1W1P are implemented, monitoring remains critical. The proposed amount will maintain the current gage network, replace aging equipment that was deferred as part of FY21 reductions and continue to ensure data is readily available to inform decision making and assess progress toward clean water goals. Lake IBI Assessment FY20-21 Appropriation: $2,500,000 FY22-23 Proposal: $2,000,000 BOC Priority: 2 Rationale: Lake IBI assessments are foundational to assessing water quality, the development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (WRAPS), developing and implementing One Watershed One Plans (1W1P). Lake IBI assessments started later than stream IBIs and there are still many lakes that need to be completed. The proposed amount maintains most of the DNR’s core capacity to assess lakes for fish and associated stressor ID; however, the number of lakes and additional plant surveys completed will be reduced. Fish Contamination Assessment FY20-21 Appropriation: $270,000 FY22-23 Proposal: $135,000 BOC Priority: 2 Rationale: The DNR traditionally collects fish for contamination assessment from 70 lake and stream sites using Game and Fish Funds. The Clean Water Fund pays the laboratory costs for an additional 80 lake and stream sites per year. The proposed amount would result in fewer 40 fewer sites on an annual basis. Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies FY20-21 Appropriation: $3,800,000 FY22-23 Proposal: $3,800,000 BOC Priority: 2 Rationale: The DNR employs experts in hydrology and geomorphology to support comprehensive assessments and strategy development as part of WRAPS. DNR staff complete targeted surveys and analysis and watershed

4 of 11

reports that inform WRAPS and ultimately implementation projects. DNR staff make this information available in the Watershed Health Assessment Framework (WHAF) and other reports. The proposed amount will maintain DNR’s capacity to provide this core expertise as part of the interagency watershed approach. Aquifer Monitoring for Water Supply Planning FY20-21 Appropriation: $4,150,000 FY22-23 Proposal: $3,700,000 BOC Priority: 2 Rationale: The DNR is developing a robust groundwater level monitoring network that informs our understanding of groundwater level trends; the source of drinking water for 75% of Minnesotans. DNR applies these data in groundwater models, technical analysis and water supply planning. The proposed amount will maintain the current network of about 1,140 wells, and the DNR’s capacity to manage and apply the data. However, DNR will not add new monitoring wells, which will delay reaching the Clean Water Council’s goal of installing 1,700 wells. Riparian Buffer Information FY20-21 Appropriation: $200,000 FY22-23 Proposal: $50,000 BOC Priority: 3 Rationale: The DNR is required to update and maintain maps of public waters and ditch systems that require permanent vegetation buffers. The amount of effort and time needed has decreased over the past year. The proposed amount is sufficient to meet the DNR’s expected workload and will maintain timely response to the mapping requirement. Nonpoint Source Restoration and Protection FY20-21 Appropriation: $2,000,000 FY22-23 Proposal: $2,600,000 BOC Priority: 2 Rationale: As the number of completed WRAPS and 1W1P increase, there is an increasing need for DNR experts to provide site-specific technical support for planning and implementing projects. DNR is actively involved in about 80 implementation projects each year, providing design expertise on dam removals, stream restoration and other stabilization projects. DNR staff often help during implementation and construction oversight, filling in critical gaps in local expertise. The proposed amount will maintain this core expertise and continue supporting local government partners. Applied Research and Tools FY20-21 Appropriation: $1,400,000 FY22-23 Proposal: $1,065,000 BOC Priority: 1 Rationale: The DNR maintains and provides access to LiDAR-derived elevation data that is widely used for targeting and designing implementation projects and for watershed modeling. DNR also assesses relationships among disturbance patterns, BMP applications, and water quality in forested watersheds. The proposed amount will maintain effort on LiDAR related support, reduce some effort in forest BMP monitoring and eliminate effort on fine-scale watershed models to evaluate the effects of drainage, soil health and other BMPs. County Geologic Atlases FY20-21 Appropriation: $300,000 FY22-23 Proposal: $0 BOC Priority: 1 Rationale: The clean water fund has enhanced data collection and analysis of the county geologic atlases by providing supplemental chemistry and geology data. The core funding of the atlas program continues to be the LCCMR and the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund, along with state general fund resources. The proposed amount is a reflection of the desire to maintain core capacity in other program areas, while not jeopardizing the completion of geologic atlases in the short term.

5 of 11

IV. BWSR Water Management Transition (One Watershed One Plan) FY20-21 Appropriation: $4,000,000 FY22-23 Proposal: $6,000,000 BOC Priority: 1 Rationale: Keeps the state on track with implementation of the State's statutorily prescribed Watershed Approach through the statewide development of watershed-based local water planning that is synchronized with Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (WRAPS) and Groundwater Restoration and Protection Strategies (GRAPS) by providing technical assistance, program oversight, and grants to local governments. Grants to Watersheds with Approved Comprehensive Watershed Plans (Watershed-based Implementation Funding) FY20-21 Appropriation: $26,966,000 FY22-23 Proposal: $45,000,000 BOC Priority: 1 Rationale: While moving at a slower rate than the implementation trajectory calls for, this recommendation assures that local on-the ground clean water improvements are not taking a backwards step (as more plans are approved). Accelerated Implementation FY20-21 Appropriation: $8,000,000 FY22-23 Proposal: $10,000,000 BOC Priority: 1 Rationale: While this doesn't bring us back to the CWC FY20-21 recommendation of $12M, it brings us closer to the goal for: 1) increasing technical assistance through regional technical service areas (TSAs), 2) technical training and certification, 3) identifying and inventorying potential sites for restoration, and 4) using analytical targeting tools to fill identified gaps. Conservation Drainage Management and Assistance FY20-21 Appropriation: $1,700,000 FY22-23 Proposal: $1,445,000 BOC Priority: 2 Rationale: Continued implementation of a conservation drainage/multipurpose drainage water management program in consultation with the Drainage Work Group to improve surface water quality by providing funding to supplement projects undertaken per the provisions of M.S.103E.015. Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (MNCREP) FY20-21 Appropriation: $17,250,000 FY22-23 Proposal: $1,207,000 BOC Priority: 2 Rationale: This reinstates the May 2020 budget reduction amount to the FY20-21 CWF. Does not represent any additional overall contribution of the CWF to the MNCREP. Allows for purchase and restoration permanent conservation easements to treat and store water on the land for water quality improvement purposes and related technical assistance. This work may be done in cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture to leverage federal funding. Critical Shoreland Protection-Permanent Conservation Easements FY20-21 Appropriation: $3,000,000 FY22-23 Proposal: $2,550,000 BOC Priority: 1 Rationale: To purchase permanent conservation easements to protect lands adjacent to public waters with good water quality but threatened with degradation. Easement focus is in the headwaters of the Mississippi Basin for protection of tributaries and the Mississippi River, to provide source water protection for numerous Twin Cities and rural communities along the Mississippi River.

6 of 11

Measures, Results and Accountability FY20-21 Appropriation: $2,000,000 FY22-23 Proposal: $2,800,000 BOC Priority: 2 Rationale: This has been historically and repeatedly underfunded, leading to decreased ability of the state to provide oversight and accountability, evaluate and communicate results, support program and outcomes development, provide reporting tools, measure conservation program implementation of local governments, support programs, and measure the value of conservation program implementation by local governments, including submission to the legislature a report from the board. This amount brings us closer to the current need of $1.5M per year. Buffer Law Implementation FY20-21 Appropriation: $5,000,000 FY22-23 Proposal: $4,000,000 BOC Priority: 2 Rationale: Provides program oversight and grants to support local governments in their implementation and related compliance work for the statewide buffer law. NEW: Working Lands Floodplain Easements FY20-21 Appropriation: $0 FY22-23 Proposal: $4,000,000 BOC Priority: Rationale: Based on partners’ recommendations to develop a water quality working lands program, this easements program sets aside sensitive land in riverine and riparian corridors to address water quality concerns, and climate adaptation and mitigation goals. Participating landowners will have options to establish flood hardy understory, establish trees, haying/grazing, silviculture, silvopasture, agroforestry with payment structure based on the proposed use. This replaces the CWF riparian buffer easement implementation appropriation (although at a much smaller scale for FY22-23). Surface and Drinking Water Protection/Restoration Grants (Projects and Practices) FY20-21 Appropriation: $32,000,000 FY22-23 Proposal: $23,000,000 BOC Priority: 1 Rationale: Competitive grant program and incentive funding to protect, enhance and restore water quality in lakes, rivers and streams and to protect groundwater and drinking water by implementing priority actions in local water management plans. Up to 20% of funds dedicated to drinking water protection activities. As the Watershed-based Implementation Funding increases, implementation partners will have less reliance on this competitive fund. Watershed Partners Legacy (WPL) Grants FY20-21 Appropriation: $0 FY22-23 Proposal: $1,000,000 BOC Priority: 1 Rationale: Based on the priority of the CWC, the program is for a reimbursable program to provide matching grants from approx. $5,000 to $50,000 to local, regional, state, and national nonprofit organizations, tribal governments and including government entities. Projects will be evaluated and prioritized based on alignment with state-approved and locally-adopted comprehensive watershed management plans or related scientific information. Enhancing Soil Health and Landowner Adoption of Cover Crops for Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection FY20-21 Appropriation: $0 FY22-23 Proposal: $4,200,000 BOC Priority: 2 Rationale: Based on several factors, including cover crops as a key working lands strategy in the Governor’s climate change initiative, broad partner interest, and a significant decrease in project and practice funds, the program provides both applied research by the Minnesota Office for Soil Health and implementation of conservation cover practices and reduced tillage to reduce nutrient losses and accomplish carbon sequestration

7 of 11

Targeted Wellhead/Drinking Water Protection FY20-21 Appropriation: $4,000,000 FY22-23 Proposal: $2,000,000 BOC Priority: 1 Rationale: For conservation easements on wellhead protection areas or for grants to local units of government to ensure long-term protection of groundwater supply sources in wellhead protection areas. Priority to be placed on land that is located where the vulnerability of the drinking water supply is designated as high or very high by the commissioner of health, where the drinking water supply is identified as Mitigation Level 1 or 2 by the Minnesota Groundwater Rule, where monitoring has shown elevated nitrate levels, where drinking water protection plans have identified specific activities that will achieve long-term protection, and/or on lands with expiring Conservation Reserve Program contracts. Tillage, Cover Crop and Erosion Evaluation FY20-21 Appropriation: $850,000 FY22-23 Proposal: $723,000 BOC Priority: 2 Rationale: Program to systematically collect data and produce statically valid estimates of the rate of soil erosion state-wide and tracking the adoption of high residue cropping systems in the 67 counties with greater than 30% of land in agricultural row crop production. Technical Evaluation FY20-21 Appropriation: $168,000 FY22-23 Proposal: $84,000 BOC Priority: 1 Rationale: For a technical evaluation panel to conduct restoration evaluations under Minnesota Statues, section 114D.50, subdivision 6. NEW: Wetland Restoration Easements FY20-21 Appropriation: $0 FY22-23 Proposal: $5,000,000 BOC Priority: 1 Rationale: With significant reductions in all CWF easement appropriations, this smaller program specifically targets wetland restoration easements: Funds will acquire permanent conservation easements and restore wetlands in priority areas statewide. Will hold water in upper watershed areas for de-nitrification, rate and volume control. This work may be done in cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture or U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service or other agencies to leverage federal funding. V. MDH Future of Drinking Water FY20-21 Appropriation: $500,000 FY22-23 Proposal: $500,000 BOC Priority: 2 Rationale: Current federal and state regulations no longer provide adequate protection for customers of public water systems and users of private wells. The Future of Drinking Water initiative will support MDH’s preparation of an actionable State Drinking Water Plan to protect Minnesotans against new threats that endanger our vision of safe drinking water for everyone everywhere in Minnesota. In addition, this initiative will focus on implementation of select recommendations from the University of Minnesota’s Future of Drinking Water Report that will prepare both public and private well supplies to adapt to an uncertain future. Source Water Protection FY20-21 Appropriation: $5,494,000 FY22-23 Proposal: $6,360,400 BOC Priority: 1 Rationale: Protecting our sources (groundwater, rivers, and lakes) is the most equitable and cost effective approach to safeguarding our drinking water now and for future generations. This support facilitates planning

8 of 11

and implementation specific to local needs for protecting drinking water sources. Additionally, program assets are being directed towards 1) enhancing the characterization of water quality conditions using rigorous screening, monitoring, and analysis, and 2) fulfilling MDH and Clean Water Council strategic objectives of securing long term protection for the most vulnerable lands in DWSMAs statewide. Groundwater Restoration and Protection Strategies FY20-21 Appropriation: $1,100,000 FY22-23 Proposal: $1,125,000 BOC Priority: 1 Rationale: GRAPS is an interagency effort to coordinate the delivery of state agency groundwater data, information, and implementation strategies for use at the local level. The aim is to facilitate local efforts to benefit groundwater resource restoration and protection. Key efforts include the following: 1) migrating data and information to online tools, 2) coordinating GRAPS work with local comprehensive watershed planning (1W1P) so that local partners have the resources they need in a timely manner, and 3) building local capacity through education, outreach, and financial assistance. Private Well Protection FY20-21 Appropriation: $1,500,000 FY22-23 Proposal: $1,725,000 BOC Priority: 1 Rationale: Unlike people who get their drinking water from public water system, people who get their drinking water from a private well (private well users) are largely on their own for ensuring that water from their well is safe for their household. As part of our commitment for equity, we are increasing education, technical support, and financial assistance for private well users so they can be confident in the safety and quality of their drinking water. In FY22/23 we will increase our efforts to build local capacity for private well protection by building on lessons learned from two previous pilot grants to local public health and a SWCD focused on increasing testing and financial support for treatment. Contaminants of Emerging Concern FY20-21 Appropriation: $3,400,000 FY22-23 Proposal: $2,400,000 BOC Priority: 1 Rationale: Maintain program capacity for evaluating contaminants of emerging concern (CEC). The health-based evaluation of known and new contaminants is the starting point for assessing the threat to public health and potential public health burden. The values developed in this initiative are widely used by sister agencies; for example, in determining if a cleanup is needed, if contamination in groundwater is a potential human health risk, and in setting permit conditions. Technical assistance is given by the CEC program to citizens, companies, and other state agencies on interpreting and evaluating what CEC concentrations in groundwater mean for human health. VI. MDA Monitoring for Pesticides in Surface Water and Groundwater FY20-21 Appropriation: $700,000 FY22-23 Proposal: $700,000 BOC Priority: 2 Rationale: Pesticide monitoring is critical to: assess water quality compared to environmental standards (assessing impaired waters); evaluate the risk to drinking water from both surface and groundwater sources; evaluate contaminants of emerging concern (CECs); and, evaluate the need for and effectiveness of restrictions on product use or voluntary best management practices. This funding is used to support increased capacity at the MDA laboratory. Other sampling costs are paid for by the MDA. If funding is reduced MDA does not know if current levels of sampling could be maintained. Current program revenues are committed, recent data indicates that pesticide revenues are decreasing, and any proposed fee increase might be difficult to pass especially in these difficult economic conditions.

9 of 11

Pesticide Testing of Private Wells FY20-21 Appropriation: $2,000,000 FY22-23 Proposal: $870,000 BOC Priority: 2 Rationale: The proposed budget is reduced because of insufficient funding to maintain all programs; this is also consistent with the BOC’s priority ranking (2). The proposed budget amount will allow the MDA to continue with sampling at a lower level of frequency and would focus on wells considered to be at greatest risk. AgBMP Loan Program FY20-21 Appropriation: $150,000 FY22-23 Proposal: $150,000 BOC Priority: 1 Rationale: The proposed budget amount will allow the MDA to provide administrative support for loans supported with the Clean Water Fund. This minimum amount is required to cover the cost of administering loans for pre-existing clean water funds in the corpus of the account. This is a revolving loan program and new loans are issued as loans are repaid. Minnesota Agricultural Water Quality Certification Program (MAWQCP) FY20-21 Appropriation: $6,000,000 FY22-23 Proposal: $6,000,000 BOC Priority: 1 Rationale: The proposed budget maintains the current funding level for the MAWQCP; this is consistent with the BOC’s priority ranking (1) and addresses all goals in the Clean Water Council’s Strategic Plan. A large percentage of funding is pass through for soil and water conservation districts and supports implementation. Full funding is required as match to leverage a Regional Conservation Partnership Program grant (RCPP). Technical Assistance FY20-21 Appropriation: $3,000,000 FY22-23 Proposal: $3,000,000 BOC Priority: 1 Rationale: Technical assistance is a primary vehicle to work with the agricultural community to promote best management practices. This is a high priority for the MDA and aligns with key strategies in the Clean Water Council’s Strategic Plan. The proposed budget maintains the current funding level and is consistent with the BOC’s priority ranking (1). Irrigation Water Quality Protection FY20-21 Appropriation: $300,000 FY22-23 Proposal: $270,000 BOC Priority: 1 Rationale: The proposed budget amount will allow the MDA to fully support the Irrigation Specialist at the University of Minnesota. This amount was reduced slightly from the previous biennium where funding supported this position as well as provided some funds to update best management practices (BMPs). All funding is pass through to the University of Minnesota. Nitrate in Groundwater FY20-21 Appropriation: $5,170,000 FY22-23 Proposal: $5,170,000 BOC Priority: 1 Rationale: Preventing and responding to nitrate contamination of groundwater is a high priority for the MDA and addresses many of the strategies outlined in the Clean Water Council’s Strategic Plan. The proposed budget maintains the current funding level and is consistent with the BOC’s priority ranking (1).

10 of 11

Agricultural Research and Evaluation FY20-21 Appropriation: $0 FY22-23 Proposal: $0 BOC Priority: 2 Rationale: The Clean Water Council and BOC have expressed continued support for agricultural research. This funding was eliminated by the legislature in 2019. The MDA strongly supports the need for applied research related to agriculture and water quality, however due to overall reductions this was not included as an increase. Research Inventory Database (MnWRL) FY20-21 Appropriation: $100,000 FY22-23 Proposal: $80,000 BOC Priority: 3 Rationale: The proposed budget is reduced based on guidance from the BOC (priority ranking 3). The reduced amount will allow the MDA to provide reduced staff support to maintain the core functions and access to the digital library. Forever Green Initiative FY20-21 Appropriation: $4,300,000 FY22-23 Proposal: $4,000,000 BOC Priority: 1 Rationale: Forever Green activities are critical to increasing vegetative cover in Minnesota and address many of the strategies outlined in in the Clean Water Council’s Strategic Plan. The proposed budget reflects a reduction consistent with the overall reduction to clean water funds and helps to share reductions equitably across program partners. VII. MCES Water demand reduction grant program FY20-21 Appropriation: $750,000 FY22-23 Proposal: $500,000 BOC Priority: 3 Rationale: The program is a Metropolitan Council- community cost share program that provides 100% pass-through water efficiency grants to metro municipalities. The proposed budget amount will allow a lesser number of communities in the Metro area to minimally implement water demand reduction measures to reduce reliance on groundwater and help preventing groundwater degradation, address existing drinking water contamination issues, ensure the reliability and protection of drinking water supplies and support resiliency of water suppliers. Metropolitan Area Water Supply Sustainability Support FY20-21 Appropriation: $2,000,000 FY22-23 Proposal: $1,837,500 BOC Priority: 2 Rationale: This program supports municipalities and industries efforts to address threats to drinking water supplies, provides cost-effective regional solutions, boosts inter-jurisdictional coordination, supports local implementation of water supply reliability projects, and protects groundwater. The proposed budget supports necessary continuity of high value collaborative work and regional community partnerships to forecast and mitigate short/long term local water supply challenges and to meet sustainable water use goals. The budget reduction will be accommodated by scaling back some activities. VIII. PFA Point Source Implementation Grant (PSIG) Program FY20-21 Appropriation: $18,000,000 FY22-23 Proposal: $16,700,000

11 of 11

BOC Priority: 1 Rationale: The PSIG program provides essential assistance to cities to upgrade water treatment facilities needed to meet required wasteload reductions to address impaired waters and protect threatened waterbodies. Program funding has been supplemented in the past with bonding appropriations, however, the lack of a 2020 bonding bill emphasizes the need for CWF appropriations for this important point source implementation program. The FY22-23 proposed funding represents a 7% reduction from previous appropriations. Small Community Wastewater Treatment Program FY20-21 Appropriation: $250,000 FY22-23 Proposal: $232,000 BOC Priority: 1 Rationale: The Small Community Wastewater Treatment Program provides grants and loans to assist small unsewered communities with technical assistance and construction funding to replace non-complying septic systems with community subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS). These funds allow small communities to evaluate and implement lower cost decentralized treatment alternatives to address their wastewater needs. The FY22-23 proposed funding represents a 7% reduction from previous appropriations.

Match of FY22-23 Clean Water Fund

Proposals with the Clean Water

Council Strategic Plan as of 7 Aug

2020

1.1

5%

exc

lusi

ve t

o D

W

1.2

Tes

t p

riva

te w

ells

1.3

Su

pp

ort

GW

Pro

tect

ion

Ru

le

1.4

Imp

lem

ent

N F

ert

Mgm

t P

lan

1.5

Pro

tect

40

0K

DW

SMA

acr

es

1.6

So

urc

e W

ater

Pro

tect

ion

Pln

g

1.7

So

urc

e w

ater

gra

nts

1.8

Red

uce

met

ro G

W u

se 1

50

M g

/yr

2.1

Co

mp

lete

GR

AP

S b

y 2

02

5

2.2

Co

un

ty g

eolo

gic/

GW

atl

ases

2.3

16

00

GW

mo

nit

ori

ng

wel

ls

2.4

Pro

riti

zed

wel

l sea

ling

2.5

80

-90

% S

STS

com

plia

nce

2.6

GW

MA

/DW

SMA

eff

icie

ncy

BM

Ps

2.7

Met

ro a

qu

ifer

rec

har

ge a

reas

3.1

Co

mp

lete

WR

AP

S b

y 2

02

3

3.2

On

e W

ater

shed

On

e P

lan

3.3

20

0K

pri

ori

ty M

iss.

HW

acr

es

3.4

Inn

ova

tio

n/n

ew a

pp

roac

hes

3.5

Clim

ate

imp

acts

/res

ilien

ce

3.6

Co

nta

min

ants

Em

ergi

ng

Co

nce

rn

3.7

PSI

G g

ran

ts

3.8

Sm

all c

om

mu

nit

y W

WT

pla

ns

3.9

5 m

illio

n a

cres

co

ver

cro

ps

3.1

MA

WQ

CP

3.1

1 F

erti

lizer

BM

Ps

3.1

2 L

ake

trea

tmen

t/re

sto

rati

on

3.1

3 G

reat

Lak

es R

esto

rati

on

4.1

Cu

ltu

ral c

om

pet

ency

4.2

Ed

uca

te/i

nvo

lve

pu

blic

4.3

Su

rvey

pu

blic

kn

ow

led

ge

4.4

Pla

n f

or

resi

lien

ce a

fter

20

34

Tillage, Cover Crop and Erosion Evaluation x x

Technical Evaluation [restoration evaluation]

Tool Development and Evaluation [Formerly

Applied Research and Tools]

County Geologic Atlas Part B x x

Agricultural Research/Evaluation x x x

MN Water Research Digital Library [aka

Research Inventory Database] x

Forever Green Agricultural Initiative (U of

MN) x x x x

Pathogen Project [formerly Groundwater

Virus Monitoring Plan] x

Water Reuse x x x

Stormwater Research and Technology

Transfer Program x x x

County Geologic Atlas Part A x x

Chronic Wasting Disease and Water x x

River and Lake Monitoring and Assessment x x x

Groundwater Monitoring and Assessment x x x x x

Watershed Restoration and Protection

Strategies (includes TMDL development) x

Monitoring for Pesticides in Surface Water

and Groundwater x x x x x x

Pesticide Testing in Private Wells x x x x x x x x

Contaminants of Emerging Concern x x

Groundwater Restoration and Protection

Strategies x

Source Water Protection x x x x

Microplastics x

Aquifer Monitoring for Water Supply Planning x x x

Fish Contamination Assessment x x

Lake Index of Biological Integrity x

Buffer Map Maintenance

Stream Flow Monitoring Program x x

Watershed Restoration and Protection

Strategies-DNR Portion x

National Park Water Quality Protection

Program x

Clean Water Council x x x

Legislative Coordinating Commission Website x

Quantifying the multiple benefits of clean

water investments x x x x x

St. Louis River Area of Concern - Remedial

Action Plan Implementation x x

We Are Water MN x x

Enhanced County inspections/SSTS corrective

actions x x

Unsewered community assistance x x

Accelerated Implementation of MS4 Permit

Requirements

Chloride Reduction x x

NPDES wastewater/stormwater TMDL

implementation x

Point Source Implementation Grant (PSIG)

Program x

Small Community Wastewater Treatment

Program x

Water Demand Reduction- Efficiency - Grant

Program x x x

Metropolitan Area Water Supply

Sustainability Support Program x x x

Irrigation Water Quality Protection x x x

Nitrate in Groundwater x x x x x x x

Technical Assistance x x x x x x

AgBMP Loan Program x x x x x x x x x

MN Agricultural Water Quality Certification

Program x x x x x x x x

Drinking Water Protection x x x x x x x x

Recreational Water Portal x x x

Private Well Protection x x

Non-point Source Restoration and

Implementation x

Color Infrared Imagery and Analysis

Freshwater Mussel Restoration x

Culvert Replacement Cost Share x

Watershed Management Transition (One

Watershed, One Plan) x

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program

(CREP) x

Critical Shoreland Protection-Permanent

Conservation Easements x x

Working Lands Floodplain Easements

[formerly Riparian Buffer-Permanent

Conservation Easements] x

Wetland Restoration Easement x x

Targeted Wellhead/Drinking Water Source

Protection x x

Buffer Law Implementation

Grants to Soil and Water Conservation

Districts

Accelerated Implementation x x x x x x x

Conservation Drainage Management and

Assistance

Surface and Drinking Water

Protection/Restoration Grants: (Projects and

Practices) x x x x x

Grants to Watersheds with Approved

Comprehensive Watershed Plans (Watershed-

based Implementation Funding) x x x x x x x

Watershed Partners Legacy (WPL) Grants x

Drinking Water Protection Program x x

Enhancing Soil Health and Landowner

Adoption of Cover Crops for Drinking Water &

Groundwater Protection x x x

Measures, Results and Accountability x

Clean Water Council Policy Statements 2020

Clean Water Council 24 July 2020 1

Chloride Reduction: De-Icer [Approved Policy Committee 26 June 2020] Revised Policy Statement The Clean Water Council recommends that the State of Minnesota implement the following actions to reduce chloride in Minnesota surface and groundwater:

• Fund the Smart Salting applicator training and certification program, and the MPCA’s chloride reduction budget to support the development and maintenance of tools, resources, policies, trainings and assistance programs to reduce chloride pollution.

• Request that the Legislature give the MPCA the authority to charge a fee for chloride training. • Provide liability protection for the Smart Salting program certified private winter de-icing

applicators for reduced salt applications. • Provide research funds to develop new technology and alternatives to chloride-containing de-

icing chemicals, and best management practices. • Encourage and support the adoption of the MPCA’s Chloride Reduction Model Ordinance

Language by local governmental entities. • Have the MPCA convene and lead a stakeholder process to develop recommendations for new

labelling requirements on bags of de-icing chemicals sold in Minnesota.

Problem Chloride is a naturally occurring ion found in low levels in Minnesota surface and groundwater. Salt used for winter de-icing and water softening contain chloride. Chloride is not toxic in small concentrations. However, above 230 mg per liter (about one teaspoon in 5 gallons of water), chloride becomes toxic to freshwater fish and other aquatic life under long-term exposure. Once chloride enters our surface water (lakes, streams, and wetlands) and groundwater, it is not feasible and extremely expensive to remove it.

Winter de-icing salts are among the primary sources of chloride in Minnesota waters.

In the Twin Cities Metro Area (TCMA) winter maintenance activities use approximately 365,000 tons of chloride de-icer per year. The de-icing salts eventually wash into nearby lakes, streams and wetlands. Recent monitoring shows increasing chloride concentrations in surface water and shallow groundwater. Since it is very difficult and expensive to remove chloride from our surface and groundwater once it gets into water, reducing chloride at the source is necessary.

• Inconsistent labeling for de-icers creates confusion for consumers. De-icers can be labeled as “eco-friendly” or as an alternative to salt, but they may pose other problems for water quality. Currently there is not a standard for labeling de-icers for their potential threats to water quality.

Links to Clean Water Council Strategic Plan Goal 3: Surface waters are swimmable and fishable throughout the state

• Prevent and reduce impairments in surface waters • Maintain and improve the health of aquatic ecosystems • Invest in activities and research that can accelerate improvement in water quality through new

approaches (e.g., perennial crops and other “landscape drivers”, chloride management or alternatives, etc.).



Solution 1. Training and Certification. Continue the Smart Salting applicator training and certification

program: The MPCA has a training program for private and public salt applicators, such as snow removal contractors and snowplow drivers. This has been a very successful program and has assisted winter maintenance programs in reducing salt application rates by 30% to 70%, without compromising public safety. The TCMA Chloride Management Plan and Statewide Chloride Management Plan include the Smart Salting training program as the top implementation strategy to reduce salt use in the winter. In the past, MPCA conducted this training with federal funds, but those funds are temporary. The estimated operating cost for the training program in FY22 is $350,000/year. To qualify for the liability protection to private salt applicators, the applicator must complete Smart Salting training program to be certified. The State should continue to provide adequate funding to the MPCA’s Chloride Reduction Program budget to support the development and maintenance of tools, resources, policies, trainings and assistance programs like MnTAP to assist communities in their effort to reduce chloride pollution.

2. Allow the MPCA to Charge a Fee. Currently the MPCA does not have the authority to charge a fee for the training that would defray some of the cost. Legislative authority will be required. There is more demand for these chloride reduction training than the MPCA can meet. By charging a fee to willing customers, the agency can meet the demand.

3. Liability Protection. Provide liability protection to certified private salt applicators against slip and fall lawsuits: The notion here is that private applicators certified through the Smart Salting program would be able to apply for liability protection. The private applicator industry and local stakeholders strongly support this proposal. Various groups introduced bills to this effect in the last three legislative sessions and it has passed several committees and one house; however, none was enacted into law.

4. Research Funding for Alternatives. Make research funds available to develop new technology and alternatives to chloride-containing de-icing chemicals. Research on new technologies and alternative de-icing solutions may allow for a shift in snow and ice management that protect water resources while maintaining public safety. A full list of needed research areas can be found in Section 5 of the TCMA Chloride Management Plan.

5. Adopt Local Chloride Reduction Ordinances. Encourage and support the adoption of the MPCA’s Chloride Reduction Model Ordinance Language by local governmental entities. The model ordinances provide guidance for creating and implementing ordinances that will assist with reducing chloride pollution. The proposed new municipal stormwater general permit for the State (also known as the MS4 general permit) would require adoption of several of these ideas. The four focus areas in the guidance include:

a. Occupational Licensure for Winter Maintenance Professionals b. Deicer Bulk Storage Facility Regulations c. Land Disturbance Activities d. Parking Lot, Sidewalk and Private Road Sweeping Requirements

6. De-icing product labeling requirements. The MPCA should convene and lead a stakeholder process to develop recommendations for new labeling requirements on bags of de-icing chemicals sold in Minnesota. The goal of this effort will be to convene a knowledgeable group of stakeholders from a variety of sectors to create language that will ensure that consumers are provided accurate and necessary information about the de-icing products they are purchasing



and applying to Minnesota’s environment. Some key areas that should be evaluated include, but would not be limited to:

• Require complete ingredients list with percentages provided • Third party certification requirements for any statements about the products’

environmental, pet and human safety • Provide “practical’ temperature ranges (not temperature ranges that can only be

achieved in a lab setting or over a time period of weeks for melting to occur) • Report possible negative impacts of the product on surfaces, vegetation, water quality,

and other • Safety protocols for handling the products • Guidance for proper application that includes:

o Snow and Ice removal prior to application o Application rates that are based on research o Suggested equipment for proper application and proper spread patterns o Conditions in which product will not be effective or may create unsafe surfaces



Chloride Reduction: Water Softening [Approved Policy Committee 7/24/2020] Policy Statement The Clean Water Council recommends that the State do the following to reduce chloride in Minnesota surface and groundwater:

• Provide financial support and technical assistance to municipalities to reduce chloride discharges and allow flexibility for how municipalities achieve these reductions.

• Update the state plumbing code to effectively prohibit the installation of new water softeners in Minnesota that use timers rather than on-demand regeneration systems.

• Fund a program for activities, training, and grants that reduce chloride pollution. Grants should support upgrading, optimizing, or replacing water softener units.

Problem Chloride is a naturally occurring ion found in low levels in Minnesota surface and groundwater. Salt used for winter de-icing and water softening contain chloride. Chloride is not toxic in small concentrations. However, above 230 mg per liter (about one teaspoon in 5 gallons of water), chloride becomes toxic to freshwater fish and other aquatic life under long-term exposure. Once chloride enters our surface water (lakes, streams, and wetlands) and groundwater, it is not feasible and extremely expensive to remove it.

Residential water softeners among the primary sources of chloride in Minnesota waters.

The discharge of chloride from residential water softeners can end up in surface waters even after wastewater treatment. Reducing the need for chlorides in water treatment is a priority in Minnesota. However, there are obstacles to achieving chloride reduction.

• Timer water softeners are still available. Newer on-demand water softeners are more efficient than older models because they add salt when water demand requires it. However, water softeners are still on the market in Minnesota with a timer that will use salt at regular intervals whether the water requires it or not to remove hardness.

• If public water suppliers upgrade to central softening of water, excessive wastewater discharges of chloride may persist due to continued use of residential water softeners when they are no longer necessary to reduce hardness.

Links to Clean Water Council Strategic Plan Goal 3: Surface waters are swimmable and fishable throughout the state

• Prevent and reduce impairments in surface waters • Maintain and improve the health of aquatic ecosystems • Invest in activities and research that can accelerate improvement in water quality through new

approaches (e.g., perennial crops and other “landscape drivers”, chloride management or alternatives, etc.).

Solution 1. Support municipal efforts to reduce chloride. The State should provide adequate funding to

provide municipalities financial resources to reduce chloride discharges. This includes funding



programs offered through the Minnesota Public Facilities Authority and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s water softening grant program.

2. Update the Plumbing Code. The plumbing code would effectively prohibit the installation of new water softeners that use a timer using one of two options.

a. Ion Exchange water softeners used primarily for water hardness reduction that, during regeneration, discharge a brine solution shall be of a demand initiated regeneration type equipped with a water meter or a sensor [based on a Wisconsin model]; or

b. All water softening or conditioning appliances installed must meet the following criteria [based on a California model]:

i. The appliance activates regeneration by demand control. c. An appliance installed on or after January 1, [insert desired year], shall be certified by a

third party rating organization using industry standards to have a salt efficiency rating of no less than 4,000 grains of hardness removed per pound of salt used in regeneration. (This is the recommendation that MPCA suggests in Property Management training and in the Statewide Chloride Management Plan.)

3. Fund activities, training, and grants that reduce chloride pollution. The MPCA has several tools available to help municipalities reduce chloride pollution. Grants can be used to support rebates that homeowners and businesses can use to upgrade, optimize, or replace their water softening equipment.



Disclosure of Well Water Quality at Time of Sale [Approved Policy Committee 24 July 2020] Policy Statement The Clean Water Council recommends that the State do the following to protect drinking water for private well owners:

• Require all sellers of real property to test drinking water from wells for bacteria, nitrate, arsenic, manganese, and lead

• Inform buyers and renters of the test results • Direct buyers to mitigation guidance from the Minnesota Department of Health

Problem Currently, about 1.2 million Minnesotans get their drinking water from groundwater through a private well. While the State plays a role in protecting drinking water sources, testing well water is generally treated as the responsibility of the property owner, and the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) recommends that it be done regularly (annually for bacteria; bi-annually for nitrate; at least once for arsenic and lead; and before a baby drinks the water for manganese). In limited cases, such as the Township Testing program of the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, the State provides the funding. However, many private well owners do not test their water. A 2016 Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) survey of private well owners found less than 20% of respondents had tested their well water at the frequency MDH recommends.

Once a well owner tests their water and gets the results, they are better able to know what steps they may need to take to ensure safe drinking water. However, currently owners are under no obligation to inform buyers of their property of any high contaminant levels in private drinking water supply system. Education is useful, but some mandates are necessary to increase testing, reporting, and protect the health of private well users. Minnesota Statutes 103I.235 requires sellers of real property to disclosure the existence of a well but not water quality results.

Some lenders and loan programs already require testing In a 2019 MDH survey of 243 real estate professionals, 46% of respondents said that the mortgage companies they work with always or usually require well water testing. Respondents explained that the following loan programs require well testing, but the testing parameters varies on what is tested. Veterans Affairs Home Loan, Federal Housing Administration1, and USDA Home Loans. A statewide policy would bring consistency to testing requirements at property transfer.

Dakota County has required well testing at property transfer since 1998 Dakota County Ordinance number 1142 requires testing a private well for bacteria, nitrate, arsenic, and manganese (added in 2019) within in 12 months prior to a real estate transfer. The ordinance updates in 2019 also require that water quality issues are addressed through treatment or well replacement prior to sale.

1 The FHA requirements can be found at 24 CFR 200.926d. 2 See Appendix for Dakota County ordinance language.



Cost considerations On average, it costs about $125 to test for all five recommended contaminants.

There are home water treatment options to address water quality issues. The price for treatment varies based on the type of treatment and who installs it. Point-of-use reverse osmosis is an effective way to treat for all five contaminants and costs about $300 if you install it yourself or $1500 to have a water treatment professional install it. Annual maintenance is about $100. There are additional treatment options that range in price and application.3

Precedent on Disclosure Regarding public water testing disclosure related to urban property transfer, the Clean Water Council has already made the following policy recommendation in FY16-17:

• Property Transfers: Notify the buyers of the potential existence of lead pipes between the water main and taps, and provide informational material to mitigate risks.

• Renters: Notify the renters, the potential existence of lead pipes between the water main and taps and provide informational material to mitigate risks.

The Council also adopted a policy statement in FY18-19 in support of testing and disclosure for private wells.

Develop a comprehensive, systematic approach for periodic testing of the water quality of private wells including the notification of testing results and education on possible actions. Examples for consideration may include:

• The testing of private wells providing drinking water at property transfer and notification of testing results to buyers.

Periodic testing of private wells providing drinking water to rental properties and requiring notification of the results before rental property owners can rent to new tenants or enter into new lease agreements.

Links to Clean Water Council Strategic Plan • Vision: Drinking water sources statewide will be protected, and drinking water at the tap for

both public water system users and private well owners will be available and safe for all Minnesotans.

• Goal 1: Drinking Water Is Safe for Everyone, Everywhere in Minnesota o Ensure that private well users have safe water.

• Strategies to Achieve Goal 1: Support widespread and routine testing of private well water and help private well owners achieve safe limits at the tap, beginning with a pilot project in FY2020-2021.

3 Minnesota Department of Health, https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/water/wells/waterquality/index.html.

https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/water/wells/waterquality/index.html



Solution The Council recommends legislation to require property owners to have their well water tested by the time the property is sold and to notify potential buyers of the test results.

In 2020, the Legislature introduced the following bill in the House and Senate, but it did not get to the House floor. It received a hearing in the House and was amended to include lead as follows:

House File 3950 (Lippert)/Senate File SF3951 (Wiger) - Real property sales well testing disclosure requirement. The current version (1st engrossment as of 3/23/2020) includes lead and is presented here.

Minnesota Statutes 2018, section 103I.235, subdivision 1 is amended to read [new language is underlined]:

Disclosure of wells to buyer.

(a) Before signing an agreement to sell or transfer real property, the seller must disclose in writing to the buyer information about the status and location of all known wells on the property, by delivering to the buyer either a statement by the seller that the seller does not know of any wells on the property, or a disclosure statement indicating the legal description and county, and a map drawn from available information showing the location of each well to the extent practicable. In the disclosure statement, the seller must indicate, for each well, whether the well is in use, not in use, or sealed….

(2) for each well that provides potable water to the real property, the results of a water analysis for bacteria, nitrate, arsenic, and lead conducted by a laboratory certified under section 144.98 within the previous six months.

The Council would support this language, and would suggest the addition of testing for manganese and information to be provided to renters about lead as outlined in the Council’s FY16-17 recommendations.



Appendix: Dakota County Ordinance No. 114 Well and Water Supply Management; https://www.co.dakota.mn.us/LawJustice/Ordinances/Documents/CountyOrdinance114.pdf

https://www.co.dakota.mn.us/LawJustice/Ordinances/Documents/CountyOrdinance114.pdf







1

1

June 15, 2020

Dear Chair Barten, Co-Chair Reinhardt, and members of the Clean Water Council Policy

Committee,

Thank you for allowing me to speak with your committee today regarding your draft policy

guidelines. I am writing to share the comments that I made on behalf of the Coalition of Greater

Minnesota Cities (CGMC) regarding the draft statement on Chloride Reduction: Water

Softening.

The CGMC is an organization of more than 100 cities located outside the Twin Cities

metropolitan area. Our cities care deeply about protecting Minnesota’s water and act as

stewards of that water through their wastewater, drinking water and stormwater facilities. We

appreciate the interest that the Clean Water Council has taken in addressing the chloride issue

with respect to water softeners and offer the following comments on your policy draft.

Background: Chloride Reduction Strategies for Wastewater

Addressing chloride in wastewater issue that many of our cities will be facing over the coming

years. The challenge is that it is not technologically or economically feasible for municipal

wastewater treatment plants (“WWTP”) to treat for chloride. The process for removing

chloride—reverse osmosis—is prohibitively expensive, energy intensive, and potentially harmful

to the environment because of the need to dispose of the resulting salty brine. This challenge is

compounded by the fact that many of the most effected cities are smaller, in the range of 5000

people or less.

Because chloride reduction in WWTPs is not feasible, MPCA developed a streamlined chloride

variance process for those cities that cannot afford to spend millions to upgrade their drinking

water facilities to meet wastewater permit requirements. When a city gets a chloride variance,

this is not a get out of jail free card. They still need to take steps to reduce chloride in their

discharge. What those steps are will depend largely on how much chloride they need to reduce

from their waste stream.

For cities, the steps will include evaluating where the chloride is coming from and evaluating

how it can be reduced. Reduction will likely be accomplished by either encouraging residents

and businesses to upgrade or optimize their water softeners, or by encouraging cities to evaluate

installing centralized water softening technology at their drinking water facilities accompanied

by the removing or optimizing of home water softeners.

2

2

Centralized water softening technology can still cost millions of dollars in capital and ongoing

operation and maintenance costs. Because of these high and ongoing expenses, cities will almost

always prefer a solution focused on upgrading softeners rather than centralized water softening.

Unfortunately, for some cities, due to their water source, centralized softening along with

removal of home water softeners, will be the only chloride reduction strategy that will work.

Grants for Optimizing, Replacing, or Removing Softeners is Warranted

Whether residents and businesses will need to remove, optimize or upgrade their water softeners,

either scenario is challenging for cities. Municipalities have limited authority to require residents

to remove or upgrade water softeners and most efforts to do so require significant outreach and

education and providing financial incentives—all of which cost money for cities.

We appreciate this committees support for funding a rebate program to optimize water softeners.

That will be helpful in some cities and should be encouraged. However, any program should be

comprehensive enough to cover optimization, upgrade, or removal of water softeners. There

are circumstances where optimizing is not going be enough, and removal of home softeners will

be necessary to comply with the city’s wastewater permit.

Getting people to remove their softeners can prove challenging because there will likely be a cost

for the removal. Therefore, any recommendation for funding related to water softeners should

recognize removal may be necessary. We urge that your policy support funding grant

programs for the optimization, upgrade and/or removal of water softeners.

Thank you again for allowing me to comment and for your work on this important issue. If you

have any questions, please contact me [email protected] or 651-259-1924.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Wefel


July 2, 2020 Members of the Minnesota Clean Water Council: Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Clean Water Council’s policy proposal regarding mandatory well testing at property transfer.

Minnesota Realtors is the largest professional trade association in the state with over 20,000 members engaging in all aspects of the real estate transaction. Our members work with buyers, sellers, and those aspiring to buy, every day.

Minnesota Realtors agrees with the goal of ensuring that ALL Minnesotans have access to clean water. However, we disagree with the narrow approach the Council is considering with respect to well testing. MN Realtors® opposes unfunded mandates on buyers and sellers in a real estate transaction as a substitute for finding comprehensive solutions to statewide issues, such as drinking water quality, that impact all Minnesotans. An unintended consequence of mandating well testing at property transfer rather than developing a comprehensive statewide strategy is that property owners may think of well testing as something that only needs to happen if or when the property is sold. Also, relying on the real estate transaction to address well testing will not increase the frequency of well testing at properties where the owners never move. According to the federal Environmental Protection Agency, property owners should test their wells annually and households with children, elderly adults, or someone who is pregnant, should test more frequently. (EPA Guidance on Well Testing)

Although Minnesota Realtors opposes a well testing at property transfer mandate, we would be interested in exploring a partnership with state agencies, local units of government and other stakeholders to promote comprehensive well testing statewide. We believe this approach, emphasizing the responsibility of all property owners and not just buyers/sellers, to maintain their private wells would produce better environmental and public health outcomes than only focusing on those in a real estate transaction.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on behalf of Minnesota Realtors. Sincerely,

Matt Spellman, Director of Political Affairs

https://www.epa.gov/privatewells/protect-your-homes-water#welltestanchor