New Clean Water Council Meeting Packet, Monday, July 20, 2015 · 2015. 8. 26. · Clean Water Council Meeting Agenda . July 20, 2015 . 9:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. MPCA Board Room (Lower

Clean Water Council Meeting Agenda July 20, 2015

9:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. MPCA Board Room (Lower Level) 520 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul

9:00 Regular Clean Water Council (Council) Business · Convene meeting· Agenda - comments/additions and approve agenda· Meeting Minutes - comments/additions and approve 6/15/15 minutes· Introductions and updates - Council Members· Staff update

9:30 Clean Water Fund Discussion Will the expectations of Minnesota voters for clean water be achieved? What needs to be done differently to deliver successful results?

Minnesota Farmers Union - Thom Petersen, Government Relations Director

10:00 Clean Water Ideas Overview of document summarizing clean water ideas presented to the Council from February through June 2015.

10:15 Long-Term Vision for Clean Water Begin discussing the Council’s long-term vision for programs receiving Clean Water Funds.

11:30 Lunch

12:00 By-Laws and Conflict of Interest Annual review of Council’s By-Laws and Conflict of Interest documents and policies.

12:15 Statewide Buffer Policy and Funding - John Jaschke, Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) and Sarah Strommen, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Update on legislative changes to buffer laws, policies, and funding and discussion of expected outcomes.

1:15 Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) – Dave Weirens, BWSR Impacts of Culverts on Water Quality – Tom Hovey, DNR Update on legislative changes to WCA and permitting for culverts and discussion of expected outcomes.

2:00 Adjournment

2:00 Council Steering Team - Steering Team discusses upcoming meeting topics and other items.

The next Clean Water Council Meeting will be held on Monday, August 17.

*Reminder that the Council’s annual field tour and meeting will be held in Brainerd on Sunday, September20 – Monday, September 21.

wq-cwc2-15g

Clean Water Council (Council) Meeting Minutes Monday, July 20, 2015 9:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m.

MPCA Lower Level Board Rooms 520 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul

Council members present: Mark Abner, Pam Blixt, Randy Ellingboe for Tannie Eshenaur, Pat Flowers, Bob Hoefert, Frank Jewell, Holly Kovarik, Gene Merriam, Raj Rajan, Gaylen Reetz, Victoria Reinhardt, Todd Renville, Sandy Rummel, Senator Bev Scalze, Pat Shea, Deb Swackhamer, Representative Paul Torkelson, Barbara Weisman for Jason Moeckel, Matt Wohlman, Representative Barb Yarusso Council members absent: John Barten, Gary Burdorf, Sharon Doucette, Tannie Eshenaur, Senator David Osmek, Doug Thomas, John Underhill Regular Council Business – Introductions and Updates · Motion to approve last month’s meeting minutes and today’s agenda, seconded and approved. Introduction of new Council members · Mark Abner - Grew up in Georgia but has lived in Minnesota for 19 years. Master of Environmental

Studies. Worked for the University of Minnesota, The Trust for Public Land and The Nature Conservancy and now works for Trout Unlimited as the Vice President for Development. Interested in serving on the Council because water is so essential and the topics are fascinating. The public is very interested in their water in this region.

· Raj Rajan - Moved to Minnesota two years ago from upstate New York. Mostly has worked in engineering and wastewater and is interested in biofuels and downstream effects of agriculture. Spent many years working in Great Lakes states. Completed graduate work in Massachusetts. Now he is on the lighter side and EIS and improvements to hospitality and food processing. Currently is the Research Development and Engineering Vice President and Global Sustainability Technical Leader at Ecolab Inc. Interested in improving the quality of water in Minnesota.

· Holly Kovarik - Currently Manager of the Pope County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) and lives in Glenwood, Minnesota. Grew up on a Minnesota family farm. Studied the animal industry in college and worked for Land O’ Lakes. Also worked for the Sauk River Watershed District. Passionate about work with individual producers and land owners and getting implementation projects done. Believe we need to improve the resources we all love. Lives close to Lake Minnewaska.

Member updates · Sandy Rummel - Metropolitan Council’s (Met Council) Draft Master Water Supply Plan is open for

public comment. The Metro Area Water Supply Advisory Council will meet again and discuss changes and how the approval process will evolve.

· Victoria Reinhardt - The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Water Rule (i.e. Waters of the U.S.) was published and the public has until August 28 to comment. I was also appointed to the EPA’s Local Government Advisory Committee and will provide a local government perspective to the federal government.

Staff update · The legislative changes to the Clean Water Legacy Act (CWLA) are in member packets. Also provided

in packets is the final spreadsheet of legislative appropriations for programs receiving Clean Water Fund (CWF) dollars. We have posted the roster of new members on the Council’s web pages. We have also posted the new member orientation packet on the Council’s web pages and will no longer

1

http://www.metrocouncil.org/Wastewater-Water/Planning/Water-Supply-Planning/Master-Water-Supply-Plan.aspx

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/06/29/2015-13435/clean-water-rule-definition-of-waters-of-the-united-states

be providing binders of information. Please sign cards for Council members who are no longer serving on the Council. Note our other new Council member is John Barten who will represent nonprofit organizations focused on improvement of Minnesota lakes and streams and he will join the Council at your September meeting.

Thom Petersen, Government Relations Director, Minnesota Farmers Union (MFU) Clean Water Fund Discussion - Will the expectations of Minnesota voters for clean water be achieved? What needs to be done differently to deliver successful results? · The Council has asked many stakeholder groups in the past few months including MFU to answer

the question about what is the best way to move the ball forward and meet the expectations of the voters for clean water.

· Can’t attend all the Council meetings but does read the notes and minutes and finds them interesting and useful. Council staff has done a great job this past year keeping stakeholders updated on Council activities.

· MFU is a grassroots organization which was created over 70 years ago. There are 77 chapters of various sizes. Local county units set the policy, starting this time of year. The members discuss and pass resolutions which are forwarded onto a policy committee which are then passed onto the state convention.

· The buffer initiative is a very important policy. The Council should look at building more opportunities with Soil and Water Conservation Districts, etc. Farmers will go to the SWCDs and work on buffers. This is an opportunity for SWCDs and farmers to explore funding opportunities for other parts of their acreage too.

· There are many tools to control runoff besides buffers. Precision agriculture is a big topic which has had considerable improvements in mapping and variable fertilizer application in the recent past.

· Glad to see funding recommendation from the Council for cover and perennial crop research. Opportunities to use these will improve over time and is a priority for MFU. The Council may want to see a presentation about the Green Lands Blue Waters initiative at the University of Minnesota. They help advise farmers on perennial and cover crops. Finding markets for perennial and cover crops is important. Price matters to farmers. Looking to cellulosic and biofuels are positive advancements. Cover crops can have real dollar benefits in addition to the environmental impacts.

· Nitrates are a big issue and priority. The Minnesota Department of Agriculture’s (MDA) Nitrogen Fertilizer Management Plan almost has a regulatory component but will not come into effect until years down the road. MFU prefers a voluntary approach over a mandatory one but need outcomes in areas in the state that are high in nitrates. Council should continue making recommendations for funding nitrate programs with CWF dollars.

· MFU is a long-time supporter of the Minnesota Agricultural Water Certification Program so glad to see that program is going statewide. Although MFU is very supportive, we didn’t see our members sign up. Farmers perceived this as a lot more work than they needed but they are taking a second look. If one farmer does it and it gets publicity then others will sign up.

· Usually technical assistance is provided to farmers by SWCDs or Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) staff and is important. It is great that SWCDs will receive funding to provide technical assistance for buffers. The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) through NRCS has benefits once they are into the program but the 40+ page application takes a great amount of time and effort and most people need help putting their application together.

Discussion · What does MFU think about cellulosic fuel? MFU is very supportive of seeing the federal Renewable

Fuel Standard move to the second generation and MFU is involved in providing comments. It is not

2

http://greenlandsbluewaters.net/

going to displace corn and soy biofuel, but where it makes sense and there is a market it can be used. What is missing in the discussion is the banker. Everyone knows that financial decisions on the farm go through banks and there needs to be encouragement. It is taking longer than they thought and cellulosic biofuels are always five years away. But now it is in Iowa and Indiana and could actually be five years away.

· How about using the corn stover? MFU supports using stover and many members are using it in the Benson area. They already use the cobs and stover for an alternative heating source; they have done much work in the area of how much can be removed. Farmers want the mass in the fields as much as the environmentalists. Is it in the bill how much stover can be taken off? There is hope to continue to improve to find the right balance. It is not in there yet, but the think corn stover is the best source.

· The objection to buffers is not from the farmers, but about the farmers. There is a misconception that there is a mass reimbursement to pay for idle land. Maybe MFU could tell people the state is not paying people for idle land. CRP is an option that could support many techniques and there is also the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). Farmers are looking into these programs.

· Other economic opportunities for perennial and cover crops are in the not so distant future – what is needed to move these along? Need cover crops to be cash crops. There isn’t a market for perennial hay, rye, or wheat other than increased soil benefits. The forage market ebbs and flows. It is currently way down. Biofuel market is still developing and could be helpful. Developing technical support for perennial and cover crops will be important.

· There are often two kinds of meetings held out in the countryside about the buffer initiative. The meetings start out unhappy but trend toward acceptance and understanding. The other meetings see further resentment of the government. Farmers are committed to quality, but often said that they don’t need buffers, but do need these “other practices”. What is stopping implementation if they know what is needed? Most of the criticism of the buffer initiative is the deadline and one-size-fits-all philosophy when buffers are not the only answer. There is language that offers alternative practices.

· What are the alternative practices and how are they to be implemented? For example, a cover crop or no-till could be an alternative practice instead of a buffer. The lack of funding to reimburse farmers for taking this land out of production and timeline are the big concerns. The CRP Continuous Sign-Up Program (CCRP) is backlogged. Also this needs to be fair to farmers who have already put in buffers voluntarily with their own resources. The folks that have already put in a buffer could be a great resource for others. We have seen that in some cases people lend their equipment to each other. There were many programs such as CREP, Reinvest in Minnesota (RIM), and CRP that have been in place for years to put in buffers. There is not a ton of new money that put into this implementation for farmers.

· Farmers are not going to be compensated for the loss of producing crops on this land that is buffered now. Funding is going to SWCDs to provide technical support. The state isn’t going to compensate the farmers. Farmers are already planting buffers – in the northeast area of the state and other areas they will have difficulties implementing the timeline.

· Why is it hard for farmers to put in best management practices (BMPs)? It is the amount of rented land. Now there is a third party deciding what can be done. It is very competitive for renters – they could lose the land that is part of their income. Need people to work with the farmers, but also the landowners, to encourage this work. The rented land is a big concern for MFU – there are lots of contracts that are year-to-year terms. When the corn prices went up a few years ago, some switched to multi-year contracts. Around 50% of the land is rented; in some counties about 70% of

3

the land rented such as Blue Earth County. In counties like Pine, there are many miles of ditches that were dug decades ago and many will be affected by the new legislation.

· Many programs are available for implementation – CCRP has been in the tool box for many years. SWCDs can help promote this program more now for buffers. The large workload for SWCDs is a concern. CREP funding is another option. There are lots of producers coming in and many will go out and put in the buffers without financial assistance. About 90% of the ditches are already buffered in Pope County.

· In the case of public ditches that go through a redetermination of benefits process the funding comes from all the farmers to implement actions.

· The Council has heard that Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy (WRAPS) documents should be more detailed so we know the locations where the pollution is coming from. What do farmers think? MFU supports educating the public and funding spent to do this is important. Many times farmers are unaware that WRAPS efforts are going on and what this means. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) should do a better job explaining this in terms that make sense to farmers. Once involved, farmers can be helpful and supportive. We can do much better.

· How receptive are farmers to mandatory regulations? Farmers have many different viewpoints across Minnesota. People may not want to change what they are doing and there are those willing to try new efforts.

Clean Water Ideas · Members received a handout in their packet with a summary of stakeholders and agencies that

presented to the Council from February through June on their ideas to get clean water results. We want to discuss briefly how to move forward with these ideas. Some are more are more micro-scale and some are more macro-scale items. Need to decipher how to use these to inform the Council’s budget and policy recommendations.

· One item to explore for policy recommendations that came up today was farm rental land. How to get more BMPs on the landscape that are between voluntary and regulatory. But taking land out of production takes money out of people’s pockets. Farmers can’t pay rent for land they are no longer farming. They don’t have certainty of how long they will rent the property.

· One item the Council should discuss is water storage and drainage. We continue to drain fields and increase the speed of water, etc. which results in soil erosion. Need to talk more about this topic. Do you think it is something that we need more presentations on? Presentations are pretty clear that the effect was altered hydrology. Maybe the Council should hear more about research into implementation techniques. There are many conservation drainage techniques such as bioreactors and water storage on site, etc. Research is challenging because of the Minnesota climate. Much work has been done on the research but not as much on what is being adopted on the ground. Need to understand the drivers.

· Continually hear that more land is being drained and tiled. Should this be addressed? Most of what is going in is actually replacement tiling. We know things that could be done for drainage – does this require a step into regulatory mode? We’ve done this in urban areas for water conservation practices and it wouldn’t have happened if it was voluntary. It is not a technical problem.

· We need to clarify what type of drainage – do we mean surface drainage or subsurface drainage? Be explicit. There are various things that go on in the political arena (e.g., no sales tax on tile) – we could recommend tying tax relief to better practices.

· We need presentations about the regulatory tools at the various levels so all members have the same understanding. What are the sticks? Learn about the gaps that exist. That might take many meetings if we discuss all the federal, state, and local regulations.

4

· The Council needs to narrow down the topics for the next 6-12 months and focus on these and the compatible tools/regulations.

· SWCDs have never been regulatory. The buffer laws are regulatory but SWCDs can’t do anything without the land owner’s authority. If this is a regulation, the owners will have to be responsible for the initiatives. The enforcement piece will happen after the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) maps out where buffers are needed.

· Which items should the Council consider for budget and policy recommendations from these big ideas? Struck again about what stakeholders and agencies have said about the need for more public involvement in these water issues. Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) Commissioner said we need to reframe the conversation like they did with public health.

· This is a very long list of clean water ideas. How should we sort through it? By Committee? Or use this as reference as we make budget and policy recommendations? Some obviously need to be considered by the Council as a whole but we could have the Budget and Outcomes Committee (BOC) sort through these and come back to the whole Council with their recommendations.

· This clean water idea list has some strategic and tactical issues and some of these are more appropriate for the Council and some to give to agencies.

· Needs to happen by committee such as the BOC or if we go through these as a full Council we would need to break into small groups. Would be helpful to have whole Council engaged.

· We can’t do everything for clean water so identify what items are most appropriate for the Council and forward other items to other entities.

· The exercise was to get help with thoughts about bigger picture ideas and there are definitely some bigger themes that have come out.

· Public engagement needs to happen at the local level through local water planning and is not the Council’s role.

Long-Term Vision for Clean Water · The Council’s main mandate is to decide on the optimal allocation of scarce resources – only $100

million per year – it is a significant amount of money, but in comparison to the challenges is very small. The focus on policy in the last report had effect.

· How do we get the biggest bang for the buck over time with the Clean Water Fund? These clean water ideas tie back into this question. We also need to think longer term – where do we want to see these programs going beyond the next biennium. We are not looking for a decision today but where do we think the largest part of the funding should go and the BOC can start to evaluate this.

· Another important discussion is to consider what are other sources of money that are part of the cycle? The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) spends about $200 million/year in Minnesota on conservation practices. It would be a mistake to not look at other funding sources and understand how the CWF fits in. Leveraging is important.

· Need to hear more about funding for programs such as water monitoring and planning – will fewer funds be needed for the second cycle?

· Clean Water Fund dollars are limited one-time funds and will end in 2034 so how do we build support for these programs over time? This early funding should be to start up projects and programs and then put a plan in place of how to fund these long-term outside of the CWF.

· Protection is key too - one of the speaker’s ideas focused on protecting the natural infrastructure such as forests and how this should be a priority for CWF dollars because these efforts can benefit from one-time funding and is a better investment than restoration.

· The Council’s Guiding Principles and Funding Priorities (GPFP) from the last biennium seemed to focus on implementation. Is that still the correct focus?

5

· Council needs to reconsider the GPFP document. We need to see clean water successes over time with the funding that is being put in. Need to show this in a watershed or a particular area over time. CWF dollars with other funding is making a difference. There will be a CWF performance report in January 2016 that will look at progress over time.

· The CWF has been out there for seven years now and we still have a lot of water quality problems. But these fall into a few categories: (1) agriculture – sediment and nutrient pollution – think about what potential solutions that the Council can support or shift; (2) nonpoint source pollution - how incentivize actions; (3) statutory progress for impaired waters – are we holding the state accountable? If these efforts aren’t working, how can we adjust them? (4) public health issues – groundwater and drinking water. And how do we best use CWF dollars to supplement existing funding?

· There are 55 million acres of land in Minnesota and there is $100M/year from the Clean Water Fund to restore and protect waters in the State. Primary impact is from private landownership and we need behavioral programs to influence those folks. Heard much that from stakeholder groups. But how about structurally approaches? We need multiple approaches. Large campaigns for not smoking and recycling efforts have worked. MDH works with public water suppliers and the land that influences water quality in wells falls outside the community so need to work with landowners on shared values. Lessons can be learned from MDH on community involvement with the watershed approach and local water planning.

· People that are becoming more involved in stormwater reuse – the City of Hugo is an example. Motivation may not just be for the environment but that economics make sense for changing what people to. Needed to have markets for recycled materials to make it work. Behavior change can’t be mandated.

· Private land shouldn’t be the only focus. There are many miles of road ditches throughout the state. Need an evaluation of how public lands are being used too.

· The spreadsheet of agency programs that receive CWF dollars always has more and more lines and the Council tends to keep recommending funding for these programs once they have provided some seed money. The number of programs needs to be reduced and the Council needs to focus efforts for the Clean Water Fund.

Bylaws and Conflict of Interest Policy · The Council’s policy is to review both the Council’s Bylaws and Conflict of Interest Policy each year. · Bylaws – Council staff reviewed the Bylaws by page. Note there have been a couple changes in the

past but no one is suggesting any changes today. · Conflict of Interest Policy – Council staff went through both the Conflict of Interest Policy and Form.

The Council’s Conflict of Interest Policy has not been updated since 2012. When members have an actual or perceived conflict of interest they are asked to verbally announce that at meetings and also fill out the Conflict of Interest Form. In 2013, the Council asked the Department of Administration to attend its meeting and said that since the Council is not a state agency and holds an advisory role (does not make funding decisions only recommendations), conflict of interest is up to the Council to define. Rule of thumb that can help Council members would be if it made a good newspaper story. Encourage more disclosure if you are not sure if it might be conflict of interest.

· These forms are posted on the Council’s web page. · The Council also discussed Open Meeting Law (OML) in 2013. We assume that OML applies to the

Council and operate under it. It is less clear whether OML applies to subcommittees but we operate meetings as such – all are open to the public, schedules of meetings are kept on file, etc.

6

· Recommend that the Council could be proactive and pass a resolution that it operates under OML. We will look into it and may consider that suggestion at a future meeting.

Statewide Buffer Policy and Funding - John Jaschke, Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) and Sarah Strommen, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) · Governor announced his Buffer Initiative in January 2015 and in June 2015 signed a bill that contains

the Buffer Initiative language. · Few southwest Minnesota waters meet state standards. Drinking water report focused on impact of

nitrate. Problem is that the Shoreland Rule was only being completely implemented in six counties. The other law that was in place was the Public Drainage Law which required a 16.5 foot buffer and only covered 20% of all waters. Excessive soil loss policy and ordinances were not generally being implemented. Minnesota didn’t have maps that showed where buffers were required by law. Buffers can minimize soil erosion and reduce sediment and pollutants in runoff.

· Under the new Buffer Law, DNR will create maps of where buffers are required. Public waters need a 30-foot minimum, 50-foot average buffer. Public ditches need a 16.5-foot minimum buffer. Alternative practices may be acceptable.

· Compliance will be by Watershed Districts and Counties and there will be administrative penalties. SWCDs can provide technical support. But they no longer have to go through county attorneys. Oversight is provided by the State. If local government units (LGU) are not implementing the program the State can withhold funding. This would not be for a single landowner who is out of compliance, but overall.

· What is new in this law? Enhances public waters requirements by putting it in state statute versus state rule. Extends to ditches within benefitted area of public drainage system (without going through a redetermination of benefits process). Provides a process for the SWCDs to apply local standards on other waters via local water plan amendments with BWSR approval. The buffer law has very explicit dates for implementation. This is a separate law; the existing laws are still there.

· Private ditches and other waters flowing into a public ditch don’t require buffers. Is there a redetermination mechanism to require those waterbodies to have buffers because they flow into the public water? Yes – this already has been part of a redetermination process prior to the law and a landowner can have their private ditch included. If they don’t want to be included, can the drainage authority bring it in? Yes, there is a way to make people come in.

· Enforcement - previous ways weren’t efficient. How will the BWSR use this enforcement process? It is yet to be determined but will use an administrative penalty order (APO) process.

· Concerned about how this will correct the problems with enforcement – who makes sure there is compliance? Any county staff (doesn’t have to be the county attorney) can issue the letter. If the LGU doesn’t enforce, BWSR can step in.

· How will BWSR know there are noncompliance issues? The map will be a real legal mark. If there is a lack of buffer, or other practice, the SWCD will know. What if the SWCD doesn’t report? If there is evidence of not enforcing, the money may be withheld from SWCDs. But the concern is if this will happen only if the BWSR knows about a noncompliance issue. Confident it will happen.

· Concerns about the short timeframe for implementing the law. · Funding source for these efforts is a concern – that the more than $22 M funding came out of Clean

Water Fund dollars. The Legislature will review this funding source for the next budget cycle and intention is that it would come out of the General Fund and not the CWF.

· The buffer law also strengthened soil erosion statutes. Only five counties had adopted the soil loss ordinances; nothing at the state level. Removed the county ordinance requirement and tied to an administrative fine process.

7

· Clean Water Fund is providing $5 million to BWSR for local government implementation, $650,000 to DNR for mapping, and $22 million for increased SWCD capacity.

· The $22 million came out of BWSR implementation programs for on-the-ground projects which was identified by the Council as the highest priority so that is very disappointing. The thinking is that this is a one-time adjustment and will be dealt with differently in the future.

· Will there be any end of year reporting/accountability and public accountability to the Legislature or the Council about how this law will be implemented and how many APOs were issued? There will be no enforcement until after 2017.

· You mentioned that SWCDs will track and report process. Is this statutorily required or “a hope”? Practically because they are committed to doing this work. The Council should take action to encourage accountability of this buffer law as it appears to be lacking.

· It seems unlikely that BWSR will penalize SWCDs. Counties could reduce contributions to SWCDs but could risk losing State funding.

· Reiterate that one ongoing problem is the unevenness of SWCDs across the State. Larger organizations benefitted because they were good at grant writing while others fell behind.

· How in practice does the law get steered to high quality buffers? What about noxious weeds, etc. – don’t see any language about a good buffer. Law doesn’t say what species should be – just perennial vegetation and it can be used for grazing and hay. Better quality buffers would have better results. SWCDs could provide good seed mixes and loan out drills for planting.

· The Council would like to hear updated from DNR and BWSR again in the next six months. This is important legislation. Oversight will be important.

Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) – Dave Weirens, BWSR · Council members have a handout in their packets of 2015 WCA statute changes. These legislative

changes were easier to get passed because there was a robust stakeholder process. · There was a 2012 Executive Order from the Governor to improve the wetland policies. There were

concerns about wetland mitigation - quality and location. In northeastern Minnesota there are concerns about wetlands and public land. There are not many places to replace wetlands. Basic tenant is if you impact a wetland, you must replace it with a wetland close to original location. Geographically this is hard in northeastern Minnesota.

· Really looking at three components: First mitigation within the watershed could now include restoration and protection of streams and riparian buffers. Second, mitigation for public transportation projects does not have separate wetland replacement siting criteria. Third, targeting of wetland replacement would be in high priority watershed areas.

· Another change is to clarify that that wetland banking can include an in-lieu fee. · Process will be more predictable and more opportunity for oversight. · Challenge is that the level of appropriations varies from year to year. · Will start a rulemaking process in August and will hear many different idea. · The added costs from the court not signing off on these wetland projects efficiently in one case cost

$500,000 to rebid a project. Impacts of Culverts on Water Quality – Tom Hovey, DNR · A 2015 Legislative Session law change exempts culvert restoration or replacement from DNR permit

requirements when the same size and elevation are maintained as long as the restoration or replacement does not impact a trout stream. This is a concern because many existing culverts are currently undersized and sedimentation has affected the elevation and impacts stream water quality.

8

· There are over 66,000 highways crossing streams in Minnesota and about 20,000 cross public waters. On average, there are about 12 culverts per square mile, but only a subset is under the DNR’s jurisdictions.

· Problems with culverts can be improper construction, size, placement, alignment, and slope which lead to stream impacts such as perched culverts causing barriers for fish passage. People need to keep large flows in mind when constructing. Culverts can impact temperature which can impact species such as trout. Oversized culverts allow sediment to build up in the stream.

· DNR will miss the opportunity to provide technical advice to people replacing these culverts and culverts can greatly influence stream hydrology.

· Why was this legislation pushed forward? There were concerns from the northwestern Minnesota folks about the costs and time involved in what in simple culvert replacement projects.

New Business · Every two years Council members are asked who is interested in serving on the BOC. Council staff

will send an email to Council members to find out who is interested. The BOC usually meets once a month and may start meeting before January.

· Reminder to mark your calendars for the Council’s 2-day meeting and field tour on September 20 and 21.

9

1 LAWS of MINNESOTA Ch 2, art 1, s 22015 First Special Session

Copyright © 2015 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved.

CHAPTER 2--S.F.No. 1

An act relating to state government; appropriating money from the outdoor heritage fund,clean water fund, parks and trails fund, and arts and cultural heritage fund; establishing policyon milkweed; providing for rehearsal and storage space for state band; modifying provisions ofLessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council and the Clean Water Council; modifying Water Law;modifying requirements for use of and eligibility for legacy funds; modifying previous appropria-tions; requiring a report;amending Minnesota Statutes 2014, sections 16B.24, by adding a subdi-vision; 85.53, subdivision 2; 97A.056, subdivisions 8, 11, by adding subdivisions; 103A.206;103B.101, by adding a subdivision; 103C.101, by adding a subdivision; 103C.401, subdivision1; 103C.501, subdivision 5; 114D.30, subdivision 2; 114D.50, subdivision 4; 129D.17, subdi-vision 2; Laws 2012, chapter 264, article 1, section 2, subdivision 5; Laws 2013, chapter 137,article 1, section 2, subdivision 10; article 2, section 6; article 3, section 4; Laws 2014, chapter256, article 1, section 2, subdivision 5; Laws 2014, chapter 295, sections 10, subdivision 12;12; Laws 2014, chapter 312, article 14, section 7; proposing coding for new law in MinnesotaStatutes, chapters 84; 103B.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:

ARTICLE 1

OUTDOOR HERITAGE FUND

Section 1. OUTDOOR HERITAGE APPROPRIATION.

The sums shown in the columns marked "Appropriations" are appropriated to the agencies and for thepurposes specified in this article. The appropriations are from the outdoor heritage fund for the fiscal yearindicated for each purpose. The figures "2016" and "2017" used in this article mean that the appropriationslisted under the figure are available for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2016, and June 30, 2017, respectively.The "first year" is fiscal year 2016. The "second year" is fiscal year 2017. The "biennium" is fiscal years2016 and 2017, respectively. The appropriations in this article are onetime.

APPROPRIATIONS Available for the Year Ending June 30 2016 2017

Sec. 2. OUTDOOR HERITAGE FUND

Subdivision 1. Total Appropriation $ 97,198,000 $ 607,000

This appropriation is from the outdoor heritage fund.The amounts that may be spent for each purpose arespecified in the following subdivisions.



management areas under Minnesota Statutes, sections86A.05, subdivision 14, and 97C.02. All restorationor enhancement projects must be on land permanentlyprotected by a permanent covenant ensuring perpetualmaintenance and protection of restored and enhancedhabitat, by a conservation easement, or by publicownership or in public waters as defined in MinnesotaStatutes, section 103G.005, subdivision 15. Priorityshall be given to restoration and enhancement projectson public lands. Minnesota Statutes, section 97A.056,subdivision 13, applies to grants awarded under thisparagraph. This appropriation is available until June30, 2018. No less than five percent of the amountof each grant must be held back from reimbursementuntil the grant recipient has completed a grant ac-complishment report by the deadline and in the formprescribed by and satisfactory to the Lessard-SamsOutdoor Heritage Council. The commissioner shallprovide notice of the grant program in the game andfish law summary prepared under Minnesota Statutes,section 97A.051, subdivision 2.

EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective retroactively from July 1, 2014.

Sec. 10. PAYMENT-IN-LIEU OF TAX ALTERNATIVES; RECOMMENDATIONS.

The commissioner of management and budget, in consultation with the commissioners of naturalresources and revenue, the Association of Minnesota Counties, and the Minnesota Association ofTownships, shall examine alternatives to payment-in-lieu of tax payments under Minnesota Statutes,sections 477A.10 to 477A.14, including a trust fund approach, that would apply to land acquired with moneyfrom the outdoor heritage fund and other dedicated funds. The examination must take into account theongoing costs to the state and local units of government associated with the acquisition of the land andany constitutional constraints. The commissioner of management and budget shall submit recommendationsto the chairs and ranking minority members of the house of representatives and senate committees anddivisions with jurisdiction over the environment and natural resources, legacy funds, and taxes no later thanJanuary 15, 2016.

ARTICLE 2

CLEAN WATER FUND

Section 1. CLEAN WATER FUND APPROPRIATIONS.

The sums shown in the columns marked "Appropriations" are appropriated to the agencies and for thepurposes specified in this article. The appropriations are from the clean water fund and are available for thefiscal years indicated for allowable activities under the Minnesota Constitution, article XI, section 15. Thefigures "2016" and "2017" used in this article mean that the appropriations listed under them are availablefor the fiscal year ending June 30, 2016, or June 30, 2017, respectively. "The first year" is fiscal year 2016.

Ch 2, art 2, s 1 LAWS of MINNESOTA 282015 First Special Session


"The second year" is fiscal year 2017. "The biennium" is fiscal years 2016 and 2017. The appropriationsin this article are onetime.

APPROPRIATIONS Available for the Year Ending June 30 2016 2017

Sec. 2. CLEAN WATER

Subdivision 1. Total Appropriation $ 116,263,000 $ 112,039,000

The amounts that may be spent for each purpose arespecified in the following sections.

Subd. 2. Availability of Appropriation

Money appropriated in this article may not be spenton activities unless they are directly related to andnecessary for a specific appropriation. Money ap-propriated in this article must be spent in accordancewith Minnesota Management and Budget's Guidanceto Agencies on Legacy Fund Expenditure. Notwith-standing Minnesota Statutes, section 16A.28, andunless otherwise specified in this article, fiscal year2016 appropriations are available until June 30, 2017,and fiscal year 2017 appropriations are available untilJune 30, 2018. If a project receives federal funds, thetime period of the appropriation is extended to equalthe availability of federal funding.

Subd. 3. Disability Access

Where appropriate, grant recipients of clean waterfunds, in consultation with the Council on Disabilityand other appropriate governor-appointed disabilitycouncils, boards, committees, and commissions ,should make progress toward providing greater accessto programs, print publications, and digital mediafor people with disabilities related to the programsthe recipient funds using appropriations made in thisarticle.

Sec. 3. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE $ 8,584,000 $ 5,082,000

(a) $350,000 the first year and $350,000 the secondyear are to increase monitoring for pesticides andpesticide degradates in surface water and groundwaterand to use data collected to assess pesticide usepractices.



(b) $2,586,000 the first year and $2,585,000 thesecond year are for monitoring and evaluating trendsin the concentration of nitrate in groundwater in areasvulnerable to groundwater degradation; monitoringfor pesticides when nitrate is detected; promoting,developing, and evaluating regional and crop-specificnutrient best management practices; assessingbest management practice adoption; education andtechnical support from University of MinnesotaExtension; and other actions to protect groundwaterfrom degradation from nitrate. This appropriation isavailable until June 30, 2018.

(c) $75,000 the first year and $75,000 the secondyear are for administering clean water funds managedthrough the agriculture best management practicesloan program. Any unencumbered balance at the endof the second year shall be added to the corpus of theloan fund.

(d) $1,125,000 the first year and $1,125,000 thesecond year are for technical assistance, research,and demonstration projects on proper implementationof best management practices and more preciseinformation on nonpoint contributions to impairedwaters. This appropriation is available until June 30,2020.

(e) $788,000 the first year and $787,000 thesecond year are for research to quantify and reduceagricultural contributions to impaired waters and fordevelopment and evaluation of best managementpractices to protect and restore water resources. Thisappropriation is available until June 30, 2020.

(f) $50,000 the first year and $50,000 thesecond year are for a research inventory databasecontaining water-related research activities. Costs forinformation technology development or support forthis research inventory database may be paid tothe Office of MN.IT Services. This appropriation isavailable until June 30, 2018.

(g) $2,500,000 the first year is to implement theMinnesota agricultural water quality certificationprogram statewide. The commissioner of agricultureshall consult with the United States Departmentof Agriculture to determine whether other state



spending would qualify as a match for the agriculturalwater quality certification program funds availablefrom the federal government. By January 1, 2016,the commissioner shall submit a report on fundingrecommendations to the Clean Water Council and thechairs and ranking minority members of the house ofrepresentatives and senate committees and divisionswith jurisdiction over agriculture, the environmentand natural resources, and the clean water fund. Fundsappropriated in this paragraph are available untilJune 30, 2016, and the commissioner may requestadditional funding for this program for fiscal year2017.

(h) $110,000 the first year and $110,000 thesecond year are to provide funding for a regionalirrigation water quality specialist through Universityof Minnesota Extension.

(i) $1,000,000 the first year is for grants tothe Board of Regents of the University ofMinnesota to fund the Forever Green AgricultureInitiative and to protect the state's natural resourceswhile increasing the efficiency, profitability, andproductivity of Minnesota farmers by incorporatingperennial and winter-annual crops into existingagricultural practices.

(j) A portion of the funds in this section may be usedfor programs to train state and local outreach staff inthe intersection between agricultural economics andagricultural conservation.

Sec. 4. PUBLIC FACILITIES AUTHORITY $ 9,250,000 $ 9,250,000

(a) $9,000,000 the first year and $9,000,000 thesecond year are for the point source implementationgrants program under Minnesota Statutes, section446A.073. This appropriation is available until June30, 2020.

(b) $250,000 the first year and $250,000 the secondyear are for small community wastewater treatmentgrants and loans under Minnesota Statutes, section446A.075. This appropriation is available until June30, 2020.

(c) If there are any uncommitted funds at the end ofeach fiscal year under paragraph (a) or (b), the Public



Facilities Authority may transfer the remaining fundsto eligible projects under any of the programs listedin this section based on their priority rank on thePollution Control Agency's project priority list.

Sec. 5. POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY $ 27,350,000 $ 27,348,000

(a) $8,350,000 the first year and $8,350,000 thesecond year are for completion of 20 percent ofthe needed statewide assessments of surface waterquality and trends. Of this amount, $100,000 eachyear is for grants to the Red River WatershedManagement Board to enhance and expand theexisting water quality and watershed monitoring riverwatch activities in the schools along the Red Riverof the North. The Red River Watershed ManagementBoard shall provide a report to the commissionerof the Pollution Control Agency and the legislativecommittees and divisions with jurisdiction overenvironment and natural resources finance and policyand the clean water fund by February 15, 2017, on theexpenditure of this appropriation. If the amount in thefirst year is insufficient, the amount in the second yearis available in the first year.

(b) $9,795,000 the first year and $9,795,000 thesecond year are to develop watershed restoration andprotection strategies (WRAPS), which include totalmaximum daily load (TMDL) studies and TMDLimplementation plans for waters listed on the UnitesStates Environmental Protection Agency approvedimpaired waters list in accordance with MinnesotaStatutes, chapter 114D. The agency shall complete anaverage of ten percent of the TMDLs each year overthe biennium.

(c) $1,182,000 the first year and $1,181,000the second year are for groundwater assessment,including enhancing the ambient monitoring network,modeling, and evaluating trends, including thereassessment of groundwater that was assessed ten to15 years ago and found to be contaminated.

(d) $750,000 the first year and $750,000 the secondyear are for implementation of the St. Louis RiverSystem Area of Concern Remedial Action Plan. Thisappropriation must be matched at a rate of 65 percentnonstate money to 35 percent state money.



(e) $275,000 the first year and $275,000 the secondyear are for storm water research and guidance.

(f) $1,150,000 the first year and $1,150,000 thesecond year are for TMDL research and databasedevelopment.

(g) $900,000 the first year and $900,000 thesecond year are for national pollutant dischargeelimination system wastewater and storm waterTMDL implementation efforts.

(h) $3,623,000 the first year and $3,622,000 thesecond year are for enhancing the county-leveldelivery systems for subsurface sewage treatmentsystem (SSTS) activities necessary to implementMinnesota Statutes, sections 115.55 and 115.56, forprotection of groundwater, including base grants forall counties with SSTS programs and competitivegrants to counties with specific plans to significantlyreduce water pollution by reducing the numberof systems that are an imminent threat to publichealth or safety or are otherwise failing. Countiesthat receive base grants must report the number ofsewage noncompliant properties upgraded throughSSTS replacement, connection to a centralizedsewer system, or other means, including propertyabandonment or buy-out. Counties also must reportthe number of existing SSTS compliance inspectionsconducted in areas under county jurisdiction. Theserequired reports are to be part of established annualreporting for SSTS programs. Counties that conductSSTS inventories or those with an ordinance in placethat requires an SSTS to be inspected as a conditionof transferring property or as a condition of obtaininga local permit must be given priority for competitivegrants under this paragraph. Of this amount, $750,000each year is available to counties for grants to low-income landowners to address systems that pose animminent threat to public health or safety or failto protect groundwater. A grant awarded under thisparagraph may not exceed $500,000 for the biennium.A county receiving a grant under this paragraph mustsubmit a report to the agency listing the projectsfunded, including an account of the expenditures.



(i) $275,000 the first year and $275,000 the secondyear are for a storm water best managementpractice performance evaluation and technologytransfer program to enhance data and informationmanagement of storm water best managementpractices; evaluate best management performance andeffectiveness to support meeting total maximum dailyloads; develop standards and incorporate state of theart guidance using minimal impact design standardsas the model; and implement a knowledge andtechnology transfer system across local government,industry, and regulatory sectors for pass-through tothe University of Minnesota. This appropriation isavailable until June 30, 2018.

(j) $50,000 the first year and $50,000 the second yearare to support activities of the Clean Water Councilaccording to Minnesota Statutes, section 114D.30,subdivision 1.

(k) $1,000,000 the first year and $1,000,000 thesecond year are for a grant program for sanitarysewer projects that are included in the draft orany updated Voyageurs National Park Clean WaterProject Comprehensive Plan to restore the waterquality of waters within Voyageurs National Park.Grants must be awarded to local government unitsfor projects approved by the Voyageurs National ParkClean Water Joint Powers Board and must be matchedby at least 25 percent from sources other than the cleanwater fund.

(l) Notwithstanding Minnesota Statutes, section16A.28, the appropriations in this section encumberedon or before June 30, 2017, as grants or contracts areavailable until June 30, 2020.

Sec. 6. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES $ 9,000,000 $ 9,000,000

(a) $2,000,000 the first year and $2,000,000 thesecond year are for stream flow monitoring.

(b) $1,300,000 the first year and $1,300,000 thesecond year are for lake Index of Biological Integrity(IBI) assessments.

(c) $135,000 the first year and $135,000 the secondyear are for assessing mercury and other contaminants



of fish, including monitoring to track the status ofimpaired waters over time.

(d) $1,940,000 the first year and $1,940,000 thesecond year are for developing targeted, science-based watershed restoration and protection strategies.

(e) $1,375,000 the first year and $1,375,000 thesecond year are for water supply planning, aquiferprotection, and monitoring activities.

(f) $1,000,000 the first year and $1,000,000 thesecond year are for technical assistance to supportlocal implementation of nonpoint source restorationand protection activities.

(g) $675,000 the first year and $675,000the second year are for applied research andtools, including watershed hydrologic modeling;maintaining and updating spatial data for watershedboundaries, streams, and water bodies and integratinghigh-resolution digital elevation data; assessingeffectiveness of forestry best management practicesfor water quality; and developing a biomonitoringdatabase.

(h) $250,000 the first year and $250,000 the secondyear are for developing county geologic atlases.

(i) $325,000 the first year and $325,000 thesecond year are for analysis and mapping ineach county related to compliance with riparianbuffer or alternate practice requirements and toprovide statewide coordination and guidance to localunits of government for implementation of bufferrequirements. Maps must be provided to local units ofgovernment and made available to landowners on theDepartment of Natural Resources' Web site.

Sec. 7. BOARD OF WATER AND SOILRESOURCES $ 56,841,000 $ 56,322,000

(a) $4,875,000 the first year and $4,875,000 thesecond year are for grants to local government unitsorganized for the management of water in a watershedor subwatershed that have multiyear plans that willresult in a significant reduction in water pollution ina selected subwatershed. The grants may be used for



establishment of riparian buffers; practices to storewater for natural treatment and infiltration, includingrain gardens; capturing storm water for reuse; streambank, shoreland, and ravine stabilization; enforcementactivities; and implementation of best managementpractices for feedlots within riparian areas andother practices demonstrated to be most effective inprotecting, enhancing, and restoring water quality inlakes, rivers, and streams and protecting groundwaterfrom degradation. Grant recipients must identify anonstate match and may use other legacy funds tosupplement projects funded under this paragraph.Grants awarded under this paragraph are availablefor four years and priority must be given to the bestdesigned plans each year.

(b) $10,187,000 the first year and $10,188,000 thesecond year are for grants to protect and restoresurface water and drinking water; to keep wateron the land; to protect, enhance, and restore waterquality in lakes, rivers, and streams; and to protectgroundwater and drinking water, including feedlotwater quality and subsurface sewage treatment systemprojects and stream bank, stream channel, shorelinerestoration, and ravine stabilization projects. Theprojects must use practices demonstrated to beeffective, be of long-lasting public benefit, includea match, and be consistent with total maximumdaily load (TMDL) implementation plans, watershedrestoration and protection strategies (WRAPS), orlocal water management plans or their equivalents.A portion of these funds may be used to seekadministrative efficiencies through shared resourcesby multiple local governmental units.

(c) $6,000,000 the first year and $6,000,000the second year are for targeted local resourceprotection and enhancement grants and statewideprogram enhancements for technical assistance,citizen and community outreach, and training andcertification, as well as projects, practices, andprograms that supplement or otherwise exceed currentstate standards for protection, enhancement, andrestoration of water quality in lakes, rivers, andstreams or that protect groundwater from degradation,including compliance.



(d) $950,000 the first year and $950,000 the secondyear are to provide state oversight and accountability,evaluate results, provide implementation tools,and measure the value of conservation programimplementation by local governments, includingsubmission to the legislature by March 1 eacheven-numbered year a biennial report prepared bythe board, in consultation with the commissionersof natural resources, health, agriculture, and thePollution Control Agency, detailing the recipients, theprojects funded under this section, and the amount ofpollution reduced.

(e) $2,500,000 the first year and $2,500,000 thesecond year are for grants to local units of governmentto enhance compliance with riparian buffer oralternate practice requirements.

(f) $4,875,000 the first year and $4,875,000 thesecond year are to restore or preserve permanentconservation on riparian buffers adjacent to lakes,rivers, streams, and tributaries, to keep water onthe land in order to decrease sediment, pollutant,and nutrient transport; reduce hydrologic impactsto surface waters; and increase infiltration forgroundwater recharge. This appropriation may beused for restoration of riparian buffers permanentlyprotected by easements purchased with thisappropriation or contracts to achieve permanentprotection for riparian buffers or stream bankrestorations when the riparian buffers have beenrestored. Up to $344,000 is for deposit in a monitoringand enforcement account.

(g) $1,750,000 the first year and $1,750,000the second year are for permanent conservationeasements on wellhead protection areas underMinnesota Statutes, section 103F.515, subdivision2, paragraph (d), or for grants to local units ofgovernment for fee title acquisition to permanentlyprotect groundwater supply sources on wellheadprotection areas or for otherwise assuring long-termprotection of groundwater supply sources as describedunder alternative management tools in the Departmentof Agriculture's Nitrogen Fertilizer ManagementPlan, including low nitrogen cropping systems orimplementing nitrogen fertilizer best management



practices. Priority must be placed on land thatis located where the vulnerability of the drinkingwater supply is designated as high or very high bythe commissioner of health, where drinking waterprotection plans have identified specific activities thatwill achieve long-term protection, and on lands withexpiring Conservation Reserve Program contracts.Up to $52,500 is for deposit in a monitoring andenforcement account.

(h) $750,000 the first year and $750,000 the secondyear are for community partner grants to localunits of government for: (1) structural or vegetativemanagement practices that reduce storm water runofffrom developed or disturbed lands to reduce themovement of sediment, nutrients, and pollutantsfor restoration, protection, or enhancement of waterquality in lakes, rivers, and streams and to protectgroundwater and drinking water; and (2) installationof proven and effective water retention practicesincluding, but not limited to, rain gardens and othervegetated infiltration basins and sediment controlbasins in order to keep water on the land. The projectsmust be of long-lasting public benefit, include a localmatch, and be consistent with TMDL implementationplans, watershed restoration and protection strategies(WRAPS), or local water management plans or theirequivalents. Local government unit costs may be usedas a match.

(i) $84,000 the first year and $84,000 the secondyear are for a technical evaluation panel to conductten restoration evaluations under Minnesota Statutes,section 114D.50, subdivision 6.

(j) $2,100,000 the first year and $2,100,000 the secondyear are for assistance, oversight, and grants to localgovernments to transition local water managementplans to a watershed approach as provided for inMinnesota Statutes, chapters 103B, 103C, 103D, and114D.

(k) $750,000 the first year and $750,000 the secondyear are for technical assistance and grants forthe conservation drainage program in consultationwith the Drainage Work Group, coordinated underMinnesota Statutes, section 103B.101, subdivision



13, that includes projects to improve multipurposewater management under Minnesota Statutes, section103E.015.

(l) $9,000,000 the first year and $9,000,000 thesecond year are to purchase and restore permanentconservation sites via easements or contracts totreat and store water on the land for waterquality improvement purposes and related technicalassistance. This work may be done in cooperationwith the United States Department of Agriculturewith a first priority use to accomplish a conservationreserve enhancement program, or equivalent, in thestate. Up to $1,285,000 is for deposit in a monitoringand enforcement account.

(m) $1,000,000 the first year and $1,000,000 thesecond year are to purchase permanent conservationeasements to protect lands adjacent to publicwaters with good water quality but threatened withdegradation. Up to $190,000 is for deposit in amonitoring and enforcement account.

(n) $500,000 the first year and $500,000 the secondyear are for a program to systematically collectdata and produce county, watershed, and statewideestimates of soil erosion caused by water andwind along with tracking adoption of conservationmeasures to address erosion.

(o) $11,000,000 the first year and $11,000,000 thesecond year are for payments to soil and waterconservation districts for the purposes of MinnesotaStatutes, sections 103C.321 and 103C.331. Fromthis appropriation, each soil and water conservationdistrict shall receive an increase in its base fundingof $100,000 per year. Money remaining after thebase increase is available for matching grants tosoil and water conservation districts based on countyallocations to soil and water conservation districts.The board and other agencies may reduce the amountof grants to a county by an amount equal toany reduction in the county's allocation to a soiland water conservation district from the county'sprevious-year allocation when the board determinesthat the reduction was disproportionate. The second-



year appropriation cancels if new buffer requirementsare not enacted in 2015.

(p) $520,000 the first year is for a grant to WashingtonCounty for a water quality improvement project thatwill improve water quality and restore an essentialbackwater aquatic area by reconnecting Grey CloudSlough to the main channel of the Mississippi RiverArea. This appropriation is not available until at leastan equal amount is committed from nonstate sources.

(q) The Board of Water and Soil Resources mustconsider the inclusion of environmentally suitableannuals the next time the board establishes or revisesvegetation establishment and enhancement guidelinesfor the purposes of riparian buffers.

(r) The board shall contract for delivery of serviceswith Conservation Corps Minnesota for restoration,maintenance, and other activities under this sectionfor up to $500,000 the first year and up to $500,000the second year.

(s) The board may shift grant or cost-share fundsin this section and may adjust the technical andadministrative assistance portion of the funds toleverage federal or other nonstate funds or toaddress oversight responsibilities or high-priorityneeds identified in local water management plans.

(t) The board shall require grantees to specify theoutcomes that will be achieved by the grants prior toany grant awards.

(u) The appropriations in this section are availableuntil June 30, 2020. Returned grant funds are availableuntil expended and shall be regranted consistent withthe purposes of this section.

Sec. 8. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH $ 4,013,000 $ 3,812,000

(a) $1,100,000 the first year and $1,100,000the second year are for addressing public healthconcerns related to contaminants found in Minnesotadrinking water for which no health-based drinkingwater standards exist, including accelerating thedevelopment of health risk limits and improving thecapacity of the department's laboratory to analyzeunregulated contaminants. The commissioner shall



contract with the Board of Regents of the Universityof Minnesota to provide an independent reviewof the department's drinking water contaminants ofemerging concern program. The review must includean assessment of the process used by the departmentto rank contaminants that are threats to drinkingwater supplies and include a comparison of effortsat the department with efforts by other states andthe United States Environmental Protection Agency.The review must be submitted to the Clean WaterCouncil and the chairs and ranking minority membersof the house of representatives and senate committeesand divisions with jurisdiction over environment andnatural resources by June 1, 2016.

(b) $1,900,000 the first year and $1,900,000 thesecond year are for protection of drinking watersources.

(c) $113,000 the first year and $112,000 the secondyear are for cost-share assistance to public and privatewell owners for up to 50 percent of the cost of sealingunused wells.

(d) $125,000 the first year and $125,000 thesecond year are to develop and deliver groundwaterrestoration and protection strategies for use on awatershed scale for use in local water planning effortsand to provide resources to local governments fordrinking water source protection activities.

(e) $325,000 the first year and $325,000 thesecond year are for studying the occurrence andmagnitude of contaminants in private wells anddeveloping guidance to ensure that new wellplacement minimizes the potential for risks, incooperation with the commissioner of agriculture.

(f) $275,000 the first year and $75,000 the secondyear are for development and implementation ofa groundwater virus monitoring plan, including anepidemiological study to determine the associationbetween groundwater virus concentration andcommunity illness rates.

(g) $175,000 the first year and $175,000 the secondyear are to prepare a comprehensive study of andrecommendations for regulatory and nonregulatory



approaches to water reuse for use in the developmentof state policy for water reuse in Minnesota.

(h) Unless otherwise specified, the appropriations inthis section are available until June 30, 2019.

Sec. 9. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL $ 1,225,000 $ 1,225,000

(a) $975,000 the first year and $975,000the second year are to implement projectsthat address emerging drinking water supplythreats, provide cost-effective regional solutions,leverage interjurisdictional coordination, supportlocal implementation of water supply reliabilityprojects, and prevent degradation of groundwaterresources in the metropolitan area. These projects willprovide to communities:

(1) potential solutions to leverage regional water usethrough utilization of surface water, storm water,wastewater, and groundwater;

(2) an analysis of infrastructure requirements fordifferent alternatives;

(3) development of planning level cost estimates,including capital cost and operation cost;

(4) identification of funding mechanisms andan equitable cost-sharing structure for regionallybeneficial water supply development projects; and

(5) development of subregional groundwater models.

(b) $250,000 the first year and $250,000 the secondyear are for the water demand reduction grantprogram to encourage implementation of waterdemand reduction measures by municipalities inthe metropolitan area to ensure the reliability andprotection of drinking water supplies.

Sec. 10. Minnesota Statutes 2014, section 103A.206, is amended to read:

103A.206 SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION POLICY.

Maintaining and enhancing the quality of soil and water for the environmental and economic benefitsthey produce, preventing degradation, and restoring degraded soil and water resources of this state contributegreatly to the health, safety, economic well-being, and general welfare of this state and its citizens. Landoccupiers have the responsibility to implement practices that conserve the soil and water resources of thestate. Soil and water conservation measures implemented on private lands in this state provide benefits to



the general public by reducing erosion, sedimentation, siltation, water pollution, and damages caused byfloods. The soil and water conservation policy of the state is to encourage land occupiers to conserve soil,water, and the natural resources they support through the implementation of practices that:

(1) control or prevent erosion, sedimentation, siltation, and related pollution in order to preserve naturalresources;

(2) ensure continued soil health, as defined under section 103C.101, subdivision 10a, and soil pro-ductivity;

(3) protect water quality;

(4) prevent impairment of dams and reservoirs;

(5) reduce damages caused by floods;

(6) preserve wildlife;

(7) protect the tax base; and

(8) protect public lands and waters.

Sec. 11. Minnesota Statutes 2014, section 103B.101, is amended by adding a subdivision to read:

Subd. 16. Water quality practices; standardized specifications. The Board of Water and SoilResources shall work with state and federal agencies, academic institutions, local governments, prac-titioners, and stakeholders to foster mutual understanding and provide recommendations for standardizedspecifications for water quality and soil conservation protection and improvement practices and projects.The board may convene working groups or work teams to develop information, education, and recom-mendations.

Sec. 12. [103B.801] COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLANNINGPROGRAM.

Subdivision 1. Definitions. The definitions under section 103B.3363, subdivisions 2 to 4, apply to thissection.

Subd. 2. Program purposes. The purposes of the comprehensive watershed management plan programunder section 103B.101, subdivision 14, paragraph (a), are to:

(1) align local water planning purposes and procedures under chapters 103B, 103C, and 103Don watershed boundaries to create a systematic, watershed-wide, science-based approach to watershedmanagement;

(2) acknowledge and build off existing local government structure, water plan services, and localcapacity;

(3) incorporate and make use of data and information, including watershed restoration and protectionstrategies under section 114D.26;

(4) solicit input and engage experts from agencies, citizens, and stakeholder groups;



(5) focus on implementation of prioritized and targeted actions capable of achieving measurableprogress; and

(6) serve as a substitute for a comprehensive plan, local water management plan, or watershedmanagement plan developed or amended, approved, and adopted, according to chapter 103B, 103C, or103D.

Subd. 3. Coordination. The board shall develop policies for coordination and development of com-prehensive watershed management plans. To ensure effectiveness and accountability in meeting thepurposes of subdivision 2, these policies must address, at a minimum:

(1) a boundary framework consistent with section 103B.101, subdivision 14, paragraph (a), andprocedures, requirements, and criteria for establishing or modifying the framework consistent with thegoals of section 103A.212. The metropolitan area, as defined under section 473.121, subdivision 2, may beconsidered for inclusion in the boundary framework. If included, the metropolitan area is not excluded fromthe water management programs under sections 103B.201 to 103B.255;

(2) requirements for coordination, participation, and commitment between local government units inthe development, approval, adoption, and implementation of comprehensive watershed management planswithin planning boundaries identified according to this subdivision;

(3) requirements for consistency with state agency-adopted water and natural resources-related plansand documents required by chapters 103A, 103B, 103C, 103D, 103E, 103F, 103G, and 114D; and

(4) procedures for plan development, review, and approval consistent with the intent of sections103B.201, 103B.255, 103B.311, 103B.321, 103D.401, and 103D.405. If the procedures in these sections arecontradictory as applied to a specific proceeding, the board must establish a forum where the public interestconflicts involved can be presented and, by consideration of the whole body of water law, the controllingpolicy can be determined and apparent inconsistencies resolved.

Subd. 4. Plan content. The board shall develop policies for required comprehensive watershedmanagement plan content consistent with comprehensive local water management planning. To ensure ef-fectiveness and accountability in meeting the purposes of subdivision 2, plan content must include, at aminimum:

(1) an analysis and prioritization of issues and resource concerns;

(2) measurable goals to address the issues and concerns, including but not limited to:

(i) restoration, protection, and preservation of natural surface water and groundwater storage andretention systems;

(ii) minimization of public capital expenditures needed to correct flooding and water quality problems;

(iii) restoration, protection, and improvement of surface water and groundwater quality;

(iv) establishment of more uniform local policies and official controls for surface water and groundwatermanagement;

(v) identification of priority areas for wetland enhancement, restoration, and establishment;



(vi) identification of priority areas for riparian zone management and buffers;

(vii) prevention of erosion and soil transport into surface water systems;

(viii) promotion of groundwater recharge;

(ix) protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat and water recreational facilities; and

(x) securing other benefits associated with the proper management of surface water and groundwater;

(3) a targeted implementation schedule describing at a minimum the actions, locations, timeline,estimated costs, method of measurement, and identification of roles and responsible government units;

(4) a description of implementation programs, including how the implementation schedule will beachieved and how the plan will be administered and coordinated between local water management respon-sibilities; and

(5) a land and water resource inventory.

Subd. 5. Timelines; administration. (a) The board shall develop and adopt, by June 30, 2016, atransition plan for development, approval, adoption, and coordination of plans consistent with section103A.212. The transition plan must include a goal of completing statewide transition to comprehensivewatershed management plans by 2025. The metropolitan area may be considered for inclusion in thetransition plan.

(b) The board may use the authority under section 103B.3369, subdivision 9, to support developmentor implementation of a comprehensive watershed management plan under this section.

Subd. 6. Authority. Notwithstanding any laws to the contrary, the authorities granted to localgovernment through chapters 103B, 103C, and 103D are retained when a comprehensive watershedmanagement plan is adopted as a substitute for a watershed management plan required under section103B.231, a county groundwater plan authorized under section 103B.255, a county water plan au-thorized under section 103B.311, a comprehensive plan authorized under section 103C.331, or a watershedmanagement plan required under section 103D.401 or 103D.405.

Sec. 13. Minnesota Statutes 2014, section 103C.101, is amended by adding a subdivision to read:

Subd. 10a. Soil health. "Soil health" means the continued capacity of soil to function as a vitalliving system that sustains plants, animals, and humans. Indicators of soil health include water infiltrationcapacity; organic matter content; water holding capacity; biological capacity to break down plant residueand other substances and to maintain soil aggregation; nutrient sequestration and cycling capacity; carbonsequestration; and soil resistance.

Sec. 14. Minnesota Statutes 2014, section 103C.401, subdivision 1, is amended to read:

Subdivision 1. Powers and duties. In addition to the powers and duties of the state board provided byother law, the state board shall:

(1) offer to assist the district boards to implement their programs;

(2) keep the district boards of the state informed of the activities and experience of other districts andfacilitate cooperation and an interchange of advice and experience among the districts;



(3) coordinate the programs and activities of the districts with appropriate agencies by advice and con-sultation;

(4) approve or disapprove the plans or programs of districts relating to the use of state funds administeredby the state board;

(5) secure the cooperation and assistance of agencies in the work of the districts and develop a programto advise and assist appropriate agencies in obtaining state and federal funds for erosion, sedimentation,flooding, and agriculturally related pollution control programs;

(6) develop and implement a public information program concerning the districts' activities andprograms, the problems and preventive practices relating to erosion control, sedimentation, agriculturallyrelated pollution, flood prevention, and the advantages of formation of districts in areas where their orga-nization is desirable;

(7) consolidate districts without a hearing or a referendum;

(8) assist the statewide program to inventory and classify the types of soils in the state as determinedby the Minnesota Cooperative Soil Survey;

(9) identify research needs and cooperate with other public agencies in research concerning the natureand extent of erosion, sedimentation, flooding and agriculturally related pollution, the amounts and sourcesof sediment and pollutants delivered to the waters of the state, and long-term soil productivity;

(10) develop structural, land use management practice, and other programs to reduce or prevent soilerosion, sedimentation, flooding, and agriculturally related pollution;

(11) develop a system of priorities to identify the erosion, flooding, sediment, and agriculturally relatedpollution problem areas that most need control systems;

(12) ensure compliance with statewide programs and policies established by the state board by advice,consultation, and approval of grant agreements with the districts; and

(13) service requests from districts to consolidate districts across county boundaries and facilitate otheragreed-to reorganizations of districts with other districts or other local units of government, includingmaking grants, within the limits of available funds, to offset the cost of consolidation or reorganization; and

(14) develop and implement a state-led technical training and certification program.

Sec. 15. Minnesota Statutes 2014, section 103C.501, subdivision 5, is amended to read:

Subd. 5. Contracts by districts. (a) A district board may contract on a cost-share basis to furnishfinancial aid to a land occupier or to a state agency for permanent systems for erosion or sedimentationcontrol or water quality or water quantity improvements that are consistent with the district's comprehensiveand annual work plans.

(b) A district board, with approval from the state board and consistent with state board rules andpolicies, may contract on a cost-share basis to furnish financial aid to a land occupier for nonstructural landmanagement practices that are part of a planned erosion control or water quality improvement plan.



(b) (c) The duration of the contract must, at a minimum, be the time required to complete the plannedsystems. A contract must specify that the land occupier is liable for monetary damages and penalties in anamount up to 150 percent of the financial assistance received from the district, for failure to complete thesystems or practices in a timely manner or maintain the systems or practices as specified in the contract.

(c) (d) A contract may provide for cooperation or funding with federal agencies. A land occupier orstate agency may provide the cost-sharing portion of the contract through services in kind.

(d) (e) The state board or the district board may not furnish any financial aid for practices designed onlyto increase land productivity.

(e) (f) When a district board determines that long-term maintenance of a system or practice is desirable,the board may require that maintenance be made a covenant upon the land for the effective life of the practice.A covenant under this subdivision shall be construed in the same manner as a conservation restriction undersection 84.65.

Sec. 16. Minnesota Statutes 2014, section 114D.30, subdivision 2, is amended to read:

Subd. 2. Membership; appointment. (a) The commissioners of natural resources, agriculture, health,and the Pollution Control Agency, and the executive director of the Board of Water and Soil Resources,the Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota, and the Metropolitan Council shall each appoint oneperson from their respective agency entity to serve as a nonvoting member of the council. Two membersof the house of representatives, including one member from the majority party and one member from theminority party, appointed by the speaker and two senators, including one member from the majority partyand one member from the minority party, appointed according to the rules of the senate shall serve at thepleasure of the appointing authority as nonvoting members of the council. Agency and legislative Membersappointed under this paragraph serve as nonvoting members of the council.

(b) Nineteen Seventeen voting members of the council shall be appointed by the governor as follows:

(1) two members representing statewide farm organizations;

(2) two members representing business organizations;

(3) two members representing environmental organizations;

(4) one member representing soil and water conservation districts;

(5) one member representing watershed districts;

(6) one member representing nonprofit organizations focused on improvement of Minnesota lakes orstreams;

(7) two members representing organizations of county governments, one member representing theinterests of rural counties and one member representing the interests of counties in the seven-county met-ropolitan area;

(8) two members representing organizations of city governments;

(9) one member representing the Metropolitan Council established under section 473.123;



(10) (9) one member representing township officers;

(11) (10) one member representing the interests of tribal governments;

(12) (11) one member representing statewide hunting organizations; and

(13) one member representing the University of Minnesota or a Minnesota state university; and

(14) (12) one member representing statewide fishing organizations.

Members appointed under this paragraph must not be registered lobbyists or legislators. In making ap-pointments, the governor must attempt to provide for geographic balance. The members of the councilappointed by the governor are subject to the advice and consent of the senate.

Sec. 17. Laws 2013, chapter 137, article 2, section 6, is amended to read:

Sec. 6. DEPARTMENT OF NATURALRESOURCES $

12,635,00012,135,000 $

9,450,0008,950,000

(a) $2,000,000 the first year and $2,000,000 thesecond year are for stream flow monitoring, includingthe installation of additional monitoring gauges, andmonitoring necessary to determine the relationshipbetween stream flow and groundwater.

(b) $1,300,000 the first year and $1,300,000 thesecond year are for lake Index of Biological Integrity(IBI) assessments.

(c) $135,000 the first year and $135,000 the secondyear are for assessing mercury contamination andother contaminants of fish, including monitoring totrack the status of waters impaired by mercury andmercury reduction efforts over time.

(d) $1,850,000 the first year and $1,850,000 thesecond year are for developing targeted, science-based watershed restoration and protection strategies,including regional technical assistance for TMDLplans and development of a watershed assessmenttool, in cooperation with the commissioner of thePollution Control Agency. By January 15, 2016, thecommissioner shall submit a report to the chairs andranking minority members of the senate and houseof representatives committees and divisions withjurisdiction over environment and natural resourcespolicy and finance providing the outcomes to lakes,rivers, streams, and groundwater achieved with thisappropriation and recommendations.



(e) $1,375,000 the first year and $1,375,000 thesecond year are for water supply planning, aquiferprotection, and monitoring activities.

(f) $1,000,000 the first year and $1,000,000 thesecond year are for technical assistance to supportlocal implementation of nonpoint source restorationand protection activities, including water qualityprotection in forested watersheds.

(g) $675,000 the first year and $675,000the second year are for applied research andtools, including watershed hydrologic modeling;maintaining and updating spatial data for watershedboundaries, streams, and water bodies and integratinghigh-resolution digital elevation data; assessingeffectiveness of forestry best management practicesfor water quality; and developing an ecologicalmonitoring database.

(h) $615,000 the first year and $615,000 the secondyear are for developing county geologic atlases.

(i) $85,000 the first year is to develop design standardsand best management practices for public wateraccess sites to maintain and improve water quality byavoiding shoreline erosion and runoff.

(j) $3,000,000 the first year is for beginning todevelop and designate groundwater managementareas under Minnesota Statutes, section 103G.287,subdivision 4. The commissioner, in consultationwith the commissioners of the Pollution ControlAgency, health, and agriculture, shall establish auniform statewide hydrogeologic mapping systemthat will include designated groundwater managementareas. The mapping system must include wellheadprotection areas, special well construction areas,groundwater provinces, groundwater recharge areas,and other designated or geographical areas relatedto groundwater. This mapping system shall be usedto implement all groundwater-related laws and forreporting and evaluations. This appropriation isavailable until June 30, 2017.

(k) $500,000 the first year and $500,000 thesecond year are for grants to counties and otherlocal units of government to adopt and implement



advanced shoreland protection measures. The grantsawarded under this paragraph shall be for up to$100,000 and must be used to restore and enhanceriparian areas to protect, enhance, and restore waterquality in lakes, rivers, and streams. Grant recipientsmust submit a report to the commissioner on theoutcomes achieved with the grant. To be eligiblefor a grant under this paragraph, a county orother local unit of government must be adopting orhave adopted an ordinance for the subdivision, use,redevelopment, and development of shoreland thathas been approved by the commissioner of naturalresources as having advanced shoreland protectionmeasures. An ordinance must meet or exceed thefollowing standards:

(1) requires new sewage treatment systems to be setback at least 100 feet from the ordinary high waterlevel for recreational development shorelands and 75feet for general development lake shorelands;

(2) requires redevelopment and new development onshoreland to have at least a 50-foot vegetative buffer.An access path and recreational use area may beallowed;

(3) requires mitigation when any variance to standardsdesigned to protect lakes, rivers, and streams isgranted;

(4) requires best management practices to be used tocontrol storm water and sediment as part of a landalteration;

(5) includes other criteria developed by thecommissioner; and

(6) has been adopted by July 1, 2015.

An ordinance that does not exceed all the standards inclauses (1) to (5) is considered to meet the requirementif the commissioner determines that the ordinanceprovides significantly greater protection for bothwaters and shoreland than those standards.

The commissioner of natural resources may developadditional criteria for the grants awarded underthis paragraph. In developing the criteria, the



commissioner shall consider the proposed changesto the department's shoreland rules discussed duringthe rulemaking process authorized under Laws 2007,chapter 57, article 1, section 4, subdivision 3. Thisappropriation is available until spent.

(l) (k) $100,000 the first year is for the commissionerof natural resources for rulemaking under MinnesotaStatutes, section 116G.15, subdivision 7.

Sec. 18. Laws 2014, chapter 312, article 14, section 7, is amended to read:

Sec. 7. REPURPOSE OF 2011 APPROPRIATION.

The remaining balance of the appropriation in Laws 2011, First Special Session chapter 6, article 2,section 6, paragraph (g), to the commissioner of natural resources for shoreland stewardship, TMDL imple-mentation coordination, providing technical assistance, and maintaining and updating data may be used forstream flow and groundwater monitoring, including the installation of additional monitoring gauges, andmonitoring necessary to determine the relationship between stream flow and groundwater, and is availableuntil June 30, 2015 2016.

Sec. 19. CANCELLATION OF PRIOR APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) The unspent balance of the appropriation to the Public Facilities Authority for the clean water legacyphosphorus reduction grant program under Minnesota Statutes 2012, section 446A.074, in Laws 2009,chapter 172, article 2, section 3, paragraph (b), is canceled.

(b) The unspent balance of the appropriation to the Public Facilities Authority for the clean water legacyphosphorus reduction grant program under Minnesota Statutes 2012, section 446A.074, in Laws 2011, FirstSpecial Session chapter 6, article 2, section 4, paragraph (b), is canceled.

(c) $1,000,000 of the appropriation to the Board of Water and Soil Resources in Laws 2013, chapter137, article 2, section 7, paragraph (e), is canceled.

EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the day following final enactment.

ARTICLE 3

PARKS AND TRAILS FUND

Section 1. PARKS AND TRAILS FUND APPROPRIATIONS.

The sums shown in the columns marked "Appropriations" are appropriated to the agencies and for thepurposes specified in this article. The appropriations are from the parks and trails fund and are available forthe fiscal years indicated for each purpose. The figures "2016" and "2017" used in this article mean that theappropriations listed under them are available for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2016, or June 30, 2017,respectively. "The first year" is fiscal year 2016. "The second year" is fiscal year 2017. "The biennium" isfiscal years 2016 and 2017. All appropriations in this article are onetime.



for a grant to the Gunflint Trail Historical Societyto complete phase two of the Chik-Wauk Museumand Nature Center. Work within the National Registerof Historic Places property shall be approved bythe Minnesota Historical Society; and (3) up to$250,000 is for a grant to the Hibbing School Districtto plan, design, and engineer the preservation andreconstruction of the historic Hibbing High SchoolAuditorium.

ARTICLE 5

GENERAL PROVISIONS; ALL LEGACY FUNDS

Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2014, section 16B.24, is amended by adding a subdivision to read:

Subd. 12. State band. The commissioner must provide free rehearsal and storage space in the samebuilding in the Capitol Area to an entity known as the Minnesota State Band, which is a tax-exempt orga-nization under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the day following final enactment.

Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 2014, section 85.53, subdivision 2, is amended to read:

Subd. 2. Expenditures; accountability. (a) A project or program receiving funding from the parks andtrails fund must meet or exceed the constitutional requirement to support parks and trails of regional orstatewide significance. A project or program receiving funding from the parks and trails fund must includemeasurable outcomes, as defined in section 3.303, subdivision 10, and a plan for measuring and evaluatingthe results. A project or program must be consistent with current science and incorporate state-of-the-arttechnology, except when the project or program is a portrayal or restoration of historical significance.

(b) Money from the parks and trails fund shall be expended to balance the benefits across all regionsand residents of the state.

(c) A state agency or other recipient of a direct appropriation from the parks and trails fund must compileand submit all information for funded projects or programs, including the proposed measurable outcomesand all other items required under section 3.303, subdivision 10, to the Legislative Coordinating Commissionas soon as practicable or by January 15 of the applicable fiscal year, whichever comes first. The LegislativeCoordinating Commission must post submitted information on the Web site required under section 3.303,subdivision 10, as soon as it becomes available.

(d) Grants funded by the parks and trails fund must be implemented according to section 16B.98 andmust account for all expenditures. Proposals must specify a process for any regranting envisioned. Priorityfor grant proposals must be given to proposals involving grants that will be competitively awarded.

(e) Money from the parks and trails fund may only be spent on projects located in Minnesota.

(f) When practicable, a direct recipient of an appropriation from the parks and trails fund shallprominently display on the recipient's Web site home page the legacy logo required under Laws 2009,



chapter 172, article 5, section 10, as amended by Laws 2010, chapter 361, article 3, section 5, accompaniedby the phrase "Click here for more information." When a person clicks on the legacy logo image, the Website must direct the person to a Web page that includes both the contact information that a person may useto obtain additional information, as well as a link to the Legislative Coordinating Commission Web siterequired under section 3.303, subdivision 10.

(g) Future eligibility for money from the parks and trails fund is contingent upon a state agency orother recipient satisfying all applicable requirements in this section, as well as any additional requirementscontained in applicable session law. If the Office of the Legislative Auditor, in the course of an audit orinvestigation, publicly reports that a recipient of money from the parks and trails fund has not complied withthe laws, rules, or regulations in this section or other laws applicable to the recipient, the recipient must belisted in an annual report to the legislative committees with jurisdiction over the legacy funds. The list mustbe publicly available. The legislative auditor shall remove a recipient from the list upon determination thatthe recipient is in compliance. A recipient on the list is not eligible for future funding from the parks andtrails fund until the recipient demonstrates compliance to the legislative auditor.

Sec. 3. Minnesota Statutes 2014, section 97A.056, subdivision 11, is amended to read:

Subd. 11. Recipient requirements. (a) A state agency or other recipient of a direct appropriationfrom the outdoor heritage fund must compile and submit all information for funded projects or programs,including the proposed measurable outcomes and all other items required under section 3.303, subdivision10, to the Legislative Coordinating Commission as soon as practicable or by January 15 of the applicablefiscal year, whichever comes first. The Legislative Coordinating Commission must post submitted in-formation on the Web site required under section 3.303, subdivision 10, as soon as it becomes available.

(b) When practicable, a direct recipient of an appropriation from the outdoor heritage fund shallprominently display on the recipient's Web site home page the legacy logo required under Laws 2009,chapter 172, article 5, section 10, as amended by Laws 2010, chapter 361, article 3, section 5, accompaniedby the phrase "Click here for more information." When a person clicks on the legacy logo image, the Website must direct the person to a Web page that includes both the contact information that a person may useto obtain additional information, as well as a link to the Legislative Coordinating Commission Web siterequired under section 3.303, subdivision 10.

(c) Future eligibility for money from the outdoor heritage fund is contingent upon a state agency orother recipient satisfying all applicable requirements in this section, as well as any additional requirementscontained in applicable session law. If the Office of the Legislative Auditor, in the course of an audit orinvestigation, publicly reports that a recipient of money from the outdoor heritage fund has not compliedwith the laws, rules, or regulations in this section or other laws applicable to the recipient, the recipient mustbe listed in an annual report to the legislative committees with jurisdiction over the legacy funds. The listmust be publicly available. The legislative auditor shall remove a recipient from the list upon determinationthat the recipient is in compliance. A recipient on the list is not eligible for future funding from the outdoorheritage fund until the recipient demonstrates compliance to the legislative auditor.


Subd. 4. Expenditures; accountability. (a) A project receiving funding from the clean water fundmust meet or exceed the constitutional requirements to protect, enhance, and restore water quality in lakes,rivers, and streams and to protect groundwater and drinking water from degradation. Priority may be given



to projects that meet more than one of these requirements. A project receiving funding from the cleanwater fund shall include measurable outcomes, as defined in section 3.303, subdivision 10, and a plan formeasuring and evaluating the results. A project must be consistent with current science and incorporatestate-of-the-art technology.

(b) Money from the clean water fund shall be expended to balance the benefits across all regions andresidents of the state.

(c) A state agency or other recipient of a direct appropriation from the clean water fund must compile andsubmit all information for proposed and funded projects or programs, including the proposed measurableoutcomes and all other items required under section 3.303, subdivision 10, to the Legislative CoordinatingCommission as soon as practicable or by January 15 of the applicable fiscal year, whichever comes first.The Legislative Coordinating Commission must post submitted information on the Web site required undersection 3.303, subdivision 10, as soon as it becomes available. Information classified as not public undersection 13D.05, subdivision 3, paragraph (d), is not required to be placed on the Web site.

(d) Grants funded by the clean water fund must be implemented according to section 16B.98 and mustaccount for all expenditures. Proposals must specify a process for any regranting envisioned. Priority forgrant proposals must be given to proposals involving grants that will be competitively awarded.

(e) Money from the clean water fund may only be spent on projects that benefit Minnesota waters.

(f) When practicable, a direct recipient of an appropriation from the clean water fund shall prominentlydisplay on the recipient's Web site home page the legacy logo required under Laws 2009, chapter 172, article5, section 10, as amended by Laws 2010, chapter 361, article 3, section 5, accompanied by the phrase "Clickhere for more information." When a person clicks on the legacy logo image, the Web site must direct theperson to a Web page that includes both the contact information that a person may use to obtain additionalinformation, as well as a link to the Legislative Coordinating Commission Web site required under section3.303, subdivision 10.

(g) Future eligibility for money from the clean water fund is contingent upon a state agency or otherrecipient satisfying all applicable requirements in this section, as well as any additional requirementscontained in applicable session law. If the Office of the Legislative Auditor, in the course of an audit orinvestigation, publicly reports that a recipient of money from the clean water fund has not complied withthe laws, rules, or regulations in this section or other laws applicable to the recipient, the recipient must belisted in an annual report to the legislative committees with jurisdiction over the legacy funds. The list mustbe publicly available. The legislative auditor shall remove a recipient from the list upon determination thatthe recipient is in compliance. A recipient on the list is not eligible for future funding from the clean waterfund until the recipient demonstrates compliance to the legislative auditor.

(h) Money from the clean water fund may be used to leverage federal funds through execution of formalproject partnership agreements with federal agencies consistent with respective federal agency partnershipagreement requirements.


Subd. 2. Expenditures; accountability. (a) Funding from the arts and cultural heritage fund may bespent only for arts, arts education, and arts access, and to preserve Minnesota's history and cultural heritage.



A project or program receiving funding from the arts and cultural heritage fund must include measurableoutcomes, and a plan for measuring and evaluating the results. A project or program must be consistent withcurrent scholarship, or best practices, when appropriate and must incorporate state-of-the-art technologywhen appropriate.

(b) Funding from the arts and cultural heritage fund may be granted for an entire project or for part ofa project so long as the recipient provides a description and cost for the entire project and can demonstratethat it has adequate resources to ensure that the entire project will be completed.

(c) Money from the arts and cultural heritage fund shall be expended for benefits across all regions andresidents of the state.

(d) A state agency or other recipient of a direct appropriation from the arts and cultural heritage fundmust compile and submit all information for funded projects or programs, including the proposed measurableoutcomes and all other items required under section 3.303, subdivision 10, to the Legislative CoordinatingCommission as soon as practicable or by January 15 of the applicable fiscal year, whichever comes first.The Legislative Coordinating Commission must post submitted information on the Web site required undersection 3.303, subdivision 10, as soon as it becomes available.

(e) Grants funded by the arts and cultural heritage fund must be implemented according to section16B.98 and must account for all expenditures of funds. Priority for grant proposals must be given toproposals involving grants that will be competitively awarded.

(f) All money from the arts and cultural heritage fund must be for projects located in Minnesota.

(g) When practicable, a direct recipient of an appropriation from the arts and cultural heritage fundshall prominently display on the recipient's Web site home page the legacy logo required under Laws 2009,chapter 172, article 5, section 10, as amended by Laws 2010, chapter 361, article 3, section 5, accompaniedby the phrase "Click here for more information." When a person clicks on the legacy logo image, the Website must direct the person to a Web page that includes both the contact information that a person may useto obtain additional information, as well as a link to the Legislative Coordinating Commission Web siterequired under section 3.303, subdivision 10.

(h) Future eligibility for money from the arts and cultural heritage fund is contingent upon a state agencyor other recipient satisfying all applicable requirements in this section, as well as any additional requirementscontained in applicable session law. If the Office of the Legislative Auditor, in the course of an audit orinvestigation, publicly reports that a recipient of money from the arts and cultural heritage fund has notcomplied with the laws, rules, or regulations in this section or other laws applicable to the recipient, therecipient must be listed in an annual report to the legislative committees with jurisdiction over the legacyfunds. The list must be publicly available. The legislative auditor shall remove a recipient from the list upondetermination that the recipient is in compliance. A recipient on the list is not eligible for future fundingfrom the arts and cultural heritage fund until the recipient demonstrates compliance to the legislative auditor.

Presented to the governor June 13, 2015

Signed by the governor June 13, 2015, 1:49 p.m.

Clean Water Council's FY16-17 Clean Water Fund Recommendations (10/20/14) compared withGovernor's FY16-17 Recommendations (1/27/15), Senate and House Recommendaitons, and Final Legislative Appropriations (6/13/15)

Page 1

Activity Number Agency Program Description

FY14-15 Clean Water Fund

(CWF)Appropriations

Governor's FY16-17 CWF

Recommendations(1/27/15)

Clean Water CouncilFY16-17 CWF

Recommendations(10/20/14) and

SF1754 (3/25/15)

HOUSE - H0303-4 (4/30/15)

SENATE - UEHO303-2 (5/8/15)

Final Legislative Appropriations

(6/13/15) Clean Water Council Notes (10/20/14) Additional Notes from Staff (5/8/15 and 5/17/15)

4 MDAMonitoring for Pesticides in Surface Water and Groundwater: Ongoing monitoring using clean water funded state-of-the-art laboratory instruments which provides increased capability and greater capacity.

700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 Discussed issue of whether this should be fee-based.

15 MDA

Nitrate in Groundwater: Nitrate is one of the contaminants of greatest concern for groundwater in Minnesota. In some shallow vulnerable aquifers a significant percent of the drinking water wells exceed the drinking water standard. This funding is to address this concern.

4,925,000 5,300,000 5,171,000 5,171,000 5,171,000 5,171,000 Recommend a 5% cost of living increase.

17 MDA

Irrigation Water Quality Protection: Nitrogen contributions to groundwater under Irrigated agriculture can be significant in some parts of Minnesota. Funding will provide a regional irrigation water quality specialist via a contract with U of M extension. This position will develop irrigation water quality BMPs and provide supporting education and guidance.

220,000 220,000 220,000 220,000 220,000 220,000

31 MDA

AgBMP Loan Program: Provides low interest loans throughout the state to farmers and rural landowners to help finance practices, structures and other improvements that reduce or eliminate water pollution. This loan program is administered by local governments, has very low transaction cost, and as loans are repaid, the repayments are used to fund additional projects.

400,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000

32 MDA

Technical Assistance: Provide technical assistance on impaired waters issues in agricultural landscapes and demonstrate and promote Best Management Practices (BMPs). Ensure that current and accurate technical information on agricultural practices and implementation tools is provided to local government, farm organizations and others to support the selection and adoption of appropriate BMPs.

3,000,000 3,000,000 2,250,000 2,250,000 2,250,000 2,250,000 Recommend a 25% decrease.

33 MDA

MN Agricultural Water Quality Certification Program: A new program under development by the MDA, MPCA, DNR and BWSR, and endorsed by the U.S. EPA and USDA, to increase the adoption of on-farm conservation practices to protect water quality through a voluntary approach. Pilot projects to develop and evaluate the concept will extend through FY16. Program will expand statewide in FY17. Anticipate a 100% federal match of state CW funds with up to 50% of CW funds and all of federal funds for local government and implementation.

3,000,000 5,000,000 2,500,000 1,000,000 5,000,000 2,500,000 Recommend that results for pilot programs are completed before this program is expanded statewide.

Report will be submitted by January 1, 2016 to the Clean Water Council and Legislature on whether other state funds would qualify as match for this program.

55 MDA

Academic Research/Evaluation: Projects focus on supporting the development of agricultural BMPs and quantifying agricultural contributions to impaired waters with a focus on gaining a better understanding of the processes that underlie these contributions. BMPs will be developed and evaluated to protect and restore water resources while maintaining productivity.

2,100,000 2,100,000 1,575,000 1,575,000 1,575,000 1,575,000 Recommend a 25% decrease.

56 MDA

Research Inventory Database: This user-friendly, searchable inventory provides researchers, water planners, and the public with fast access to all types of research relevant to water management in Minnesota. The inventory will grow steadily from its current base of over 1,200 articles, increasing the utility of research that was previously scattered across many websites, reports, and journals.

250,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000

75 MDA

Vegetative Cover and Soil Health: This program will focus on a market driven approach to identify and develop markets for environmentally protective crops in targeted high risk areas. Efforts will support other vegetative cover initiatives and state and local clean water implementation activities.

0 350,000 0 0 0 0Note that CWC is recommending Activity #81 which is a new program on perennial and cover crops.

81 UMN

Perennial and Cover Crop Research: To develop perennial and cover cropping systems specific to MN that are necessary to protect and restore the state's surface and groundwater resources while increasing efficiency, profitability, and productivity of Minnesota farmers.

0 0 500,000 500,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 Direct this funding to MDA so it can be a competitive program.

Note that Council recommendations were to direct this funding to MDA so it could be a statewide competitive program but final language directs funding to the UMN.

48 PFA

Point Source Implementation Grants (WWTP and Stormwater): Provides 50% grants up to $3 million to help municipalities implement wastewater and stormwater projects to comply with TMDL wasteload requirements, phosphorus reduction requirements, wq based effluent limits, and nitrogen limits for soil-based wwt.

18,000,000 18,000,000 18,000,000 18,000,000 18,000,000 18,000,000


Page 2



(CWF)Appropriations





SF1754 (3/25/15)

HOUSE - H0303-4 (4/30/15)

SENATE - UEHO303-2 (5/8/15)



49 PFA

Small Community Wastewater Treatment Program: Provides grants and loans to assist small communities to replace non-complying septic systems with community subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS). Technical assistance grants up to $60,000 to contract with consultants and licensed SSTS professionals for feasibility studies and technical assistance. Construction financing up to $2,000,000 through 1% loans and grants up to 80% based on affordability criteria.

4,000,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000

1 MPCA

Continue monitoring & assessment efforts to meet the 10-year cycle: Statewide monitoring and assessment work is on track to meet the 10-year schedule, at a rate of about 10 percent of the watersheds each year. Intensive watershed monitoring includes biological, chemical, and habitat monitoring in watersheds to assess the water conditions. Assessments determine if waters are impaired and serve as a basis for further analysis of watershed problems, protection options, and overall watershed planning efforts. Includes additional funding to include large river mainstem monitoring.

14,000,000 15,900,000 16,500,000 16,500,000 16,900,000 16,500,000 Increase includes subwatershed load monitoring and large river monitoring.

2 MPCA Expanded Contaminant of New Concern (CNC) effort in monitoring and assessment work 1,000,000 1,000,000 0 0 0 0

9 MPCA

Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (includes TMDL development): In 2008, the MPCA launched a watershed approach to systematically and comprehensively conduct the state’s water-quality monitoring, and restoration and protection planning needs on a 10-year cycle. Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (WRAPs), including TMDLs, are developed with local partners to set strategies for impaired waters and unimpaired waters by setting reduction and protection goals, milestones and measures to guide state and local government implementation efforts.


11 MPCA

Groundwater Assessment: Monitor and enhance ambient groundwater well network to collect critical water quality data needed for drinking water protection and surface water impact analysis, including modeling to support TMDL stressor identification and contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) in a subset of monitoring wells.


12 MPCA

Enhanced County Inspections/SSTS Corrective Actions: 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.


29 MPCAGreat Lakes Restoration Project: Great Lakes restoration projects in the St. Louis River area of concern with local and federal partners. Requires at least a 65:35 non-state local match for every CWF dollar.

1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000

30 MPCA Clean Water Partnership: Provides grants to study and implement solutions that protect basins and watersheds of Minnesota before water quality standards are exceeded. 3,000,000 3,000,000 0 0 0 0

These efforts should be included under WRAPS planning and nonpoint implementation programs. There are concerns about substitution.

47 MPCA NPDES Wastewater/Stormwater TMDL Implementation: Staffing costs for implementation efforts. 1,800,000 1,900,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 Consider a fee-based approach for

the expansion of this program.

50 MPCA

Watershed Research and Database Development (Watershed Data Integration Project or WDIP): Incrementally connect data management systems that will interface existing systems and provide staff and the public a central location for reporting, analysis, and data management of the watershed data.

2,300,000 2,300,000 2,300,000 2,300,000 2,300,000 2,300,000

52 MPCA

Stormwater Research and Guidance: For performance of existing stormwater infiltration sites, as identified in the Minimal Impact Design Standards (MIDS) project. Monitor the range of existing infiltration devices in Minnesota and compare to design criteria, maintenance records, and quantify year-round infiltration rates. Develop and refine pretreatment options and standards for municipal stormwater treatment trains.

550,000 550,000 550,000 550,000 550,000 550,000


Page 3



(CWF)Appropriations





SF1754 (3/25/15)

HOUSE - H0303-4 (4/30/15)

SENATE - UEHO303-2 (5/8/15)



53 MPCA

Wastewater Treatment System Design & Technical Assistance: Identify and pilot options for implementing standards, not to develop new standards. The MPCA to work with regulated parties to identify new or more efficient ways of meeting standards at wastewater treatment facilities (municipal and industrial).

750,000 800,000 0 0 0 0Municipal and Industrial Organizations already have research staff working on this.

62 MPCA Support activities of the Clean Water Council according to M.S. 114D.30. 80,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000

82 MPCA

Stormwater BMP Performance Evaluation and Technology Transfer: Enhanced data and information management of stormwater BMPs; evaluate BMP performance and effectiveness to support meeting TMDLs; develop standards and incorporate into state of the art guidance using MIDS as the model; implement a knowledge and technology transfer system across local government, industry and regulatory sectors. Pass through dollars to UMN.

0 0 550,000 550,000 550,000 550,000

91 MPCARed River Watch Program: For grants to the Red River Watershed Management Board to enhance and expand the existing water quality and watershed monitoring river watch activities in the schools along the Red River of the North.

200,000 0 0 0 200,000 200,000

92 MPCA

National Park Water Quality Protection Program: For a grant program for sanitary sewer projects that are included in the draft or any update Voyageurs National Park Clean Water Project Comprehensive Plan to restore the water quality of waters within Voyageurs National Park.

1,500,000 0 0 0 3,000,000 2,000,000

5 DNR Stream Flow Monitoring: Conduct stream flow monitoring and sediment transport analysis to support watershed assessments. 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000

6 DNR Lake IBI assessment: Statewide assessment of biological integrity for lakes, including fish and plants, to support the 10-year watershed assessment schedule. 2,600,000 2,600,000 2,600,000 2,600,000 2,600,000 2,600,000

7 DNR Fish Contamination Assessment: Increase the number of lake and stream sites where fish tissue samples are analyzed to detect mercury and other contaminants. 270,000 270,000 270,000 270,000 270,000 270,000

10 DNRWatershed Restoration and Protection Strategies: Work with state and local partners to provide expertise, data, analysis, and support for major watershed studies and the development of watershed restoration and protection strategies.

3,700,000 3,880,000 3,880,000 3,880,000 3,880,000 3,880,000

18 DNR

Aquifer Monitoring for Water Supply Planning: Monitor Minnesota's observation well network to collect critical aquifer level data and flow dynamics needed for drinking water and water supply protection. Includes analysis, modeling and work with stakeholders to address sustainability management and planning.

2,750,000 2,750,000 2,750,000 2,750,000 2,750,000 2,750,000

34 DNR

Nonpoint Source Restoration and Protection Activities: Support local implementation efforts, including: assisting with targeting conservation practices, helping local partners plan for, design, and implement clean water projects, building local community capacity to manage for healthy watersheds; working in forested watersheds on water quality protection.

2,000,000 2,600,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 It is unclear what the water quality outcomes are of these efforts.

57 DNR

Applied Research and Tools: Provide hydrology modeling expertise to improve understanding of the cumulative impacts of drainage and water management on watershed health, and identify combinations of BMPs to improve water quality; maintain/update spatial data for watershed boundaries, streams, and waterbodies and integrate LiDAR data; assess relationships among disturbance patterns, BMP applications, and water quality in forested watersheds; stream biomonitoring database.

1,350,000 1,700,000 1,350,000 1,350,000 1,350,000 1,350,000

59 DNRCounty Geologic Atlases: Work with the Minnesota Geological Survey to accelerate completion or updates to County Geologic Atlases that provide critical groundwater and geology information to local governments.

1,230,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000

76 DNR

Riparian Buffer Information (Color Infrared Imagery and Analysis): For analysis and mapping in each county related to compliance with riparian buffer or alternate practice requirements and toprovide statewide coordination and guidance to local units of government for implementation of buffer requirements. Maps must be provided to local units of government and made available to landowners on the Department of Natural Resources' Web site.

0 650,000 650,000 650,000 650,000 650,000 Language change to this program in support of buffer initiative.


Page 4



(CWF)Appropriations





SF1754 (3/25/15)

HOUSE - H0303-4 (4/30/15)

SENATE - UEHO303-2 (5/8/15)



20 BWSRTargeted Wellhead/Drinking Water Protection: Grants to implement best management practices or permanent conservation easements in communities/wellhead protection areas where the actions needed to protect drinking water are known.

2,600,000 3,500,000 3,500,000 3,500,000 3,500,000 3,500,000

Increase is for an expansion to include source water protection Best Management Practices in addition to perpetual conservation easements and support protection efforts.

37 BWSR

Surface and Drinking Water Protection/Restoration Grants (Projects and Practices): Grant and incentive funding to protect, enhance and restore water quality in lakes, rivers and streams and to protect groundwater and drinking water implement priority actions in local water management plans.

21,361,000 24,500,000 29,550,000 29,550,000 27,780,000 20,375,000 Note that requests for this funding has far exceeded available funds.

Slight language addition that a portion of the funds may be used to seek administrative efficiencies through share resources by multiple local governments.

38 BWSR

Grants to Watersheds with Multiyear Plans (Targeted Watershed Program): Focuses on watersheds where the amount of change necessary to improve water quality is known, the actions needed to achieve results are identified, those actions can be implemented within a four-year time period, and are capable of achieving a measurable outcome.

12,000,000 12,000,000 17,858,000 17,858,000 11,480,000 9,750,000

39 BWSR

Accelerated Implementation: 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.

8,000,000 12,000,000 12,000,000 12,000,000 12,000,000 12,000,000

40 BWSRMeasures, Results and Accountability: Conservation quality assurance by providing oversight, assessment, assistance and reporting of local government performance and results.

1,900,000 1,900,000 1,900,000 1,900,000 1,900,000 1,900,000

41 BWSR

Conservation Drainage Management and Assistance: 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.

3,400,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000

Note that BWSR split this program into 2 programs (see activity number 77 which is a new program), so this isn't really a decrease.

42 BWSR

Riparian Buffer-Permanent Conservation Easements: Purchase and restore permanent conservation easements on riparian lands adjacent to public waters, except wetlands. Establish buffers of native vegetation that must be at least 50 feet where possible and no more than 100 feet. This program is coordinated and matched with Outdoor Heritage Funds. Up to $344,000 is for deposit in a monitoringand enforcement account.

13,000,000 12,000,000 15,000,000 20,087,000 15,000,000 9,750,000 Note that there is more demand than available funding for this program.

Includes language that up to $344,000 is for deposit in a monitoring and enforcement account.

43 BWSR

Technical Evaluation: Statutory mandate to annually evaluate a sample of up to 10 habitat restoration projects, beginning July 1, 2011. BWSR and DNR have been collaborating on implementing state statute (Laws of MN 2011, First Special Session, Ch. 6) that requires restoration evaluations to be conducted on habitat restoration projects completed with funds from the Clean Water Fund, Outdoor Heritage Fund and Parks and Trails Fund.

168,000 168,000 168,000 168,000 168,000 168,000

44 BWSR

Community Partners Clean Water Program: Increase citizen participation in implementing water quality projects and programs to increase long term sustainability of water resources. The efforts and resources of active and engaged community groups, such as lake associations, non-profits, and conservation groups, will be supported through this program. This effort will be delivered through local collaboration using a ‘small grants partners’ program.

3,000,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 Note there hasn't been much demand for this program.

45 BWSR

Water Management Transition (One Watershed One Plan): 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).

900,000 4,200,000 4,200,000 4,200,000 4,200,000 4,200,000

77 BWSR Shoreland Buffer Compliance: Grants to local units of government to enhance compliance with riparian buffer or alternate practice requirements. 0 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 5,000,000

Language change so this program is now only for grants to LGUs to enhance compliance with riparian buffer or alternate practice requirements.


Page 5



(CWF)Appropriations





SF1754 (3/25/15)

HOUSE - H0303-4 (4/30/15)

SENATE - UEHO303-2 (5/8/15)



78 BWSR

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP): Interagency effort to implement a CREP aimed at restoring surface water quality in areas targeted for nutrient reductions and protecting sensitive groundwater and drinking water resources. Up to $1,285,000 is for deposit in a monitoring and enforcement account.

0 18,000,000 18,000,000 18,000,000 18,000,000 18,000,000

Language addition that up to $1,285,000 of this funding is for deposit in a monitoring and enforcement account.

79 BWSR

Critical Shoreland Protection-Permanent Conservation Easements: A pilot program to purchase permanent conservation easements to protect lands adjacent to public waters with good water quality but threatened with degradation. Up to $190,000 is for deposit in a monitoring and enforcement account.

0 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 Language addition in bills that up to $190,000 is for deposit in a monitoring and enforcement account.

80 BWSR

Tillage and Erosion Transects: Program to systematically collect data and produce statistically valid estimates of the rate of soil erosion and tracking the adoption of high residue cropping systems in the 67 counties with greater than 30% of land in agricultural row crop production.

0 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000

90 BWSRGrants to Soil and Water Conservation Districts: Payments to SWCDs to comply with sections 103C.321 and 103C.331. Each SWCD will receive increase in its base funding. Second year of appropriations cancels if new buffer requirements are not enacted in 2015.

0 0 0 1,000,000 0 22,000,000

93 BWSR

Washington County Grey Slough Habitat Improvement: For a grant to Washington County for a water quality improvement project that will improve water quality and restore an essential backwater aquatic area by reconnecting Grey Cloud Slough to the main channel of the Mississippi River Area.

0 0 0 0 520,000 520,000

94 BWSRConservation Corps: BWSR shall contract for delivery of services with Conservation Corps Minnesota for restoration, maintenance, and other activities under this section for up to $500,000 the first year and up to $500,000 the second year.

0 0 0 0 0 0 Language addition - this item doesn't have a dollar amount because it is for all of BWSR's programs.

8 MDH

Lake Superior Beach Monitoring: In order to protect water resources and public health, conduct water quality monitoring for 40 beaches, provide public notification, education, and outreach, analyze data, improve upon existing monitoring methods by exploring bacteria forecasting and document results to support decision-making. Collaborate with local governments to find contamination sources and address polluted runoff.

210,000 210,000 0 0 0 0

Recommend no funding because it is not statewide and where it is being done in other parts of the state, it is funded through local resources.

23 MDH

Drinking Water Contaminants of Emerging Concern Program: Continue to protect human health by developing guidance. Develop public health laboratory capacity for research and analysis of emerging contaminants. Give grants to local organizations for community-based outreach and education activities. Expand program to develop quantitative microbial risk guidance based on new data on drinking water and water reuse.The commissioner shall contract with the Board of Regents of the Universityof Minnesota to provide an independent review of the department's drinking water contaminants of emerging concern program.

2,300,000 2,500,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000

Note this program is linked to Activity #27. Discussed need for a programmatic peer review of the item. Expansion is not yet fully justified.

Language addition that a program review will be conducted by UMN.

24 MDH

Source Water Protection: Based on continuing CWF support, MDH has a goal to have approved wellhead protection plans for all 935 community water suppliers that use groundwater by 2020. The Source Water Protection Grant Program assists public water suppliers with implementation of their plans to protect sources of public drinking water and with management of known or potential contamination threats.

3,230,000 3,800,000 3,800,000 3,800,000 3,800,000 3,800,000 Recommend increased coordination with BWSR to increase implementation efforts.

26 MDH

Well Sealing Cost Share: There is a continuing need to fund well sealing into the foreseeable future. There are between 250,000 and 500,000 unused, unsealed wells. Approximately 6000 wells are sealed per year. Funding from the Clean Water Fund supplements other efforts to properly seal these wells which protects both public health and groundwater. A portion of the funds are passed to local units of government who provide grants to private well owners. Funds are also distributed to public water supply owners to seal unused public water supply wells that are often expensive to seal due to their size and depth.

500,000 550,000 225,000 225,000 225,000 225,000

Recommend that this funding should only be used for public wells or for low income landowners for private wells. Note that Clean Water Funds helped seal 225 wells in the last biennium.


Page 6



(CWF)Appropriations





SF1754 (3/25/15)

HOUSE - H0303-4 (4/30/15)

SENATE - UEHO303-2 (5/8/15)



27 MDH

Groundwater Virus Monitoring Plan: This proposal is to request additional funding to examine the occurrence, fate and transport of viruses in groundwater sources in Minnesota and estimate the risk of acute gastrointestinal illness from consuming drinking water from un-disinfected groundwater sources. Through the collection of virus occurrence data, hydrogeologic data and contaminant information, health-based guidance and tools could be improved and developed to reduce the public health risk from groundwater drinking water sources. This proposal will allow us the opportunity to build upon the work already completed in Minnesota and that being proposed nationally. Reducing acute microbial risk and exposure is the highest public health priority associated with drinking water.

1,600,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000

Note this program is linked to Activity #23. Assume this will be the last biennium of funding for this program.

28 MDH

Private Well Water Supply Protection: In contrast to highly monitored water supplies that serve water to the public, water quality from a residential well depends on the owner’s initiative and vigilance. The proposed study will utilize the existing private well monitoring networks maintained by MDA and existing data from a variety of sources supplemented by targeted well sampling to characterize the occurrence and magnitude of contaminants in private wells. Guidance will be developed for well contractors to ensure new well placement and construction minimizes potential risks to well owners. Innovative civic engagement and education efforts will be developed to increase the capacity of owners to identify and address potential well issues and ensure safe drinking water for their families.

650,000 750,000 650,000 650,000 650,000 650,000

73 MDH

Water Reuse: Water reuse is in progress in Minnesota, and includes use of harvested rainwater (from roofs), storm water, gray water, and reclaimed municipal wastewater. While water reuse has the potential to reduce water costs and demands on water resources, health protection concerns will affect the adoption of water reuse strategies by municipalities, industries, and other interested parties. At this time no systematic evaluation or policy development on treatment and use options to ensure the health and safety of water reuse has been implemented in Minnesota. Various agencies including the MPCA, DNR, MDH, and DoLI all play some role in reuse and will participate in the proposed project. This proposal funds (1) a comprehensive study of non-regulatory and regulatory approaches for ensuring safe and sustainable water reuse, (2) recommendations for practices and policy for water reuse in Minnesota, and (3) work by the University of Minnesota to collect and analyze field data for use in targeting Minnesota-specific risks.

0 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000

74 MDH

Groundwater Strategies for Local Implementation: A barrier to integrating management of Minnesota’s surface and groundwater resources is that groundwater management information is developed for a variety of purposes and on a variety of scales that rarely correspond to watershed boundaries. This initiative will take existing information and develop Groundwater Restoration and Protection Strategies (GRAPS) on a watershed scale for incorporation into One Watershed One Plan pilot areas. Local agencies will be consulted to guide GRAPS development. Funds will also be directed to regional or local entities such as Soil and Water Conservation Districts, watershed districts, and counties to provide resources to incorporate GRAPS into local plans and pursue funding opportunities available for implementation of these strategies to protect public and private drinking water sources. This effort builds on the FY15 effort to protect drinking water sources in Groundwater Management Areas and may be shared by a number of state and local agencies.

0 900,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000

Recommend that MDH develop this concept in more detail and coordinate efforts with WRAPS efforts and DNR Groundwater Management Areas.


Page 7



(CWF)Appropriations





SF1754 (3/25/15)

HOUSE - H0303-4 (4/30/15)

SENATE - UEHO303-2 (5/8/15)



21 Met Council

Metropolitan Area Water Supply Sustainability Support: Implement projects that address emerging drinking water supply threats, provide cost-effective regional solutions, leverage inter-jurisdictional coordination, support local implementation of wellhead protection plans, and prevent degradation of groundwater resources. These projects will provide to communities:• Potential solutions to balance regional water use through utilization of surface water, stormwater, wastewater and groundwater• Analysis of infrastructure requirements for different alternatives• Development of planning level cost estimates, including capital cost and operation cost• Identify funding mechanisms and equitable cost-sharing structure for regionally-beneficial water supply development projects

2,000,000 2,000,000 1,950,000 1,950,000 1,950,000 1,950,000 Discussed statewide applicability.

72 Met Council

Water Demand Reduction Grant Program Pilot: These grants would encourage implementation of water demand reduction measures by municipalities in metro area to ensure the reliability and protection of drinking water supplies. Some of these measures would include but not limited to: municipal, commercial and residential water use audits, indoor water use and summer peak use reduction mainly targeting smart outdoor water use and old inefficient toilet swap.

0 1,000,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000

95 Met CouncilInflow and Infiltration Reduction Program Grants: For grants or loans for local inflow and infiltration reduction programs addressing high-priority areas in the metropolitan area, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 473.121, subdivision 2.

1,000,000 0 0 0 1,500,000 0

63 Legislature For the Legislative Coordinating Commission for the website required in M.S. 3.303, subdivision 10, including mapping. 30,000 0 30,000 0 0 0 LCC folks indicated to Legislators that

they didn't need this funding.

Total All 221,698,000 221,645,000 226,202,000 224,697,000 228,302,000

Clean Water Council Current Member Roster 7/3/15

Member Term Expires Appointing Authority

Business Organizations

Patrick Flowers January 2, 2017 Governor

Raj Rajan January 7, 2019 Governor

City Governments

Sharon Doucette January 2, 2017 Governor

Patrick Shea January 7, 2019 Governor

County Governments

Frank Jewell (rural counties) January 7, 2019 Governor

Victoria Reinhardt (seven metropolitan counties)

January 2, 2017 Governor

Environmental Organizations

Mark Abner January 7, 2019 Governor

Gene Merriam January 2, 2017 Governor

Metropolitan Council

Sandy Rummel Per appointing authority Metropolitan Council

Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR)

Doug Thomas Per appointing authority Executive Director, BWSR

Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA)

Matthew Wohlman Per appointing authority Commissioner, MDA

Minnesota Department of Health (MDH)

Tannie Eshenaur Per appointing authority Commissioner, MDH

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR)

Jason Moeckel Per appointing authority Commissioner, DNR

Minnesota House of Representatives

Rep. Paul Torkelson Per appointing authority House

Rep. Barb Yarusso Per appointing authority House

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)

Gaylen Reetz Per appointing authority Commissioner, MPCA

Clean Water Council Current Member Roster 7/3/15

Minnesota Senate

Sen. David J. Osmek Per appointing authority Senate

Sen. Bev Scalze Per appointing authority Senate

Nonprofit Organizations focused on improvement of Minnesota lakes or streams

John Barten January 7, 2019 Governor

Soil and Water Conservation Districts

Holly Kovarik January 7, 2019 Governor

Statewide Farm Organizations

Warren Formo January 7, 2019 Governor

Bob Hoefert January 2, 2017 Governor

Statewide Fishing Organizations

John Underhill January 2, 2017 Governor

Statewide Hunting Organizations

Todd Renville January 7, 2019 Governor

Township Officers

Gary Burdorf January 7, 2019 Governor

Tribal Governments

Vacant Governor

University of Minnesota (UMN)

Deb Swackhamer Per appointing authority UMN, Board of Regents

Watershed Districts

Pam Blixt January 2, 2017 Governor

6/23/15

Ideas from groups about what needs to be done differently to achieve clean water results in Minnesota Note these ideas were presented at Clean Water Council meetings from February – June 2015. These ideas were condensed and organized by the Council’s Work Plan topics.

Nutrients & Sediments · Recommend a nutrient accountability program (e.g. fall fertilizer application prohibitions).· Consider a polluter pays principle for nutrient management.· Consider landscape Best Management Practices (BMPs) (e.g. buffers, BMPs on new tile systems,

cover crops, no-till, etc.) for nutrient management.· Recommend adding the word “sustainable” to maximum return to nitrogen guidelines provided by

the University of Minnesota.· Promote soil health.

Innovative Approaches - Water Storage and Drainage · Develop more drainage management tools that can store water.· Quantify how much water storage is needed on the landscape to mimic natural conditions.· Regulate water quantity through watershed districts.· Discuss how much water retention is needed in rural areas. Some Metro watersheds require one-

inch retention for rain events.· Require permits for subsurface drain tile installation.· Develop drainage performance standards and require BMP treatment where appropriate.· Require drain tile water quality permits and consider holding drain tile effluent to water quality

effluent limits.· Apply a natural systems utility model to watershed and groundwater management.

Pilots · Consider trying a few of the innovate approaches in a few pilot watersheds.· Consider funding a pilot program that could be translated statewide.

Innovative Approaches and Water Quality Drivers - Cover Crops Research Needs and Economic Drivers and Future of Row Crops and Biofuels · Support funding for research and development for continuous living cover (e.g. cover, profitable

relay, rotational/third, and perennial crops). · Support funding for technical assistance and implementation for SWCDs to work with landowners

on continuous living cover crops. · Develop markets for low impact forage and cover crops.· Promote investments in crops that require less water and fertilizer and that are more

environmentally beneficial.· Discuss how to have a healthy agricultural economy and water quality.· Discuss how to restore vegetative cover and bring diversity into our agricultural systems. Need to

make it profitable for producers.· Promote perennials for biofuels to improve water quality.· Encourage the use of perennial crops to meet the cellulosic ethanol mandate.· Promote the use of alfalfa - in rotation with corn and use to feed beef cattle. Consumers could

request that beef cattle diet includes alfalfa.· Create a market for profitable perennials versus harvesting corn stover to meet renewable fuel

standards.1

· Promote more ground cover in fields. · Determine the economic benefits to farmers for different conservation practices. · Fund more agricultural research at universities that measures the water quality benefits of emerging

practices (e.g. cover crops). Monitoring & Assessment · Continue to fund monitoring activities to show progress and success stories at the local level to

incentivize other landowners. · Support edge-of-field monitoring through programs such as Discovery Farms. Groundwater · Increase funding for groundwater monitoring. · Discuss how to improve local water plans and implementation activities regarding groundwater

sustainability and management (quality and quantity). Nonpoint Source Implementation - How to Meet Nonpoint Funding Needs/Local Capacity · Dedicate local revenue to local government units to implement water plans. · Address local capacity issues. · Increase working partnerships at the local level. Local Watershed Management Organizations

(WMOs) and Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs) are key local groups to interact with landowners.

· More funding for SWCDs. Need more local assistance for landowners to overcome barriers for implementation.

· Increase Clean Water Fund (CWF) recommendations for implementation and assistance to landowners and focus less on plans and paperwork. An example would be natural resources block grants for SWCDs.

· Local Governmental Units (LGUs) need more funds – they are eager to implement projects but it is disappointing when they invest time in writing grant proposals and are not funded. We need to ensure funds are available.

· Increase the CWF budget for implementation activities. Bottom-up planning works best for implementation.

· Consider funding regional specialists at LGUs that could work with other LGUs in a more coordinated approach.

· Increase CWF dollars to support local implementation and local capacity. · Fund the implementation of One Watershed, One Plan. · Increase General Fund dollars for water programs. · Increase base funding from the General Fund for water. Agencies need to ask for their base funding

from the General Fund. · Consider routing funds to nontraditional groups (e.g. private sector) to provide conservation

consultants who could work with landowners. · Build local capacity but not by funding more projects – local government staff need time to engage

farmers. · Consider funding University of Minnesota Extension Service staff or more local staff to provide

technical support to farmers. · Provide more access to farmers for funds to implement conservation practices on a timeframe that

works for farmers.

2

Nonpoint Source Implementation - Local Authority/Governance · Require local water management authorities to implement water plans. · Enhance and streamline local watershed planning and align it with One Watershed, One Plan and

Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (WRAPS) · Reform watershed governance (e.g. combine some WDs/WMOs with SWCDs) · Leverage local agricultural accountability by creating agricultural management areas and drainage

authority accountability at the subwatershed level · Require watershed governance structures statewide that have full-fledged autonomy to act (e.g.

raise funds, regulate, and execute priorities)

Nonpoint Source Implementation - Project Selection and Target & Prioritize Projects · Prioritize funds for projects with long-term, durable practices · Fund durable, permanent practices vs. “blink on - blink off” practices · Target projects/practices where they have the best outcome · Spend by design and not default based on what is working · Promote implementation practices with multiple benefits (e.g. water storage and habitat) · Prioritize programs/projects that stack conservation benefits · Fund the best projects first by identifying priority projects in TMDLs/WRAPS · Create a nonpoint source pollution project priority list · Prioritize programs that address root-causes (cropping systems, hydrology & soil health, climate) · Use CWF dollars for on-the-ground projects that will make the most difference in water quality Nonpoint Source Implementation - Leveraging · Promote leveraging of CWF dollars (e.g. Farm Bill).

Nonpoint Source Implementation - Overcoming Implementation Barriers · Build working relationships with farmers by understanding everyone’s values and have real on-the-

ground discussions at the local level. · Work with crop consultants to enhance conversations about conservation and water quality. · Discuss water quality through conferences like those hosted by the Minnesota Agricultural Water

Resources Coalition. Nonpoint Source Implementation - BMP Management · Develop strategies to maintain practices on private property. Implementation - Progress Reporting · Require projects to report tangible outcomes. · Report on the progress of getting impaired waters cleaned up. Point Source Implementation - Funding Needs & Costs/Benefits · Provide adequate funding to permitted entities (stormwater, wastewater, drinking water) to

implement water quality (e.g. TMDL) requirements for pollution reductions. · Discus whether more regulations on permitted sources will make a significant water quality

difference. · Consider changing caps and match requirements for CWF infrastructure grants. · Provide funding for septic and stormwater infrastructure requirements and provide flexibility to

address problems.

3

Protection Approach · Discuss how dollars should be spent between protection and restoration. · Recommend that agencies identify waters in need of protection. Protection targets should be

focused on waterbodies that show a decline in water chemistry or biology and/or if there is development planned in riparian areas. Can use the zonation model to help inform this work.

· Protect healthy watersheds before they degrade. It is much cheaper to prevent impairments with a more modest social or financial investment.

· Recommend developing conservation blueprints for healthy watersheds. · Prioritize watersheds for protection and identify critical zones within these. · Identify watersheds that are at risk for forest conversion, irrigated agriculture, population growth,

and climate change. · Improve outreach, technical assistance, and activities on private natural areas. · Direct public and private funding and resources toward protecting critical natural infrastructure

before it is lost. Utilize a Return on Investment approach. WRAPS/TMDLs · Require more specific details (e.g. what BMPs, where, scale needed) in TMDLs/WRAPS reports and

track the progress being made. · Incorporate all water quality problems (e.g. drainage, altered hydrology) in TMDLs/WRAPS. · Improve the precision of watershed plans for protection and restoration. · Translate water quality goals/strategies so individual landowners (e.g. farmers) know what they

mean for what they need to do on their property. · Engage more farmers in WRAPS projects and communicate in their terms (e.g. nutrient/soil loss in

dollars) what is needed. · WRAPS reports need to show costs/benefits and return on investment of implementation practices

at a local scale. Measurable Outcomes · Highlight progress made and water quality trends on the local scale. · Report on the usefulness of practices (e.g. buffers, grassed waterways) to show how they reduce

pollutants. · Show water quality successes from local projects to encourage additional landowners to adopt

practices. Civic Engagement - Understanding the Clean Water Fund · Coordinate messages for water issues as public expectations are high and there are gaps in public

understanding. · Share information widely about what projects that received CWFs actually did with the funding. · Communicate what the local successes have been and local trends that have been found with water

quality based on practices.

Civic Engagement - Empower Local Communities · Empower and engage local communities about health, prevention, and water quality. · Involve citizens in developing local projects. · Need to better engage farmers in water planning efforts – smaller watershed projects are more

tangible and social media could also be used. · Change the message to farmers so it is more understandable – excess nutrients and top soil going

down the drain.

4

· Get the message out about water in understandable sound bites.

Civic Engagement - Advocacy · Work on advocacy – non-governmental organizations could work with the Council to reach out to

citizens. Funding Discussions and Decisions - Long-Term Vision for Funding Programs · Develop a long-term vision (i.e. at least 10 years) for programs receiving CWFs. · Develop some broader concepts (more specific than guiding principles and less specific than budget

recommendations) early on in the budget process for agencies to respond to. Funding Discussions and Decisions - Supplement vs. Substitute · Continue to discuss the need for CWF dollars to supplement traditional sources of funding.

Funding Discussions and Decisions - Fees and Private Lands & Infrastructure · Consider increasing fees for programs historically funded by fees rather than CWF dollars. · Avoid making private costs public. Examples are funding septic system upgrades, capping private

wells, fixing open feedlots, and funding buffers where they just need to comply with existing law. Policy Recommendations - Approaches between Voluntary and Regulatory · Promote water certification for agricultural producers. · Provide incentives such as consumer branding for producers if practices are water friendly. · Develop performance-based standards for nonpoint pollution sectors (e.g. consider doing this by

watershed). Policy Recommendations – Topics and Decisions - Council Role · Continue to develop policy recommendations. · Consider policy options that require a basic “standard of care” for crop agriculture. · Consider policy options for watershed governance to deliver water quality goals for the agricultural

sector. Enforcement · Enforce existing buffer, feedlot, and septic system laws. These are a very efficient way to protect

water quality. · Enforce existing regulations and examine what is working and what is not and look at the scientific

evidence. Wetlands · Support BWSR’s Wetlands Banking Program. Consider modifying the replacement ratios to 1:1.

5

6/23/15 Ideas from groups about what needs to be done differently to achieve clean water results in Minnesota Note these ideas were presented at Clean Water Council meetings from February – June 2015 Executive Director John Jaschke, Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources · Local governments need to have dedicated local water management authority and local revenue to

implement watershed/groundwater management plans. There is a need for local authority and a funding stream to local entities to protect these resources for the long term.

· Soil health; organic matter, tilth/compaction technology/equipment, no-till, cover crops. Soil Health is important because soil and water go together - Minnesota most precious resources are its productive soil and high-quality freshwater. Soil often forgotten and it provides great public benefit. Healthy soil leads to healthy waters.

· Multi-benefit design for conservation and open space lands: water quality, water retention, plant and animal habitat, compatible utilization. We see things managed based on funding streams that have hard lines between programs. There is no reason why we can’t figure out how to benefit more than one thing on each piece of property. For example, we could benefit both water storage and habitat through one practice.

· Apply a natural systems utility model to watershed and groundwater management. · Durable (structural) and repeatable (management) conservation practices. What we need most,

because the Legacy funding will not be around forever is for people to take care of the infrastructure that is being put in on private property.

· Targeted projects and practices to where they do most good—not just what/where cheapest or easiest.

Commissioner Tom Landwehr, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources · We need to take stock to find out where the Clean Water Fund is going, what is working, and what is

not. We need to spend by design and not default. · We still don’t fundamentally understand some of the water issues especially in respect to

groundwater and still need more monitoring. May need more for monitoring groundwater and less for surface water in the future.

· Need to put money in the most important places. But is that for protection or improvement and how do we prioritize?

· Targeting is important – we need to find ways to have both a healthy agricultural economy and water quality.

· There is a need to maximize federal dollars. The Farm Bill and federal dollars can help but need to look at other state funding beside just the Clean Water Fund.

· Need water monitoring to show measurable results but need to understand if we are 50% of where we need to be and if the allocation is at the right level.

· Public expectations are high and there are gaps in public understanding of water issues. DNR is the agency most identified by the public related to water issues because there is a lot of public interaction with the lakes and streams that people live on. Collaboration is a key element – people need to focus on the direction together and coordinate our messages.

Assistant Commissioner Matt Wohlman, Minnesota Department of Agriculture · The context is coming from farmers – they need to be profitable and Minnesota needs a strong

agricultural economy. We know that with any nutrient there will be some leaching and runoff. The increase in the global population however will demand more food by 2050. An increased state

1

population will increase pressure on water resources. And climate change will cause more flooding, droughts, and northern migration of row crops. All of these factors change our long term vision about water quality.

· We must efficiently use available resources and target them for the best outcomes. · Biggest impact we can have is to focus more on market-based approaches and invest in new tools

and technologies. We need an economically viable approach and collaboration with landowners. · Potential game changers are:

1. Minnesota Agricultural Water Quality Certification Program (MAWQCP) – big opportunity to put practices in place and outcomes can be based on consumer branding. MDA is currently working to add incentives in watersheds that are certified so consumers know their products are water friendly.

2. There is an opportunity for market-based solutions. The Governor’s budget includes $350,000 from FY16-17 Clean Water Funds for a Vegetative Cover and Soil Health Program to develop markets for low impact forage and cover crops.

3. Need to invest in crops that require less water and fertilizer. We can encourage the development of hybrid or genetically modified organism (GMO) crops that are more environmentally beneficial.

4. Develop more drainage management tools that can handle an increase in precipitation intensity, and ideally store water to utilize during drought conditions which could also reduce the amount of contaminants and high flows causing water quality impairments.

Commissioner Ed Ehlinger, Minnesota Department of Health · Only 5% of health care is spent on prevention. We need to reframe the conversation of what creates

health so the narrative is not about treatment and remediation but one about prevention and policies. We need to empower communities and have the conversation about what creates results. Upstream systems and economics impact the water we drink.

· We need to take a health view on all our water policies so we can collective ensure healthy conditions.

· Need to make a collective effort with those outside our agencies too. Communities need to be engaged and need to figure out who should be at the table, what power they have, and what input they will bring. We have found that if we get communities meaningfully engaged and give then power, then they make better decisions. This is the key to prevention.

Assistant Commissioner Rebecca Flood, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency · Council Policy Recommendations are an excellent step forward. Many areas we could make

additional progress beyond just the Clean Water Fund dollars. · Leveraging the Clean Water Fund dollars is very important. The Farm Bill and addressing local

capacity issues are essential for on-the-ground improvements. Note that Minnesota’s Nutrient Reduction Strategy requires both federal and local support to meet the goals. Need to move strategies forward which are more locally based.

Executive Director Steve Morse, Minnesota Environmental Partnership · The expectations for clean water are high. If the State only cleans up 1/3 of impaired waters by the

end of the amendment funding, people will be disappointed. Some groups want to stay the course but most think we have to change our strategy. It is understood that the large ecosystems don’t respond quickly.

2

· Substitution is questioned for use of the Clean Water Fund. There is a uniform concern that the Clean Water Fund will replace traditional sources of funding and not supplement them. One example is inflow and infiltration – right now this is funded locally and could use a lot of Clean Water Fund dollars without measurable results. Another example is the Clean Water Partnership Program which is a substitution issue because it used to receive general fund dollars. Another issue is monitoring for agricultural chemicals which have historically been funded by fees, but since the Legacy Amendment came into play, there have been no increases on fees.

· Prioritization of the Clean Water Fund dollars is important. · Need to align implementation strategies moving forward. For example, Minnesota’s Nutrient

Reduction Strategy suggests that over half of the reductions need to come from vegetative cover but funding does not seem to align with these big opportunities. Need to think long-term and figure out how to restore the vegetative cover and bring diversity into our agricultural systems. We need systems which are self-reinforcing because they make economic sense. Need to make it profitable for producers.

· Another big topic is cellulosic biofuels. Need more than just corn for biofuels. If perennials could be used, this could be significant for water quality.

· Need to work on advocacy. NGOs have good contacts and methods to reach out to citizens which could be powerful.

· Need tangible outcomes – clarity is important. Too early to tell if we will get there with Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (WRAPS) reports. A good example is the clean-up plan for the St. Louis River.

Doug Busselman, Public Policy Director, Minnesota Farm Bureau · How do we find the baseline to help track progress? The state has developed private well

monitoring in southeastern and central Minnesota. To understand trends, it requires long-term monitoring.

· The Clean Water Performance Report contains several bullet points showing funding for more than 325 grants to protect and restore waters. Who got the money and what did they do with it?

· How we might look at achieving clean water? The Farm Bureau develops policies written and approved by membership. Some of the statewide policies and regulations are causing issues that we need to address as we move forward. Some regulations are observations by others that farmers are not using their lands properly.

· I grew up on a farm in Southwestern Minnesota and know farmers have a foundational value of conservation. To build working relationships, we must understand everyone’s values. It is the difference between losing ground versus moving forward. More and more, there is a backlash from landowners as they feel their ethics are being disparaged. We must deal with these feelings to allow for real on-the-ground discussions and to determine what could be worked on to improve resources.

· There are ways to have solutions applied on-the-ground in a voluntary, non-regulatory fashion. We need to look at what is happening in a specific area to work together and cooperatively find a solution.

· We can actually go faster by slowing down and holding meaningful discussions with those involved at the local level. The Farm Bureau is interested in those types of interactions. Local Watershed Management Organizations and Soil and Water Conservation Districts are key local groups to interact with landowners.

3

· As I mentioned earlier, farmers have a conservation ethic, but the interactions farmers have with crop consultants covers topics about how to grow certain crops, increase the yield, and how much pesticide to use not about conservation.

· A good example is the Minnesota Agricultural Water Resources Coalition who does an outstanding job of holding conferences for farmers that are widely attended.

· From a production aspect, the producer needs the right amount of nutrients in the right place at the right time. The level of technology used to do this is amazing. A crop consultant can help a farmer use the tools correctly.

Dr. Shawn Schottler, Senior Scientist, St. Croix Watershed Research Station, Science Museum of Minnesota · Perspective of the public is there is no difference between water quality and habitat. In reality,

these are linked. · The fact is that in many areas we have the same amount of acreage in agriculture as the 1950s but

we have lost wetlands, added artificial drainage, and converted from alfalfa/pasture to row crops. The big change is the way in which we do agriculture.

· Why are we growing mostly soybeans and corn now? These crops make more money than alfalfa. Ethanol is the single largest consumer of corn and then animal feed. If we want more perennial vegetation on the landscape it is not about what we eat but about renewable fuel standards. By 2022, the renewable fuels mandate requires an additional 16 billion from cellulosic sources. Where is this going to come from? A readily available source is the corn stover. However, corn stover is not a waste product - it provides residue, carbon, and holds the soil. Removing corn stover will dramatically impact water quality. Corn stover technology is here today - there are two plants in Iowa and one in Nevada. Iowa has standards and will only accept stover from no-till acres, they must have 180 bushels/acre or more for a yield, only take half the stover, and only in areas with slopes less than 4%. But these regulations are voluntary. With these regulations, only two counties in Minnesota would be eligible. Most farmers have corn yields of 170 bushels/acre. An unintended consequence is that there would be an incentive to add more nitrogen to increase yield.

· But we could meet the cellulosic ethanol mandate with perennial crops that can build organic residue, store carbon, require less nitrogen and phosphorus, have habitat benefits, and can be harvested later in the season. We could also grow alfalfa in rotation with the corn which could reduce nitrate by 15% to 30%. There is no need to add nutrients to corn when the rotation immediately follows alfalfa. Alfalfa has two crops: the leaves aren’t the source of cellulose; the leaves contain protein and can be used for feed. Cellulosic stems left to the side can be made into ethanol. If this was required, the process would become profitable.

· Other major market for alfalfa is to feed beef cattle. We need to change their diet so it includes a corn/grass/alfalfa mix. We need to change the markets. Consumers and voters can make this happen.

Whitney Clark and Trevor Russell, Executive Director and Watershed Program Director, Friends of the Mississippi River · We don’t believe farmers should be blamed – they operate in an economic and policy environment

and make rational decision. A frequent argument is saying the practices we use are not effective. That is not true, but we don’t deploy these practices at the scale necessary to achieve the results we need.

· We are not discussing urban stormwater runoff today. It can also be a problem, but on a statewide basis, agriculture dwarfs the pollution contribution by stormwater.

4

· We need up to 100% adoption of best management practices for nutrient management, drainage reform, and continuous living cover. This will require systematic change because these are system-level problems. Goals will not be achieved by one single program or policy. Some of the changes will need to be big and sweeping.

· Principles of System Change – (1) we need widespread changes to our agricultural landscapes to meet our water quality and habitat goals, (2) we can’t buy our way out of this, and (3) we need a multi-facetted policy approach to accomplish our goals.

· Principles for Success 1. Target Incentives Wisely – (a) fund the best projects first – identify priority projects in Total

Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)/Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (WRAPS), nonpoint source pollution should have a project priority list, fund durable, permanent practices vs. “blink on - blink off” Best Management Practices (BMPs) and (b) prioritize root-case drivers & solutions - prioritizes programs that address root-causes (cropping systems, hydrology & soil health, climate) and stack conservation benefits.

2. Continuous Living Cover – support research and development (cover, and profitable relay, rotational/third, and perennial crops) and technical assistance and implementation (SWCD landowner assistance and education).

3. Drainage Reform - require permits for subsurface drain tile installation (aids in drainage management and redetermination), develop drainage performance standards (require BMP treatment where appropriate), and require drain tile water quality permits (hold drain tile effluent to water quality effluent limits).

4. Nutrient Management - recommend a nutrient accountability program (e.g. fall fertilizer application prohibitions), polluter pays principle (fees vs. public funds which is substitution), landscape BMPs (e.g. buffers, BMPs on new tile systems, cover crops, no-till, etc.), and maximum “sustainable” return to nitrogen guidelines – need to add the word sustainable to these UMN guidance documents.

5. Advanced Cellulosic Biofuels - create a market for profitable perennials versus harvesting corn stover to meet renewable fuel standards. Need to create both producer and feedstock incentives so perennial crops are cost-competitive with stover or at the pump.

6. Watershed Governance – need to enhance watershed planning (streamline local water planning and align One Watershed, One Plan and WRAPS), reform watershed governance (combine some WD/WMO with SWCD), and leverage local agricultural accountability (create agricultural management areas and drainage authority accountability) – could do this at the local subwatershed level.

Steve Woods, Executive Director and Research and Policy Director, Freshwater Society · We are not sure what citizens think about whether we getting to clean water. They are not thinking

in parts per million or millions of acres. But they may perceive continued improvement. · What needs to be different – how we choose to do agriculture. · The Clean Water Council is at its best when it is looking ahead. What should the next 10-year

watershed cycle look like? Clean Water Roadmap doesn’t go into that level of detail. Recommendations:

1. Local capacity and local input matters. SWCDs created during the dust bowl because people recognized local input was needed and practices needed to be tailored for specific site conditions.

2. From the Minnesota River Watershed and south there are not many organizations with full-fledged autonomy to act (e.g. raise funds, regulate, and execute priorities) so a governance structure is needed.

5

3. There is also a social aspect. Our recently released Farm to Stream Report which looked at farmers and local organizations and barriers to implementation. We need more local assistance for landowners. We have spent decades reducing funds for SWCDs which has curtailed how much time they can spend with landowners.

4. We need a massive change in ground cover. Exposed soil not a good thing. 5. We need to address the altered hydrology on landscape – it is a large plumbing experiment. We

need to do the math about how much water storage do we need out there – how many acre feet of water do we need on landscape to mimic natural landscapes? Quantify what is really needed. These are no brainers – keep raindrop where it fell. Evapotranspiration is a need too. Land cover is influenced by federal policies and water storage is not. Minnesota can regulate water quantity through watershed districts.

· The Council’s policy statements are a good direction. · Funding recommendations will need to focus more on implementation and assistance to

landowners and focus less on plans and paperwork. An example would be natural resources block grants for SWCDs. This frees up locals from paperwork and grant applications to get more assistance to landowners.

· The Council should look ahead and try a few of these ideas with incentives in some watersheds. · Recommend that the Council put together a vision that is better than the Clean Water Roadmap. Minnesota Association of Watershed Districts - Ray Bohn, Coordinator Minnesota Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts - LeAnn Buck, Executive Director Association of Minnesota Counties - Jennifer Berquam, Environment & Natural Resources Policy Analyst · When the G16 discussed where CWF dollars should go they thought Local Government Units (LGUs)

were the right choice. But LGUs need more funds – they are eager to implement projects but it is disappointing when they invest time in writing grant proposals and are not funded. We need to ensure funds are available.

· We recommend increasing the CWF budget for implementation activities. Bottom-up planning works best for implementation. Need to balance planning versus implementation. Analogy is if you spend all your dollars on architect fees you may not have any money left to build your house. The competitive process for CWFs through BWSR has these LGUs competing against each other for funds and we are spending more time saying no than yes.

· Recommend that the Council should consider funding regional specialists at LGUs that could work with other LGUs in a more coordinated approach.

· Clean Water Funds are needed to support local implementation and local capacity. · Recommend that the Council fund One Watershed, One Plan. Folks are getting together on the

watershed basis and sharing expertise, funds, etc. · Note that the general fund has decreased precipitously for environmental programs over the past

years. Legislative leaders believe that they we have more money for water than we could ever spend. Now that we have a dedicated CWF they don’t want to increase the General Fund for these programs. Need agencies to realize that not all their needs should come out of the CWF. Some programs are warranted to go to the CWF but we must be strategic. Need to do something about the General Fund.

· The role of state and local governments related to groundwater sustainability and management (quality and quantity) is still an emerging issue. Not sure on roles and we are not data rich when it comes to groundwater. This is the weakest part of local water plans.

6

http://freshwater.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/FWS-Farm-to-Stream-16Feb15.pdf

· Water retention on the landscape should be a future priority for the Council. Some watersheds require one-inch retention of rain events for development projects. Could have more of this concept in rural areas. There is growing interest in this topic.

· Recommend that the Council consider funding a pilot program that could be translated statewide. League of Minnesota Cities - Craig Johnson, Intergovernmental Relations Representative · I have no idea if we are going to meet the expectations of citizens. But all the water quality

impairments will not be gone in 25 years. But will this be considered a failure? Maybe. It depends how we tell the story about our successes.

· The League of Minnesota Cities’ 2015 Legislative Policies (see SD-61) includes impaired waters. Ongoing concern from a city perspective is that if there are new requirements on cities – stormwater, wastewater and drinking water – we need to make sure regulations will really make a difference and there is adequate funding available. The caps on grants for infrastructure through the CWF may need to be changed. New water quality requirements will have real economic consequences. The 50% match requirement is very hard for smaller cities.

· Point sources have been under the microscope for a long time and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) studies require changes to our permits for implementation. Annual reports show how we are doing on our permits. These are real financial burdens for cities. But we don’t hear anything like this for the nonpoint side. We do not support a position that requires regulation for nonpoint source pollution but we do believe there needs to be better performance from other sectors.

· There should be more base funding from the General Fund for water. Agencies need to ask for their base funding from the General Fund.

· CWF is not a project-based fund. There is a need to continue to educate the Legislature about this. · CWF dollars need to go to on-the-ground projects that will make the most difference in water

quality not just good proposals. Need to see improvements. Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy - Kris Sigford, Water Quality Director · Will citizen expectations be achieved for clean water? No, not on current trajectory. Scale of change

needed is tremendous and the results are non-stellar. Expectations are that the CWF dollars are well-used and there are water quality outcomes. We have reduced phosphorus from point sources and increased our understanding of the problems through LiDAR, etc. But we are still seeing severe algae blooms, having water supply and drinking water problems. Doesn’t seem like there is attention paid to the impaired waters list and progress on those waters.

· First recommendation is to enforce existing buffer, feedlot, and septic system laws. These are a very efficient way to protect water quality.

· Another recommendation is to avoid making private costs public. Examples are funding septic system upgrades, removing homes from sewer systems, capping private wells, fixing open feedlots, and funding buffers where they just need to comply with existing law. There are some cases where these fees are appropriate.

· We also recommend maximizing big ticket investments – need to expect more of TMDLs/WRAPS. We need to know from these plans what we need to do, where, what the scale is that is needed, and be able to track our progress. We are pouring a lot of resources into these plans and they need to be more specific. For example, you shouldn’t just say buffers are needed but where and how many acres and what the cost will be compared to the effectiveness (e.g. $/ton of sediment reduced). Some water quality problems are not being addressed in WRAPS. Altered hydrology and drainage are not addressed in these plans.

7

http://lmc.org/page/1/legislative-policies.jsp

· Recommend that agencies identify waters in need of protection. Current practice is that all waters that are not impaired should be protected. But protection targets should be focused on waterbodies that show a decline in water chemistry or biology and/or if there is development planned in riparian areas. Can use the zonation model to help inform this work.

· Recommendation for the Council to make strong and specific “RFPs” before accepting agency draft requests, particularly for nonpoint source implementation funding. These need to be aligned with WRAPS and nutrient reduction strategy goals. There is a step between making a general guiding principle and budget recommendations. Ask agencies to respond to the Council’s larger ideas. Council needs to keep the focus on the intent of the CWF.

· Encourage the Council to continue to make policy recommendations. Consider policy options that require a basic “standard of care” for crop agriculture and watershed governance options to deliver water quality goals for the agricultural sector.

The Nature Conservancy - Richard Biske, Freshwater Conservation Program Director · The answer to whether voter’s expectations will be met is it depends on whose expectations are

being measured. Don’t think we will get there but Minnesota is well-positioned to make achievements for water. There is good talent and good effort but also serious challenges for both restoration and protection. Our activities need to reflect the appropriate scale.

· We can’t lose sight of how important protection is. It is much cheaper to prevent impairments with a more modest social or financial investment. We need to protect healthy watersheds before they degrade. Healthy land equals healthy waters.

· Securing our drinking water equals conserving forests. Forest conservation is key. Some watersheds are more important for drinking water than others (note map shows importance for drinking water and wildlife). The true value of natural lands may not be known – they are overlooked until they are gone.

· Recommend developing conservation blueprints for healthy watersheds. We can prioritize watersheds for protection and identify critical zones within these. Improve outreach, technical assistance, and activities on private natural areas. And protect, enhance, and restore critical watershed infrastructure. Need a concise plan to move forward.

· There may not be enough funding to do both restoration and protection so if you have to choose, investing in protection makes sense. But TNC is not committing to a specific percentage that should be used for protection. We know if we act in specific geographic areas we can have an impact. If we try to protect waters that are closer to impairment that might not be as successful.

· We know what watersheds are at risk for forest conversion, irrigated agriculture, population growth, and climate change. We know where the threats are.

· In summary, we can (1) improve our precision of watershed plans for protection and restoration, (2) ensure existing natural infrastructure at risk is protected for land, water and people, (3) direct public and private funding and resources toward protecting and enhancing critical natural infrastructure before it is lost and restoration becomes too costly, and (4) utilize a Return on Investment approach.

Minnesota Association of Townships (MAT) - Gary Pedersen, Executive Director · MAT policies for clean water are to support BWSR’s Wetlands Banking Program. We would like to

modify the replacement ratios to be 1:1. · MAT wants funding for septic and stormwater discharge infrastructure and we need flexibility to

address problems. Rural areas are skeptical of the “one-size fits all” mandates. SSTS regulations should not create artificial failing systems and we need flexible SSTS policies. MS4 policies should be tiered.

8

· Culvert replacement required for environmental enhancement should not be paid for with road funds.

· Funding for noxious weed training and enforcement should be restored. No net loss of tax base. Towns don’t need any additional unfunded mandates.

· What needs to be done differently to deliver successful results? Need to tone down the “us” versus “them” rhetoric. Simply acquiring more land is not the answer. Need true local involvement of citizens.

Adam Birr, Minnesota Corn Growers Association and Minnesota Corn Research & Promotion Council · I represent two organizations which meet together. These Minnesota organizations are the second

largest in the United States. · Fir the two questions posed by the Clean Water Council (Council) about if clean water will be

achieved and what needs to be done differently - there is common ground in our responses and those of other groups that came before the Council. The differences are more in the details about how to implement these ideas. There is more common ground than is perceived.

· Will the State meet clean water goals? We need to define the goals and identify if they are shared goals and then work to meet them. Buffer discussion is encouraging: positive comments on behalf of the farmers that they do care about water quality and want to work with Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD). No one said they don’t like buffers or that they don’t care about water quality – but they may have other ideas about what practices would work on their property.

· Sometimes the media pits groups against the other – don’t believe that we need to be adversarial. Appreciates the dialog and invitation to speak at today’s meeting.

· Problem with the goals is that they change. The buffer discussions emerged as pheasant habitat—then the goals appeared to change to water quality. They are the same, but the inconsistency of the message creates mistrust.

· Challenge in sharing the message about water goals is that if we talk about statewide nitrogen reduction or hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico or One Watershed, One Plan (1W1P) – all of these are hard to translate for the individual farmer. Need to relate these goals in a scale they can relate to.

· Sustainability and Best Management Practices (BMP) have to have an economic component included in the discussion. Certainly environmental sustainability is important; however, so is economic sustainability. Cannot farm over a hundred years and not be sustainable.

· Lots of reports relate conditions to current standards. Certainly this is important, but there is trend data that individual constituents have made progress. Need to communicate these individual successes to the farmers. Funding the monitoring is very important to show these trends. Agencies need to use the right metrics to show this progress. Some of this falls on the agricultural community too. There are opportunities to track practices over time.

· Need more reporting from the on the usefulness of buffers and grassed waterways to show how they reduce pollutants. But many farmers are putting these in privately and not getting credit for them. Some of the recent public discussion seemed to imply that we are starting conservation from scratch and that is resented and not true. Need to highlight the progress which has been made.

· Everyone needs to understand that these are complicated systems and monitoring needs to occur at multiple scales.

· What could be done differently? The Council holds lots of power and you know these funds won’t be enough to meet the goals and expectation. But the funds are still sizable and have and will

9

change how we manage the water for the State. We started with Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) focused projects and now have included Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (WRAPS) and 1W1P and these are great transitions. Applaud the work.

· Small watershed projects are good – these are on a tangible scale for farmers such as the Root River and County Ditch 57 projects. Growers put in many different practices and we can look at results together. Need to look at this type of model of engaging at this smaller scale and not treat these as pilot projects.

· Farmer-led efforts show that there is always an individual who is key to implementing the process. SWCDs may not be trusted by a particular group while maybe someone at National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) could be. Depends on personalities.

· The Council should look for ways to route funds through nontraditional groups. For example, why not have conservation consultants – people farmers trust and it could be private sector.

· We need to build local capacity and not just fund the projects. The SWCDs are busy grant writing and short staffed. Need hard funding for consistent staffing and focus. Worried they are spending too much time being grant administrators and have no time to engage the growers.

· Be mindful of the return on investment. Need to bring goals to the farm scale. · We need meaningful engagement with farmers. What does not work is inflammatory comments,

posting pictures on social media, and calling out individuals. Regulation is often cited and it has a role but is challenging. Weather changes how well practices work. Regulation takes away the creativity of practices to adapt to different situations. Need to start with existing regulations and examine what works, what’s enforced, and look at the scientific evidence.

· Minnesota Corn Growers are committed to finding solutions. Last year half our funds were invested in third party research, not all environmentally related, but much toward input management and a lot for treatment strategies. They hired me to be their Executive Director and I have a Ph.D. in Water Resources Science so that shows a commitment to the environment.

· When the Governor was holding press conferences on buffers, farmers where interested in discussing alternative practices that would work in addition to or instead of buffers.

· If the growers understand the water quality problem how do we get them to implement practices? There is no simple answer. A level of awareness is there now that hasn’t been in the past. Farmers need to see where progress is being made and how this is tracked. Comes down to individual relationships at the local levels. University of Minnesota Extension Service used to fill this role. We need people in place.

· Seemed like the vibe of the buffer meetings varied by location. Was helpful to have certain farmers boasting about how their own practices have worked. Farmers talking to farmers works.

· How does your organization get the message out that you are committed to clean water? Doesn’t this financially hinder your organization? No, never heard that in our Board Room. Certainly the economics for individual farmer are a concern, but not for the organization.

· We need to really highlight the number of folks doing conservation work. The perception is if you’re not the superstar of conservation implementing cutting edge research, you’re not a real conservationist and producers downplay their roles. This needs to change.

· Again, need to understand the trends and what the goals mean for individual farmers and show the successes to date. They need to understand what their part is.

· The state is having an honest conversation about water usage now. What is analogous to the farmer? What does the farmer have that the end of the year to evaluate his/her efforts?

10

· It is a struggle about how to related edge of field findings with statewide trends. Data from the Discovery Farms efforts have really helped. Technological tools with instantaneous feedback help us tell if we are applying fertilizer at optimal levels. We need to partner with industry on these emerging tools for metrics and feedback especially for pollutants like nitrogen.

Minnesota Soybean Growers Association and Minnesota Soybean Research & Promotion Council - Joe Smentek · I also work for two organizations. However, these groups were set up by United States Department

of Agriculture (USDA). We collect dues on each bushel of soybeans which is around $16 million/year and half of that funding goes to the National Board. For the Minnesota Soybean Research & Promotion Council the funds are collected and we cannot use that funding to lobby or influence legislation. The Minnesota Soybean Growers Association is a member-based voluntary organization that can influence the legislature. We are the largest soybean association in the United States.

· We see water quality as a big issue. The challenges are how the growers are presented. For example, the large report on buffers didn’t document with they are missing with photos. Some of these areas had exemptions because they have approved conservation plan. For ditches, if the county has not gone through a redetermination of benefits these do not currently require buffers. Presenting growers as criminals is not conducive to a productive partnership.

· Also, there is not a general consensus in the agricultural community. Almost all care about water, but there are many farmers with many differences in opinions.

· Farmers have changed their practices and wonder why this isn’t reflected in the water quality. They see nitrogen and phosphorus as a big input cost. Even those who may not be concerned about water quality or pheasants are financially motivated to keep these on the land.

· A producer may have put in terraces to reduce erosion but didn’t view these as a conservation measures. He saw this as land preservation for his own family. It was not cost shared or part of a practice; therefore, not counted as progress toward conservation.

· I voted for the legacy amendment. I expected clean water, not reports and programs. Commissioner Stine said it would cost $1 billion to deal with flooding near North Dakota. I didn’t vote to stop flooding in North Dakota, I wanted clean water.

· There isn’t much flux in the finances for growers. · Back in the 1970s farmers applied more nitrogen and manure to see if that made yields higher.

Farmers understand now, that at a certain point, there is no difference. Just higher input cost. So in the 1990s they applied less nitrogen so why didn’t this help the water. How is nitrogen mobilizing? Note that nitrogen is not used on soybeans. But look at the tiling in farm fields – could this be causing nitrogen mobilization? Need to connect this to a bigger picture.

· If you want people to farm a different way need practices that are proven and that will not hurt their profits.

· The state has seen $15 million decrease of funding to University of Minnesota (UMN). This is a drag on research and limits collaboration. One example is cover crop research. Need to show profitability to growers. Could use Clean Water Fund (CWF) dollars to measure water quality benefits.

· Another project the UMN is looking at involves nitrogen and water quality related to drain tiles and soybean production. Again, CWF dollars used for program such as Discovery Farms to provide edge of field monitoring is important to measure results.

11

· Five years ago our membership would have disagreed with these other organizations. But there is some common ground. There is a great need for enforcement of current rules. Farmers mostly follow the rules and do not like it when the other farmers don’t – need an even playing field. The SWCDs aren’t interested in doing enforcement and county to county enforcement varies.

· Farmers were very frustrated because they are unable to get the funding to do buffers. An example was that a farmer had 14,000 acres in Reinvest in Minnesota (RIM) and Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), applied to add buffers to their fields and was denied each time. Not the farmers fault. This needs to be addressed.

· There has been a low engagement of farmers in TMDL/WRAPS projects. We are attempting to change this are working to develop a WRAPS handbook to demystify the process. Need to make clear what is needed from farmer.

· We all have the same goals – we need nutrients and sediment on the field, not in the water. Just bringing up water quality turns off the farmer, they are trying to do the right thing. Need to work together and put it in terms the farmer understands. The UMN portrayed soil loss as a dying layer of soil each year—soil erosion didn’t connect as much to the farmer. Put the message as a value of fertility loss in dollars and they get that.

· Message of water quality is not communicated in a way that grabs their attention. But if it is portrayed as excess nutrients and top soil going down the drain that makes a difference.

· Need to get message on the level of the farmer’s field. Nutrient Reduction report was done at a large scale but needs to scale down to what it means to individual farms. Agree with Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy (MCEA) that reports need to show the costs/benefits and return on investment at that scale.

· What does a 50 foot buffer do on a field where the USDA says 10 foot is what is needed? Need to look at the engineering aspect.

· Farmers are very busy and many are already involved in many local organizations so we need to get the message out in short sound bites. Need to boil down the information and make it useful.

· Hard for local farmers to attend WRAPS meetings. They don’t want to go and get criticized. We are encouraging them to engage and emphasize that they know their farm operation. They are too busy to go to all these meetings so find other ways to reach them – webinars, social media, etc.

· How receptive are farmers to field level monitoring? That is touchy and depends if the monitoring is through the Discovery Farms Program it would be okay but not just State monitoring because they are cautious about sharing operational data which could be used against them. And then when we have a 100-year flood event. Seems like the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency defends cities and sewage bypasses but the same consideration isn’t provided for agriculture. One storm event can change the data for the entire year. Discovery Farms data showed an 80% nutrient and sediment loss in one rain event. When pictures from one event are used, it is not a fair or level playing field. There is a lot of distrust of state monitoring data.

· What is the cost per acre for farmers to put in buffers? Unknown. Loss of tillable land for farmers will be a decrease in profits. But so many things influence crop prices so it is hard to estimate it. What will be the environmental benefit? Depends on buffer’s quality – whether it is a weed bed or the ground is sloped. Too many variables. There might be an easier way to promote the idea of buffers if we could understand the real value of clean water, habitat, soil loss, and economic input. For example, we know home construction costs so many dollars per square foot on average.

12

· Some of the criticism that comes up from the producers about buffers is what about the other options that may be more effective or better and cost less. There are real costs to giving up land. They have to continue to pay high taxes at “high use” levels and not get a profit from this land.

· Where are we going with the cover crop, etc.? Where are the opportunities? There is pushback that the problem is just due to drainage – there are a host of factors such as climate that is driving water quality changes too. To say we know definitively everything that is causing the water quality problems is not right. There is not just one solution – consider nutrient management, cover crops, and non-corn based biofuels – all of these in combination can make progress. Policies put forth by the Great Plains Institute relating to biofuels worth looking into.

· Growing cover crops in northern climates such as Minnesota is often difficult because of the short growing season. Need more hardy plants because we can’t extrapolate across plant hardiness zones. Rye grass after silage corn was successful in Stearns County. Not a huge market for alfalfa and hay. Pennycress and semolina can be successful for the oil seeds and biofuel. Some areas have provided a subsidy for growing cover crops but they don’t establish well so need to look at genetics. Pennycress sits dormant in the soil and grows about when soybeans and corn is harvested. However the big sticking point is that federal crop insurance will void coverage if there are cover crops present in the field.

· Edge of field monitoring is very helpful but expensive and needs to be voluntary. Worried it will be extrapolated in dangerous ways since these are such a small scale. But this level of monitoring also engages the public which is important. Minnesota Department of Agriculture has less CWF dollars for this program now but we heard today that this is important.

· Programs that leverage private dollars such as the Discovery Farms Program is important. · Decline of UMN Extension Services at the local level has made it harder to reach out to farmers. Will be presenting to the Clean Water Council in July: MN Farmers Union

13

10 Year Cycle

Ongoing Local Implementation

Monitoring and Assessment

Characterization & Problem

Investigation

Restoration and Protection

Strategy Development

Comprehensive Watershed

Management Plan

Connecting state programs

with local leadership

7/9/15

Clean Water Council By-Laws

Clean Water Council (Council) Purpose The Clean Water Council was created to advise on the administration and implementation of MN Statutes Chapter 114D, the Clean Water Legacy Act, and foster coordination and cooperation as described in section MN Statutes Chapter 114D.20, subdivision 1. The Council may also advise on the development of appropriate processes for expert scientific review as described in MN Statutes Chapter 114D.35, subdivision 2. Council Member Conduct Council members have a duty to act in good faith and with complete accuracy, candor, truthfulness and disclosure in all formal or informal discussions, communications or related actions between any members of the Council. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair The Council shall elect from its voting members a chair and vice-chair. Elected chair and vice-chair will serve one two-year term, beginning in January. The Council shall use the methods of nomination and elections consistent with Robert’s Rules of Order, and in compliance with Minnesota Open Meeting Law, as outlined below. Election Process: (Process to be followed separately; first for election of Chair and subsequently, election of Vice-Chair)

1. Council members submit nominees to Chair prior to election. 2. Current Chair may designate another Council member to facilitate the election of Chair. 3. Chair or designee presents list of nominees for Chair/Vice-Chair to the Council. There is no vote

taken on accepting this list of nominees, these nominations are treated as if made by members from the floor.

4. Chair or designee opens floor for further nominations for Chair/Vice-Chair. 5. Council member makes verbal nomination, nominees name is noted. Nomination need not be

seconded. 6. Chair or designee seeks any further nominations. 7. Chair or designee seeks motion to close nominations. Council members makes a motion, motion

is seconded by another Council member. 8. Chair or designee calls for a vote on the motion to close nominations. 9. When the Council votes on closing the floor for nominations, Council then proceeds to the

election. a) If there are no nominees for the position of Chair/Vice-Chair, the Council shall vote on continuing the term of the current Chair/Vice-Chair. b) When there is one nominee for Chair/Vice-Chair: Chair or designee calls for a vote to elect this individual to the position. If majority of Council members vote in favor, nominee is elected as Chair/Vice-Chair. c) When there are multiple nominations: Chair or designee calls for a vote for each nominee. Each Council member may only vote once. Council member may vote for him/herself. A member has the right to change his/her vote up to the time the vote is finally announced. Nominee with the majority vote is elected to the position.

10. Chair or designee announces who is elected as Chair/Vice-Chair, their effective starting date (typically January), and length of term (typically 2 years from start date).

Page 1 of 4

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=114D.30





7/9/15

The powers and duties of the Chair shall be as follows: 1. To preside as Chair at all meetings of the Council. 2. To see that the laws of the State, pertaining to the purpose and functions of the Council, the

resolutions of the Council and its policies are faithfully observed and executed. 3. To call special meetings of the Council, on his/her own initiative, or upon request of three or

more members. 4. To serve on the Steering Committee.

The powers and duties of the Vice-Chair shall be as follows:

1. To perform the Chair’s duties at regularly scheduled or special Council meetings whenever the Chair is absent.

2. To handle Council business on behalf of the Chair whenever illness or personal matters prevent the Chair from handling Council business outside of regularly scheduled or special Council meetings.

3. To serve on the Steering Committee. Whenever the Chair and Vice-Chair are both absent from any regularly scheduled meeting, his/her duties shall be performed by another member of the Council as determined at the beginning of a meeting. Council Organization

1. The Steering Committee and the Budget and Outcomes Committee are standing committees.

2. A Steering Committee will consist of the following members: § Chair § Vice-Chair § Past Chair (two-year term on Committee) § Agency representatives on the Council § Budget and Outcomes Committee Chair and Vice-Chair § Agency staff

The Steering Committee plans meetings and other activities as designated by the Chair or Council. The Steering Committee is accountable to the Council.

3. The Budget and Outcomes Committee shall consist of a minimum of four voting members and a maximum of a non-majority of the current seated voting Council members. The Budget and Outcomes Committee: § Prepares initial input on budget recommendations to Council; § Reviews existing measurable outcomes information to show effectiveness of

accomplishments; § Is accountable and advisory to the full Council; and § Elects its own Chair and Vice-Chair. Membership of this Committee is reviewed every two years. If the number of members interested in serving on the Budget and Outcomes Committee exceeds a non-majority of voting members, the Council Chair will decide who will serve on this Committee. If a Committee member misses more than three consecutive Budget and Outcomes Committee meetings, the Council Chair may replace this person at his/her discretion.

The powers and duties of the Budget and Outcomes Committee Chair shall be as follows: § To set the agenda for Committee meetings. § To preside as Chair at all Committee meetings.

Page 2 of 4

7/9/15

§ To serve on the Council's Steering Team. § To coordinate with the Clean Water Fund Interagency Coordination Team. § To discuss Council recommendations with the Legislature and Governor (in coordination

with the Council Chair and Vice-Chair). § To call special meetings of the Committee.

The powers and duties of the Budget and Outcomes Committee Vice-Chair shall be as follows: § To perform the Committee Chair’s duties at regularly scheduled or special Committee

meetings whenever the Committee Chair is absent. § To handle Committee business on behalf of the Committee Chair whenever illness or

personal matters prevent the Committee Chair from handling Committee business outside of regularly scheduled or special Committee meetings.

§ To serve on the Steering Committee.

4. Administrative Support: The Pollution Control Agency and the other state agencies represented on the Council shall provide administrative support for the Council, as appropriate.

Council Procedures § Council Decisions - All formal actions of the Council shall be made at open public meetings. A

simple majority vote of the voting Council members present at the meeting, at which a quorum has been established, is needed to take formal action. Agency and legislative representatives on the Council are non-voting members.

§ Quorum - A simple majority of seated voting Council members constitutes a quorum. § Record of Decisions - The Council shall use meeting minutes or resolutions to transmit a record

of its formal actions. Upon their adoption, copies of the resolutions shall be sent to affected parties/organizations. Resolutions shall be kept on file and shall be made available to the public.

§ Speaking on Behalf of the Council - Members speaking on behalf of the Clean Water Council may speak only in terms of ideas or resolutions supported and agreed upon by the Council, either by a formal vote, resolution or supported in discussion at a regularly scheduled Council meeting.

§ Legislative Input - Members of the Clean Water Council may not be registered lobbyists. Communication with the legislature is limited to providing information on Council matters, and submittal of the legislative reports, specified in MN Statutes Chapter 114D.30.

Council Meetings § Frequency and location - Regular Council meetings shall be held the third Monday of the

month, on a monthly basis, unless determined otherwise. When the third Monday falls on a holiday, the Council shall meet the fourth Monday of that month. Meetings will be held in St. Paul, unless determined otherwise.

§ Accessibility to the Public – Meetings of the Council shall be held at facilities that are readily accessible to the public. All regular Council meetings and work group meetings shall be open to the public.

§ Public Information – Information regarding regular Council meetings, meeting minutes and meeting agendas will be available on the Clean Water Council website.

§ Public Input - The Council welcomes public input on matters relevant to Council work. Members of the public may comment at Council meetings during specified times, as the agenda allows. Time for public comment is under the discretion of the Council chair.

§ Agendas - The Council chair, in collaboration with the Steering Committee, shall establish the agenda for Council meetings. The chair shall provide an opportunity to obtain Council member input at each meeting regarding the substance of future Council agendas.

§ Rules of Order - Robert’s Rules of Order shall be the parliamentary authority for all matters of procedure of this Council not otherwise covered in these By-Laws. In the event of conflicts

Page 3 of 4


http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/about-mpca/mpca-overview/councils-and-forums/clean-water-council/index.html

7/9/15

between Robert’s Rules of Order and the Minnesota Open Meeting Law or Data Practices Act, the Minnesota law requirements shall prevail.

The Council’s duties, membership, appointment, conflict of interest, implementation plan, recommendations on appropriations of funds, biennial report to the legislature, and vacancies are specified in MN Statutes Chapter 114D.30. The Council members’ terms, compensation, and removal are specified in MN Statutes Chapter 114D.30 and MN Statutes Chapter 15.059. The procedure to be used by Council members for requesting and receiving payment of per diem and expenses is identified in the Council Per Diem and Expenses Policy document.

Changes to By-Laws

Any additions, deletions or revisions to the approved Clean Water Council By-Laws must be submitted as an amendment in writing for discussion and consideration at a meeting of the Council prior to approval by the Council at a subsequent meeting.

Page 4 of 4



https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=15.059

Clean Water Council

Conflict of Interest policy

3/19/2012

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 114D.30, a Clean Water Council member may not

participate in or vote on a decision of the Council relating to an organization in which the

member has either a direct or indirect personal financial interest. While serving on the Council, a

member shall avoid any potential conflict of interest.

The Clean Water Council seeks to operate in accordance with high ethical standards and wishes

to establish clear guidelines for the ethical conduct of Council business. Ensuring that conflicts

of interest do not affect Council proceedings is an essential element of maintaining high ethical

standards. Therefore, to supplement and specify its commitment to compliance with the Ethics in

Government Act, Minnesota Statutes section 10A.07, the Council adopts the following conflict

of interest policies:

a. Annual policy review. At the beginning of each calendar year, Council members

will review the conflict of interest policy in concert with the annual Council by-

law review.

b. Policy distribution. All new members will receive a copy of the conflict of

interest policy and the potential conflict of interest disclosure form.

c. Disclosure of conflicts. At each Council meeting, Council members will disclose

if they have any actual or perceived conflicts of interest with agenda items. A

Council member who has a personal financial interest, or other private interest or

relationship that limits the member’s ability objectively to consider, deliberate or

vote, in a matter scheduled to come before the Council must prepare a written

wq-cwc1-01

wq-cwc1-01

statement on the form provided by the Council describing the matter requiring

action and the nature of the potential conflict. The member affected will deliver

the statement to the chair of the Council (or if the chair is so disclosing, to the

vice-chair) prior to the Council’s consideration of or taking action on the matter.

If a potential conflict arises and a member does not have sufficient time to prepare

a written statement, the member must orally inform the Council prior to

discussion of the matter.

d. Abstention. A member must abstain from chairing any meeting, participating in

any vote, offering any motion, or participating in any discussion on any matter

that may substantially affect the member’s financial interests or those of an

associated business or family member, unless the effect on the member is no more

than on any other member of the Council member’s business classification,

profession or occupation. Members must also abstain from chairing any meeting,

participating in any discussion, offering any motion, or voting on any matter in

which a private interest or relationship of the member limits the member’s ability

objectively to consider, deliberate or vote. The member’s nonparticipation in the

matter will be recorded in the minutes.

Clean Water Council Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 114D.30 and 10A.07, this form gives Clean Water Council (Council) members an opportunity to disclose any actual, potential or perceived conflicts of interest that exist during the Council budget recommendation process. It is the Council member’s obligation to disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest. The Council member is not required to explain the reason for the conflict of interest as this form is considered public data. Once completed, this form will be kept on file by Council staff. A disclosure does not automatically result in the Council member being removed from the budget recommendation process. Please read the definition of conflict of interest below and mark the appropriate boxes that pertain to you and your status as a Clean Water Council member, making recommendations for funding from the Clean Water Fund. Description of conflicts of interest - A conflict of interest shall be deemed to exist when a review of the situation by the Council member or other agency personnel determines any one of the following conditions to be present: (a) A Council member uses his/her status or position to obtain special advantage, benefit, or access to a Clean Water Fund appropriation recipient’s time, services, facilities, equipment, supplies, badge, uniform, prestige, or influence. (b) A Council member receives or accepts money or anything else of value from a Clean Water Fund appropriation recipient or has equity or a financial interest in or partial or whole ownership of an appropriation recipient organization. (c) A Council member is an employee or board member of a Clean Water Fund appropriation recipient agency or organization, or is a family member of anyone involved in a Clean Water Fund appropriation recipient agency or appropriation recipient organization. o I certify that I have read and understand the description of conflict of interest above and

(check one of the four boxes below):

o I DO NOT have any conflicts of interest and I will participate in the budget recommendation process.

AND/OR o I have an ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL conflict of interest. I will still participate in the

budget recommendation process and I will abstain from discussing and making decisions on any issues in relation to the agencies/organizations listed below. (The Council member may state any and all agencies or organizations with which they have a conflict of interest and describe the nature of the conflict in the space below, but it is not required since this form is considered public information.)

Page 1 of 2 Conflict of Interest Form

https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=114D&view=chapter

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=10A.07

Describe Here:

AND/OR o I have a possible PERCEIVED conflict of interest. (Describe the nature of the

perceived conflict of interest.)

Describe Here:

AND/OR I am UNABLE to participate in this budget recommendation process.

If at any time during the budget recommendation process I discover a conflict of interest, I will disclose that conflict immediately to appropriate Council staff. Council member’s printed name: Council member’s signature: Date: 6/08

This section to be completed by Clean Water Council staff: I certify that the issue of Conflicts of Interest has been discussed with this Council member and the following actions have been taken: o Council member has no conflict(s) and will fully participate in the budget recommendation process.

o Council member has disclosed an actual, potential or perceived conflict(s) but will continue to

participate in the budget recommendation process. The Council member has been instructed to avoid discussing the potential Clean Water Fund appropriation recommendations from agencies/organizations with which the Council member has a conflict of interest.

o Council member has disclosed a conflict(s) and will not be participating in the budget recommendation

process in any manner.

o Council member has disclosed a conflict(s) and it has been mitigated in the following way:

Staff signature: Date:

Created: December 2011

1 LAWS of MINNESOTA Ch 42015 First Special Session


CHAPTER 4--S.F.No. 5

An act relating to state government; appropriating money for agriculture, environment,and natural resources; modifying public entity purchasing requirements; modifying solid wasteprovisions; modifying subsurface sewage treatment systems provisions; modifying Dry CleanerEnvironmental Response and Reimbursement Law; modifying environmental review; modifyingstructure of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency; modifying disposition of certain revenue;providing for temporary water surface use controls; providing for riparian buffers; providing forself-reporting of certain environmental violations; modifying compensable losses due to harmfulsubstances; modifying invasive species provisions; modifying landowners' bill of rights; modi-fying state parks and trails provisions; modifying recreational vehicle provisions; modifyingland sale and acquisition provisions; modifying forestry and timber provisions; modifying regu-lation of camper cabins and bunk houses; providing for all-terrain vehicle safety training indi-cation on drivers' licenses and identification cards; creating accounts; modifying certain grant,permit, and fee provisions; modifying Water Law; modifying personal flotation device provi-sions; regulating wake surfing; modifying game and fish laws; modifying metropolitan areawater supply planning provisions; regulating water quality standards; making policy and tech-nical changes to various agricultural related provisions, including provisions related to pesti-cides, plant protection, fertilizers, nursery law, seeds, dairy, food handlers, food, farmland,farming, and loans; authorizing the Industrial Hemp Development Act; modifying license exclu-sions for the direct sale of certain prepared food; establishing the agriculture research, educa-tion, extension, and technology transfer grant program; providing incentive payments; providinga vocational training pilot program; establishing the farm opportunity loan program; requiringstudies and reports; requiring rulemaking; providing criminal penalties;amending MinnesotaStatutes 2014, sections 3.737, by adding a subdivision; 13.643, subdivision 1; 16A.152, subdivi-sions 1b, 2; 16C.073, subdivision 2; 18B.01, subdivisions 28, 29; 18B.05, subdivision 1; 18B.32,subdivision 1; 18B.33, subdivision 1; 18B.34, subdivision 1; 18C.425, subdivision 6; 18C.70,subdivision 2; 18G.10, subdivisions 3, 4, 5; 18H.02, subdivision 20, by adding subdivisions;18H.06, subdivision 2; 18H.07; 18H.17; 18J.01; 18J.02; 18J.03; 18J.04, subdivisions 1, 2, 3,4; 18J.05, subdivisions 1, 2, 6; 18J.06; 18J.07, subdivisions 3, 4, 5; 18J.09; 18J.11, subdivi-sion 1, by adding a subdivision; 21.89, subdivision 2; 21.891, subdivisions 2, 5; 25.341, subdi-vision 2; 25.39, subdivisions 1, 1a; 32.075; 32.105; 41B.03, subdivision 6, by adding a subdi-vision; 41B.04, subdivision 17; 41B.043, subdivision 3; 41B.045, subdivisions 3, 4; 41B.046,subdivision 5; 41B.047, subdivisions 1, as amended, 3, as amended, 4; 41B.048, subdivision 6;41B.049, subdivision 4; 41B.055, subdivision 3; 41B.056, subdivision 2; 41B.06; 84.027, subdi-vision 13a; 84.0274, subdivisions 3, 5; 84.415, subdivision 7; 84.788, subdivision 5, by addinga subdivision; 84.82, subdivisions 2a, 6; 84.84; 84.92, subdivisions 8, 9, 10; 84.922, subdivision4; 84.925, subdivision 5; 84.9256, subdivision 1; 84.928, subdivision 1; 84D.01, subdivisions13, 15, 17, 18, by adding a subdivision; 84D.03, subdivision 3; 84D.06; 84D.10, subdivision 3;84D.11, subdivision 1; 84D.12, subdivisions 1, 3; 84D.13, subdivision 5; 84D.15, subdivision 3;85.015, subdivisions 7, 28, by adding subdivisions; 85.054, subdivision 12; 85.32, subdivision1; 86B.201, by adding a subdivision; 86B.313, subdivisions 1, 4; 86B.315; 86B.401, subdivi-sion 3; 87A.10; 88.17, subdivision 3; 88.49, subdivisions 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11; 88.491, subdivi-sion 2; 88.50; 88.51, subdivisions 1, 3; 88.52, subdivisions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6; 88.523; 88.53, subdivi-



provided it remains subject to use by the watershed district as necessary for flood control purposes. Notwith-standing section 16A.695, revenue received by the watershed district from the operation or lease of statebond financed property acquired for flood control purposes shall be retained by the district in a separateproject-specific account and used solely for flood control operation, maintenance, and replacement purposeswithin the related project area and, if the district determines that the account contains adequate reserves forfuture operation, maintenance, and replacement, any excess may be used for the construction, operation,maintenance, or replacement of other flood control projects as approved by the commissioner.

Sec. 77. Minnesota Statutes 2014, section 103F.421, subdivision 4, is amended to read:

Subd. 4. Application for cost-sharing funds. The landowner has 90 days after a mediated settlementis filed complaint is substantiated to apply for state cost-sharing funds that will provide 75 percent of thecost of the permanent conservation practices. Only 50 Fifty percent of the cost share will be provided if theapplication is not made within 90 days after the settlement is filed, unless the soil and water conservationdistrict or the board provides an extension. An extension must be granted if funds are not available. Thelandowner must apply for 50 percent of the cost share within 270 days after the mediated settlement is filed.

Sec. 78. Minnesota Statutes 2014, section 103F.421, is amended by adding a subdivision to read:

Subd. 6. Application of state and federal law. Nothing in this section is intended to preclude theapplication of other applicable state or federal law.

Sec. 79. [103F.48] RIPARIAN PROTECTION AND WATER QUALITY PRACTICES.

Subdivision 1. Definitions. (a) For the purposes of this section, the following terms have the meaningsgiven them.

(b) "Board" means the Board of Water and Soil Resources.

(c) "Buffer" means an area consisting of perennial vegetation, excluding invasive plants and noxiousweeds, adjacent to all bodies of water within the state and that protects the water resources of the state fromrunoff pollution; stabilizes soils, shores, and banks; and protects or provides riparian corridors.

(d) "Buffer protection map" means buffer maps established and maintained by the commissioner ofnatural resources.

(e) "Commissioner" means the commissioner of natural resources.

(f) "Executive director" means the executive director of the Board of Water and Soil Resources.

(g) "Local water management authority" means a watershed district, metropolitan water managementorganization, or county operating separately or jointly in its role as local water management authority underchapter 103B or 103D.

(h) "Normal water level" means the level evidenced by the long-term presence of surface water asindicated directly by hydrophytic plants or hydric soils or indirectly determined via hydrological modelsor analysis.

(i) "Public waters" has the meaning given in section 103G.005, subdivision 15.



Subd. 2. Purpose. It is the policy of the state to establish riparian buffers and water quality practices to:

(1) protect state water resources from erosion and runoff pollution;

(2) stabilize soils, shores, and banks; and

(3) protect or provide riparian corridors.

Subd. 3. Water resources riparian protection requirements on public waters and public drainagesystems. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), landowners owning property adjacent to a water bodyidentified and mapped on a buffer protection map must maintain a buffer to protect the state's water resourcesas follows:

(1) for all public waters, the more restrictive of:

(i) a 50-foot average width, 30-foot minimum width, continuous buffer of perennially rooted vegetation;or

(ii) the state shoreland standards and criteria adopted by the commissioner under section 103F.211; and

(2) for public drainage systems established under chapter 103E, a 16.5-foot minimum width continuousbuffer of perennially rooted vegetation on ditches within the benefited area of public drainage systems.

(b) A landowner owning property adjacent to a water body identified in a buffer protection map andwhose property is used for cultivation farming may meet the requirements under paragraph (a) by adoptingan alternative riparian water quality practice, or combination of structural, vegetative, and managementpractices, based on the Natural Resources Conservation Service Field Office Technical Guide or otherpractices approved by the board, that provide water quality protection comparable to the buffer protectionfor the water body that the property abuts.

(c) The width of a buffer must be measured from the top or crown of the bank. Where there is no definedbank, measurement must be from the edge of the normal water level.

(d) Upon request by a landowner or authorized agent or operator of a landowner, a technical professionalemployee or contractor of the soil and water conservation district or its delegate may issue a validation ofcompliance with the requirements of this subdivision. The soil and water conservation district validationmay be appealed to the board as described in subdivision 9.

(e) Buffers or alternative water quality practices required under paragraph (a) or (b) must be in placeon or before:

(1) November 1, 2017, for public waters; and

(2) November 1, 2018, for public drainage systems.

Subd. 4. Local water resources riparian protection. On or before July 1, 2017, the soil and waterconservation district shall develop, adopt, and submit to each local water management authority within itsboundary a summary of watercourses for inclusion in the local water management authority's plan. A localwater management authority that receives a summary of watercourses identified under this subdivision mustrevise its comprehensive local water management plan or comprehensive watershed management plan toincorporate the soil and water conservation district recommendations.



Subd. 5. Exemptions. Land adjacent to waters subject to subdivision 3 is exempt from the water resourceprotection requirements under subdivision 3, to the extent these exemptions are not inconsistent with therequirements of the state shoreland rules adopted by the commissioner pursuant to section 103F.211, if it is:

(1) enrolled in the federal Conservation Reserve Program;

(2) used as a public or private water access or recreational use area including stairways, landings, picnicareas, access paths, beach and watercraft access areas, and permitted water-oriented structures as providedin the shoreland model standards and criteria adopted pursuant to section 103F.211 or as provided for in anapproved local government shoreland ordinance;

(3) covered by a road, trail, building, or other structures; or

(4) regulated by a national pollutant discharge elimination system/state disposal system (NPDES/SDS)permit under Minnesota Rules, chapter 7090, and provides water resources riparian protection, in any ofthe following categories:

(i) municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4);

(ii) construction storm water (CSW); or

(iii) industrial storm water (ISW);

(5) part of a water-inundation cropping system; or

(6) in a temporary nonvegetated condition due to drainage tile installation and maintenance, alfalfa orother perennial crop or plant seeding, or construction or conservation projects authorized by a federal, state,or local government unit.

Subd. 6. Local implementation and assistance. (a) Soil and water conservation districts must assistlandowners with implementation of the water resource riparian protection requirements established inthis section. For the purposes of this subdivision, assistance includes planning, technical assistance, im-plementation of approved alternative practices, and tracking progress towards compliance with the re-quirements.

(b) The commissioner or the board must provide sufficient funding to soil and water conservationdistricts to implement this section.

Subd. 7. Corrective actions. (a) If the soil and water conservation district determines a landowner isnot in compliance with this section, the district must notify the county or watershed district with jurisdictionover the noncompliant site. The county or watershed district must provide the landowner with a list ofcorrective actions needed to come into compliance and a practical timeline to meet the requirements inthis section. The county or watershed district with jurisdiction must provide a copy of the corrective actionnotice to the board.

(b) If the landowner does not comply with the list of actions and timeline provided, the county orwatershed district may enforce this section under the authority granted in section 103B.101, subdivision 12a.Before exercising this authority, a county or watershed district must adopt a plan containing procedures forthe issuance of administrative penalty orders and may issue orders beginning November 1, 2017. If a countyor watershed district with jurisdiction over the noncompliant site has not adopted a plan under this paragraph,the board may enforce this section under the authority granted in section 103B.101, subdivision 12a.



(c) If the county, watershed district, or board determines that sufficient steps have been taken to fullyresolve noncompliance, all or part of the penalty may be forgiven.

(d) An order issued under paragraph (b) may be appealed to the board as provided under subdivision 9.

(e) A corrective action is not required for conditions resulting from a flood or other act of nature.

(f) A landowner agent or operator of a landowner may not remove or willfully degrade a riparian bufferor water quality practice, wholly or partially, unless the agent or operator has obtained a signed statementfrom the property owner stating that the permission for the work has been granted by the unit of governmentauthorized to approve the work in this section or that a buffer or water quality practice is not required asvalidated by the soil and water conservation district. Removal or willful degradation of a riparian buffer orwater quality practice, wholly or partially, by an agent or operator is a separate and independent offense andmay be subject to the corrective actions and penalties in this subdivision.

Subd. 8. Funding subject to withholding. The state may withhold funding from a local watermanagement authority or a soil and water conservation district that fails to implement this section. Fundingsubject to withholding includes soil and water program aid, a natural resources block grant, and other projector program funding. Funding may be restored upon the board's approval of a corrective action plan.

Subd. 9. Appeals of validations and penalty orders. A landowner or agent or operator may appeal theterms and conditions of a soil and water conservation district validation or an administrative penalty order tothe board within 30 days of receipt of written or electronic notice of the validation or order. The request forappeal must be in writing. The appealing party must provide a copy of the validation or order that is beingappealed, the basis for the appeal, and any supporting evidence. The request for appeal may be submittedpersonally, by first class mail, or electronically to the executive director. If a written or electronic request forappeal is not submitted within 30 days, the validation or order is final. The executive director shall review therequest and supporting evidence and issue a decision within 60 days of receipt of an appeal. The executivedirector's decision is appealable directly to the Court of Appeals pursuant to sections 14.63 to 14.69.

Subd. 10. Landowner financial assistance and public drainage system procedure. (a) A landowneror drainage authority may contact the soil and water conservation district for information on how to applyfor local, state, or federal cost-share grants, contracts, or loans that are available to establish buffers or otherwater resource protection measures.

(b) The provisions of sections 103E.011, subdivision 5; 103E.021, subdivision 6; and 103E.715 maybe used in advance or retroactively to acquire or provide compensation for all or part of the buffer stripestablishment or alternative riparian water quality practices as required under subdivision 3, paragraph (a),within the benefited area of a public drainage system. Implementation of this subdivision is not subject tolimitation of project costs to the current benefits adopted for the drainage system.

Subd. 11. State lands. This section applies to the state and its departments and agencies.


Subd. 2. Application. (a) A wetland owner may apply to the county where a wetland is located fordesignation of a wetland preservation area in a high priority wetland area identified in a comprehensive localwater plan, as defined in section 103B.3363, subdivision 3, and located within a high priority wetland regiondesignated by the Board of Water and Soil Resources, if the county chooses to accept wetland preservation

MINNESOTA’S BUFFER INITIATIVE

JOHN JASCHKE, BOARD OF WATER AND SOIL RESOURCES

SARAH STROMMEN, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

CLEAN WATER COUNCIL July 20, 2015

January 2015

Governor Dayton announces Buffer Initiative

June 2015

Governor Dayton signs bill containing Buffer Initiative language

OVERVIEW

• The Problem

• Why Buffers

• What Passed

• Next Steps

THE PROBLEM – WATER QUALITY

From MPCA: Few waters in far southwest Minnesota meet swimmable, fishable standards

Of the water bodies studied, no lakes and few streams in the Minnesota portion of the Missouri River Basin met state standards for supporting aquatic life and recreation — fishable and swimmable — according to a recent report from the MPCA.


From MDA: Groundwater contamination from nitrate-nitrogen represents a potential health risk in drinking water wells in vulnerable aquifers.

2013: In 18 of 22 townships sampled, 10 percent or more of wells had nitrate levels that exceed state standards.


From MDH: Drinking Water Annual Report released in 2015 focused on the impact of nitrate on Minnesota waters.

Since 2008, the number of community public water supply systems with nitrate treatment has increased from six to eight. This change also means that the number of people served by systems actively treating for nitrate has increased from approximately 15,000 to 50,000 people.

THE PROBLEM – EXISTING LAWS NOT AS EFFECTIVE AS THEY SHOULD BE

• Drainage Law • required 16.5 foot access (only 20% of ditches had been covered)

• Shoreland Rule • Variable implementation across the state • Only 6 counties implementing systematically

• Excessive Soil Loss Policy and ordinances • generally not implemented

50-foot Buffer Zone Perennial Vegetation

by Ecoregion

~1/3 of 50-foot buffers in the Temperate Prairies Ecoregion are composed of less than 60% perennial vegetation (~11,000 stream miles)

WHY BUFFERS?

Intact riparian zones provide ecological benefits

• Minimize erosion • Reduce sediment and pollutants in runoff • Shading • In-stream habitat

BUFFER INITIATIVE – WHAT PASSED

A Statewide, basic standard approach:

Maps DNR will create buffer protection maps

Waters Covered and Buffer Widths • Public waters – 50-foot average, 30-foot minimum • Public ditch systems - 16.5-foot minimum • Or alternative practices • Other waters determined by SWCDs

Compliance • County or watershed district provides correction letters when noncompliance identified.

• Local/state $500 administrative penalty • State program funds can be withheld for failure to

implement

BUFFER INITIATIVE – WHAT PASSED

A Statewide, basic standard approach:

Timeline • Public waters – Nov 2017 • Public ditch systems – Nov 2018 • Extension if waiting for funding

Exemptions • Roads, trails, building and structures. Inundated crops, alfalfa seeding

• Enrolled in CRP • Areas covered by NPDES water-quality permits

BUFFER INITIATIVE – WHAT’S NEW?

Expanding the Scope of Waters Covered

◦ Enhances the public waters requirement by putting it into state statute, versus a state rule implemented via county ordinance

◦ Extends the 16.5 foot requirement to ditches within a benefitted area of public

drainage system ◦ Provides a process by which SWCDs must set local standards on other waters via

local water plan amendments approved by BWSR


Setting Timelines for Implementation:

◦ Previous requirements did not have specific timelines for establishment of buffers

◦ New law sets timelines for public waters, public drainage systems, and local requirements


Providing for Enforcement:

◦ Previous enforcement mechanisms were inadequate and inefficient

◦ New law creates an efficient administrative fine


Strengthening Soil Erosion Statutes:

◦ Previous law prohibited excess soil loss only through county ordinance

◦ New law removes requirement for a local ordinance

◦ New law provides for enforcement through administrative fine process


Appropriating Funding (CWF):

◦ $5 m to BWSR for local government implementation

◦ $650,000 for mapping to DNR

◦ $22M for increased SWCD base capacity


Other Landowner Financial Assistance Available:

• USDA Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) - federal funds

•State (RIM) Buffer Easements – Legacy Bill

• State (RIM)/CREP Easements - Legacy Bill and USDA CRP

• SWCDs are point of contact for requirements and technical assistance

QUESTIONS

June 2015

Exemptions and areas and activities not requiring buffers

Roads, trails, building and structures. Inundated crops, alfalfa seeding, enrolled in CRP. Tile line installation and maintenance. Areas covered by NPDES water-quality permits. “No-fault” clause to address acts of nature. No permit, permission needed; SWCD validation optional.

Lawns, forests, hayed land and other areas with perennial vegetation meet requirement.

Maps DNR will create buffer protection maps for public waters and public drainage systems subject to buffer requirement.

Waters covered and buffer widths

Public waters – 50-foot average buffer width with a 30-foot minimum width. Public ditches - 16.5-foot minimum width.

Or alternative practices (applies to both public waters and public ditches). Other waters determined by SWCDs and adopted into water management plans to

accomplish targeted voluntary or local regulatory measures.

Compliance County or watershed district provides correction letters when noncompliance identified. Local/state $500 administrative penalty for public waters, ditches. State program funds can be withheld for failure to implement.

Soil erosion Local/state enforcement with $500 administrative penalty order, without local ordinance, unless cost share not available.

Timeline

Public ditch buffer requirements not dependent on redetermination trigger. Buffers need to be installed on Public Waters by November 2017; on Public Drainage

Systems by November 2018. Landowners who have applied for conservation programs or initiated a ditch authority

process can be granted a one-year extension.

Program funding: DNR mapping and BWSR/SWCD implementation

Legacy bill’s Clean Water Fund includes: $5 million to BWSR for local government implementation; $650,000 to DNR for mapping.

Landowner financial assistance

Drainage law more flexible to provide compensation for buffers. RIM buffer easements – Clean Water Fund and Outdoor Heritage Fund in Legacy bill. U.S.D.A. Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) -- federal funds available for contracts to

riparian landowners. RIM/CREP easements -- Clean Water Fund in Legacy bill; SWCDs are point of contact for

requirements and technical assistance.

SWCD base funding $11 million annually in fiscal years 2016 and 2017 from Clean Water Fund in Legacy bill.

Buffer Legislation at a Glance

Water Quality Buffer Initiative Common questions and answers

Date: 6/18/15 Q: What is the bill’s purpose and who helped craft it?

• Improving Water Quality – The Buffer Initiative will protect Minnesota’s water resources from erosion and runoff pollution by establishing 110,000 acres of perennial vegetative cover adjacent to Minnesota’s waters.

• Cooperation and Compromise – This proposal was crafted with input from agriculture

groups, environmental groups, local government groups, legislators from both parties, and landowners.

• A Multi-Agency Effort – The four lead state agencies are: Minnesota Department of

Agriculture, Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.

Q: Will it improve water quality?

• Yes. Studies by the Pollution Control Agency show that buffer are critical to protecting and restoring water quality and healthy aquatic life, natural stream functions and aquatic habitat due to its immediate proximity to the water. However, buffers will not solve every water-quality problem.

Q: What is required?

• 110,000 Acres of Vegetation – The bill will establish perennial vegetation buffers of up to 50

feet along lakes, rivers, streams and ditches.

o The buffer width will be an average of 50 feet on public waters. o The buffer width will be a minimum of 16.5 feet on public ditches o Buffer widths on other waters will be determined by soil and water conservation districts

(SWCDs)

• Landowner Control – Landowners retain use of the buffer, as long as perennial vegetation is maintained.

• Landowner Choice – Landowners may choose to adopt other practices aimed at protecting water if those practices provide the same level of protection as a buffer.

• Additional Flexibility – There are exceptions for areas covered by a road, buildings or other structures; areas enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP); public or private water access or recreational use areas; and municipalities in compliance with federal and state storm water requirements.

Q: Where are buffers required?

• Buffers will be required on public waters and public drainage systems. The DNR will establish

and maintain a map of each county that shows the waters that are subject to the buffer requirements. Additionally, other waters may be subject to local requirements established by SWCDs.

Q: How will the new law be implemented, and enforced?

• Local Implementation – SWCDs will implement the buffer requirement, including planning, technical assistance to landowners, approval of alternative practices, and tracking and reporting progress.

• Help with Compliance – If a landowner is out of compliance with the requirement, the county or watershed district will provide a correction letter and work with the landowner on a reasonable timetable for completion.

• Penalties for Noncompliance – Counties and watershed districts, with assistance from the

Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR), may issue an order requiring violations be corrected and administratively assess monetary penalties for violations.

• State Level Enforcement – The state may withhold funds from a local government for failure

to implement buffer requirements.

• Additional Enforcement Authority – If the local government chooses not to take action, BWSR can use its Administrative Penalty Order authority and issue a penalty and fine.

Q: When will this take effect?

• July 2017 – Local water resources riparian protection requirements will be developed by July

1, 2017 • November 2017 – Buffers on public waters will be in place by November 1, 2017 • November 2018 – Buffers on public drainage systems will be in place by November 1, 2018

Q: How will this be paid for?

• Funds for Landowners – Landowners can use federal Farm Bill resources, such as CRP, to get buffers installed. Other state program conservation dollars, such as Reinvest in Minnesota (RIM) easements are also available. Landowners may also be eligible to be reimbursed by the drainage authority.

• Additional Federal Funds – Governor Dayton is committed to working with the federal government to provide funds through the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). This allows landowners to take their land out of production in exchange for payments. He has proposed $20 million in bonding to match the $18 million appropriated through the 2016-17 Legacy Amendment bill.

• Funds for Local Agencies – The initiative provides $5 million from the Clean Water Fund for SWCDs to work directly with landowners in order to find the best solution for their property. SWCDs are also receiving $22 million from the Clean Water Fund to boost local capacity. It is anticipated that this funding will be transferred to the General Fund in the next biennium.

Q: How will the DNR map areas that will now require buffers?

• A: The DNR will create a buffer protection map that will include the public waters subject to the statewide 50’ average width buffer requirement and the Public Drainage System ditches that are subject to the statewide 16.5 minimum width buffer requirement. The DNR is receiving $650,000 from the Clean Water Fund in order to complete the maps.

Q: And when will that happen?

• A: The DNR anticipates completing the buffer protection map by about July 2016. Q: How will public water be defined under the law?

• A: The buffer protection map will depict public waters, as defined in Minnesota Statute 103G.005, subdivision 15, that are subject to the requirements of the new buffer law. The buffer protection map does not otherwise update the Public Waters Inventory as it relates to any other requirements.

The new Buffer Initiative enhances protection of Minnesota waters by building upon existing requirements in the following ways: 1. Expanding the Scope of Waters Covered: Current regulations require 50 foot buffers on public waters and 16.5 foot buffers on only about 20% of public ditches. The new law enhances the public waters requirement by putting it into state statute, versus a state rule implemented via county ordinance. It also extends the 16.5 foot requirement to ditches within a benefitted area of public drainage system. Finally, it also provides a process by which SWCDs must set local standards on other waters via local water plan amendments approved by BWSR. 2. Setting Timelines for Implementation Current requirements do not have specific timelines for establishment of buffers. The new law establishes the following timelines - Public waters - buffers established by November 1, 2017 - Public drainage systems - buffers established by November 1, 2018 - Local requirements - standards developed by July 1, 2017 3. Providing for Enforcement: Currently, state and local enforcement mechanisms are inadequate and inefficient. The new law creates an administrative fine that can be used by counties, watershed districts, or BWSR. 4. Strengthening soil erosion statutes: Current law prohibits excessive soil loss but only if a county has adopted a local ordinance. The new law strengthens this area of statute by removing the requirement for a local ordinance and allowing the county, watershed district, or BWSR to enforce through an administrative fine process. 5. Appropriating Funding: The Clean Water Fund in the Legacy Bill (pending) appropriates $5.65 million for program implementation and $22 million for SWCD capacity.

The Governor's Buffer Initiative relies on long-standing federal, state, and local programs to provide financial and technical support to landowners to implement buffers or alternative water quality practices. These programs include:

Federal Farm Service Agency (FSA)

General Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) – Helps agricultural producers safeguard environmentally sensitive land. CRP participants plant long-term, resource-conserving covers to improve the quality of water, control soil erosion, and enhance wildlife habitat. Ten year contracts with annual rental payments and restoration cost-share.

Continuous Conservation Reserve Program (CCRP) – Environmentally desirable land devoted to certain conservation practices may be enrolled in CRP at any time under continuous sign-up. Ten to fifteen year contracts with annual rental payments and restoration cost-share.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) - Provides financial and technical assistance to agricultural producers through contracts up to ten years. These contracts provide financial assistance to help plan and implement conservation practices that address natural resource concerns and opportunities to improve soil, water, plant, animal, air and related resources on agricultural land and non-industrial private forestland.

Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) - Helps agricultural producers maintain and improve their existing conservation systems and adopt additional conservation activities to address priority resources concerns. Participants earn CSP payments for conservation performance.

Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) - Includes both working lands (Agricultural Land Easements) and protection type of easement programs (Wetlands Reserve Easement). Provides easement payment and restoration costs.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

Partners for Fish & Wildlife Program - Restores, improves, and protects fish and wildlife habitat on private lands through alliances between the USFWS, other organizations, and individuals.

Options for Landowner Financial & Technical Support Governor’s Buffer Initiative

March 2015

A grass buffer strip in Redwood County.

Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us

State

Board of Water and Soil Resources Reinvest In Minnesota Reserve Program

(RIM) - Conservation easement program offers permanent easements to restore and protect wetlands, riparian buffers, and other lands. Provides easement payment and restoration costs.

Conservation Cost-Share Program - Provides grants and contracts through soil and water conservation districts for soil and water quality protection.

Department of Agriculture

Agriculture BMP Loan Program (AgBMP) - Water quality program provides low interest loans to farmers, rural landowners, and agriculture supply businesses. 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.

Minnesota Agricultural Water Quality Certification Program (MAWQCP) - Voluntary opportunity for farmers and agricultural landowners to implement conservation practices that protect 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.

Local

Local Governments (such as Soil and Water Conservation Districts, Watershed Districts, and Counties) Programs that offer financial assistance for restoration and protection practice implementation.

Technical assistance that provides conservation planning to identify resource concerns and practice options.

Buffer in Olmsted County

Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us

BWSR Summary of 2015 WCA Statute Changes; 6-23-15 1

2015 WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT

STATUTE CHANGES

Summary of Key Statute Changes and Related Legislation with Explanations

This summary includes excerpts from Laws of MN 2015, Chapter 4, Article 4. It includes only the relevant

Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) statutory subdivisions and paragraphs that contain changes, listed by the

corresponding section numbers from the Chapter 4 session law. See the Office of the Revisor of Statutes

website for complete statutes and session law: https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/laws/current/.

Underlined text indicates new language, strikeout indicates repealed language. This summary was prepared by

the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR).

Sec. 73. Minnesota Statutes 2014, section 103B.101, is amended by adding a subdivision to read:

Subd. 16. Wetland stakeholder coordination. The board shall work with wetland stakeholders to foster mutual

understanding and provide recommendations for improvements to the management of wetlands and related

land and water resources, including recommendations for updating the Wetland Conservation Act, developing

an in-lieu fee program as defined in section 103G.005, subdivision 10g, and related provisions. The board may

convene informal working groups or work teams to provide information and education and to develop

recommendations.

Sec. 74. [103B.103] EASEMENT STEWARDSHIP ACCOUNTS.

Subdivision 1. Accounts established; sources.

(a) The water and soil conservation easement stewardship account and the mitigation easement stewardship

account are created in the special revenue fund. The accounts consist of money credited to the accounts and

interest and other earnings on money in the accounts. The State Board of Investment must manage the

accounts to maximize long-term gain.

(b) Revenue from contributions and money appropriated for any purposes of the account as described in

subdivision 2 must be deposited in the water and soil conservation easement stewardship account. Revenue

from contributions, wetland banking fees designated for stewardship purposes by the board, easement

Effect of Change: BWSR will continue to engage stakeholders in policy development and program

direction. However, BWSR’s long-term intent is to develop a formal stakeholder work-group, similar to

the current Drainage Work Group.

Effective Date: Establishment of the formal standing work-group will be determined during or after the

upcoming WCA rulemaking process, in which stakeholders will also be involved.

https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/laws/current/


stewardship payments authorized under subdivision 3, and money appropriated for any purposes of the

account as described in subdivision 2 must be deposited in the mitigation easement stewardship account.

Subd. 2. Appropriation; purposes of accounts. Five percent of the balance on July 1 each year in the water and

soil conservation easement stewardship account and five percent of the balance on July 1 each year in the

mitigation easement stewardship account are annually appropriated to the board and may be spent only to

cover the costs of managing easements held by the board, including costs associated with monitoring,

landowner contacts, records storage and management, processing landowner notices, requests for approval or

amendments, enforcement, and legal services associated with easement management activities.

Subd. 3. Financial contributions. The board shall seek a financial contribution to the water and soil

conservation easement stewardship account for each conservation easement acquired by the board. The

board shall seek a financial contribution or assess an easement stewardship payment to the mitigation

easement stewardship account for each wetland banking easement acquired by the board. Unless otherwise

provided by law, the board shall determine the amount of the contribution or payment, which must be an

amount calculated to earn sufficient money to meet the costs of managing the easement at a level that neither

significantly overrecovers nor underrecovers the costs. In determining the amount of the financial

contribution, the board shall consider:

(1) the estimated annual staff hours needed to manage the conservation easement, taking into

consideration factors such as easement type, size, location, and complexity;

(2) the average hourly wages for the class or classes of state and local employees expected to manage the

easement;

(3) the estimated annual travel expenses to manage the easement;

(4) the estimated annual miscellaneous costs to manage the easement, including supplies and equipment,

information technology support, and aerial flyovers;

(5) the estimated annualized costs of legal services, including the cost to enforce the easement in the

event of a violation; and

(6) the expected rate of return on investments in the account.

Effect of Change: This language establishes two stewardship accounts – a conservation easement

account (for Reinvest in Minnesota Reserve easements) and a mitigation easement account. The

interest-bearing investment accounts will provide a source of revenue to cover the costs of

monitoring and managing State-held easements over time. For wetland mitigation, this authorized

fee will help ensure that the full costs of wetland impacts and associated mitigation accrue to those

profiting from the mitigation and/or using the credits (rather than future users or taxpayers). The

amount of the mitigation easement stewardship fee will be established by BWSR.

Effective Date: Subdivisions 1 and 2 of this section are effective the day following final enactment.

Subdivision 3 of this section is effective for conservation easements acquired with money

appropriated on or after July 1, 2015, and for acquisitions of conservation easements by gift or as a

condition of approval for wetland mitigation as provided in Minnesota Rules, chapter 8420, that are

initiated on or after July 1, 2015. Wetland mitigation easement fees will be set by BWSR.


Sec. 75. Minnesota Statutes 2014, section 103B.3355, is amended to read:

103B.3355 WETLAND FUNCTIONS FOR DETERMINING PUBLIC VALUES.

(e) The Board of Water and Soil Resources, in consultation with the commissioners of natural resources and

agriculture and local government units, may must identify regions areas of the state where preservation,

enhancement, restoration, and establishment of wetlands would have high public value. The board, in

consultation with the commissioners, may must identify high priority wetland regions areas for wetland

replacement using available information relating to the factors listed in paragraph (a), the historic loss and

abundance of wetlands, current applicable state and local government water management and natural

resource plans, and studies using a watershed approach to identify current and future watershed needs. The

board shall notify local units of government with water planning authority of these high priority regions areas.

Designation of high priority areas is exempt from the rulemaking requirements of chapter 14, and section

14.386 does not apply. Designation of high priority areas is not effective until 30 days after publication in the

State Register.

(f) Local units of government, as part of a state-approved comprehensive local water management plan as

defined in section 103B.3363, subdivision 3, a state-approved comprehensive watershed management plan as

defined in section 103B.3363, subdivision 3a, or a state-approved local comprehensive wetland protection and

management plan under section 103G.2243, may identify priority areas for wetland re-placement and provide

them for consideration under paragraph (e).

Effect of Change: Paragraph (e) eliminates the optional BWSR identification of high priority wetland

regions, replacing it with clear direction for BWSR to designate “high priority areas” for wetland

replacement. This modification affects the process and eligibility requirements associated with

designating wetland preservation areas (see Minn. Stat. §103F.612, Subd. 2 below). The intent of

this change is to improve the targeting and public value outcomes of wetland mitigation. BWSR will

utilize available information regarding wetland functions, the historic loss and abundance of

wetlands, and current state and local plans and studies (e.g. the Minnesota Prairie Conservation

Plan) to identify high priority areas. BWSR will also engage local governments, state and federal

agencies, and other stakeholders in designating these areas.

Paragraph (f) provides the opportunity for local governments to establish priority areas for wetland

replacement in local water plans, which can be submitted to BWSR for statewide consideration.

Effective Date: The new language is effective August 1, 2015, although no deadline is specified for

high priority area designation. However, BWSR is required to report on proposals to implement

several policy initiatives, including high priority areas, to the legislature by March 15, 2016 (see

Section 133, Wetland Conservation Act Report, below).



Subd. 2. Application.

(a) A wetland owner may apply to the county where a wetland is located for designation of a wetland

preservation area in a high priority wetland area identified in a comprehensive local water plan, as defined in

section 103B.3363, subdivision 3, and located within a high priority wetland region designated by the Board of

Water and Soil Resources, if the county chooses to accept wetland preservation area applications. The

application must be made on forms provided by the board. If a wetland is located in more than one county,

the application must be submitted to the county where the majority of the wetland is located.

Sec. 81. Minnesota Statutes 2014, section 103G.005, is amended by adding a subdivision to read:

Subd. 10g. In-lieu fee program. "In-lieu fee program" means a program in which wetland replacement

requirements of section 103G.222 are satisfied through payment of money to the board or a board-approved

sponsor to develop replacement credits according to section 103G.2242, subdivision 12.

Sec. 82. Minnesota Statutes 2014, section 103G.222, subdivision 1, is amended to read:

Subdivision 1. Requirements.

(a) Wetlands must not be drained or filled, wholly or partially, unless replaced by restoring or creating wetland

areas of actions that provide at least equal public value under a replacement plan approved as provided in

section 103G.2242, a replacement plan under a local governmental unit's comprehensive wetland protection

and management plan approved by the board under section 103G.2243, or, if a permit to mine is required

under section 93.481, under a mining reclamation plan approved by the commissioner under the permit to

mine. For project-specific wetland replacement completed prior to wetland impacts authorized or conducted

under a permit to mine within the Great Lakes and Rainy River watershed basins, those basins shall be

considered a single watershed for purposes of determining wetland replacement ratios. Mining reclamation

plans shall apply the same principles and standards for replacing wetlands by restoration or creation of

Effect of Change: This language establishes a statutory definition of an in-lieu fee (ILF) program.

Effective Date: The statutory definition is effective August 1, 2015. It will also be incorporated into WCA

Rule, but any ILF program will not become effective until approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Effect of Change: Consistent with Minn. Stat. §103B.3355 (above), high priority areas are now

identified by BWSR rather than in a local plan (although local governments can nominate areas for

designation by BWSR). This affects eligibility for wetland preservation area (WPA) designation,

however, these effects are likely to be insignificant as the WPA program was used very little and the

property tax reimbursement was eliminated by the State several years ago. The change will not affect

previously designated WPAs, but will affect eligibility of future WPA designations if any county should

choose to accept them.

Effective Date: August 1, 2015. Corresponding changes will also be made to the WCA Rule.


wetland areas that are applicable to mitigation plans approved as provided in section 103G.2242. Public value

must be determined in accordance with section 103B.3355 or a comprehensive wetland protection and

management plan established under section103G.2243. Sections 103G.221 to 103G.2372 also apply to

excavation in permanently and semipermanently flooded areas of types 3, 4, and 5 wetlands.

(i) Except in a greater than 80 percent area, only wetlands that have been restored from previously drained or

filled wetlands, wetlands created by excavation in nonwetlands, wetlands created by dikes or dams along

public or private drainage ditches, or wetlands created by dikes or dams associated with the restoration of

previously drained or filled wetlands may be used in a statewide banking program established in for wetland

replacement according to rules adopted under section 103G.2242, subdivision 1. Modification or conversion of

nondegraded naturally occurring wetlands from one type to another are not eligible for enrollment in a

statewide wetlands bank wetland replacement.


Subd. 3. Wetland replacement siting.

(a) Impacted wetlands in a 50 to 80 percent area must be replaced in a 50 to 80 percent area or in a less than

50 percent area. Impacted wetlands in a less than 50 percent area must be replaced in a less than 50 percent

area. All wetland replacement must follow this priority order:

(1) on site or in the same minor watershed as the impacted wetland;

(2) in the same watershed as the impacted wetland;

(3) in the same county or wetland bank service area as the impacted wetland; and

(4) in another wetland bank service area; and.

(5) statewide for public transportation projects, except that wetlands impacted in less than 50 percent

areas must be replaced in less than 50 percent areas, and wetlands impacted in the seven-county

metropolitan area must be replaced at a ratio of two to one in: (i) the affected county or, (ii) in another of

the seven metropolitan counties, or (iii) in one of the major watersheds that are wholly or partially within

the seven-county metropolitan area, but at least one to one must be replaced within the seven-county

metropolitan area.

(b) The exception in paragraph (a), clause (5), does not apply to replacement completed using wetland banking

credits established by a person who submitted a complete wetland banking application to a local government

unit by April 1, 1996.

(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), wetland banking credits approved according to a complete wetland

banking application submitted to a local government unit by April 1, 1996, may be used to replace wetland

impacts resulting from public transportation projects statewide.

Effect of Change: The changes in Paragraph (a) are consistent with changes to Minn. Stat. §103G.2242,

Subd. 12 (below). They clarify the ability to establish actions eligible for wetland replacement credit that

may not consist of the restoration or creation of wetlands. The changes to Paragraph (i) clarify that the

stated restrictions apply to all wetland mitigation, not just banking.

Effective Date: The statute language is effective August 1, 2015, but will have little implication until new

actions eligible for credit are developed in WCA Rule.


(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), clauses (1) and (2), the priority order for replacement by wetland banking

begins at paragraph (a), clause (3), according to rules adopted under section 103G.2242, subdivision1.

(c) (d) When reasonable, practicable, and environmentally beneficial replacement opportunities are not

available in siting priorities listed in paragraph (a), the applicant may seek opportunities at the next level.

(d) (e) For the purposes of this section, "reasonable, practicable, and environmentally beneficial re-placement

opportunities" are defined as opportunities that:

(1) take advantage of naturally occurring hydrogeomorphological conditions and require minimal

landscape alteration;

(2) have a high likelihood of becoming a functional wetland that will continue in perpetuity;

(3) do not adversely affect other habitat types or ecological communities that are important in maintaining

the overall biological diversity of the area; and

(4) are available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and

logistics consistent with overall project purposes.

(e) Applicants and local government units shall rely on board-approved comprehensive inventories of

replacement opportunities and watershed conditions, including the Northeast Minnesota Wetland Mitigation

Inventory and Assessment (January 2010), in determining whether reasonable, practicable, and environ-

mentally beneficial replacement opportunities are available.

(g) The board must establish wetland replacement ratios and wetland bank service area priorities to

implement the siting and targeting of wetland replacement and encourage the use of high priority areas for

wetland replacement.

Effect of Change: Paragraph (a), Clause 5 was deleted to eliminate the separate wetland

replacement siting criteria for public transportation projects that was in conflict with the watershed

approach of the federal mitigation rule. Transportation siting is now consistent with other projects.

Paragraph (b) was re-written to maintain the exception despite deletion of Paragraph (a), Clause 5.

Paragraph (c) allows wetland replacement through banking anywhere in the bank service area (BSA).

This paragraph re-establishes the siting criteria for banking that existed prior to 2011. It helps

promote wetland banking by establishing a clear and defined market for banked credits, while

improving efficiencies for bank owners, local governments, and applicants.

Paragraph (e) was deleted to remove ineffective language that will be out-of-date when new actions

eligible for credit are established in the northeast.

Paragraph (g) directs BWSR to improve the siting and targeting of wetland replacement, including

the use of high priority areas, through replacement ratios and BSA priorities.

Effective Date: The siting criteria are effective August 1, 2015. The new replacement ratios and BSA

priorities will not become effective until established in the WCA Rules.



Subdivision 1. Rules.

(a) The board, in consultation with the commissioner, shall adopt rules governing the approval of wetland

value replacement plans under this section and public waters work permits affecting public waters wetlands

under section 103G.245. These rules must address the criteria, procedure, timing, and location of acceptable

replacement of wetland values; and may address the state establishment and administration of a wetland

banking program for public and private projects, which may include including provisions allowing monetary

payment to the wetland banking program for alteration of wetlands on agricultural land for an in-lieu fee

program; the administrative, monitoring, and enforcement procedures to be used; and a procedure for the

review and appeal of decisions under this section. In the case of peatlands, the replacement plan rules must

consider the impact on carbon balance described in the report required by Laws 1990, chapter 587, and

include the planting of trees or shrubs. Any in-lieu fee program established by the board must conform with

Code of Federal Regulations, title 33, section 332.8, as amended.


Subd. 2. Evaluation.

(a) Questions concerning the public value, location, size, or type of a wetland shall be submitted to and

determined by a Technical Evaluation Panel after an on-site inspection. The Technical Evaluation Panel shall be

composed of a technical professional employee of the board, a technical professional employee of the local

soil and water conservation district or districts, a technical professional with expertise in water resources

management appointed by the local government unit, and a technical professional employee of the

Department of Natural Resources for projects affecting public waters or wetlands adjacent to public waters.

The panel shall use the "United States Army Corps of Engineers Wetland De-lineation Manual" (January 1987),

including updates, supplementary guidance, and replacements, if any, "Wetlands of the United States" (United

States Fish and Wildlife Service Circular 39, 1971 edition), and "Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater

Habitats of the United States" (1979 edition). The panel shall provide the wetland determination and

recommendations on other technical matters to the local government unit that must approve a replacement

plan, wetland banking plan sequencing, exemption determination, no-loss determination, or wetland

boundary or type determination and may recommend approval or denial of the plan. The authority must

consider and include the decision of the Technical Evaluation Panel in their approval or denial of a plan or

determination.

Effect of Change: These changes clarify that the wetland banking program established in the WCA Rules

can include an in-lieu fee (ILF) program, and require that an ILF program be approved by the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers. Language regarding an outdated report on carbon balance was also deleted.

Effective Date: The rulemaking authority and ILF requirement are effective August 1, 2015, but the ILF

criteria will be established in the WCA Rules and any ILF program will not take effect until the

appropriate federal approval is obtained.


(c) The board must establish an interagency team to assist in identifying and evaluating potential wetland

replacement sites. The team must consist of members of the Technical Evaluation Panel and representatives

from the Department of Natural Resources; the Pollution Control Agency; the United States Army Corps of

Engineers, St. Paul district; and other organizations as determined by the board.


Subd. 3. Replacement completion.

(a) Replacement of wetland values must be completed prior to or concurrent with the actual draining or filling

of a wetland, unless:

(1) an irrevocable bank letter of credit or other security financial assurance acceptable to the local government

unit or the board is given to the local government unit or the board to guarantee the successful completion of

the replacement.; or

(2) the replacement is approved under an in-lieu fee program according to rules adopted under sub-division 1.

In the case of an in-lieu fee program established by a board-approved sponsor, the board may require that a

financial assurance in an amount and method acceptable to the board be given to the board to ensure the

approved sponsor fulfills the sponsor's obligation to complete the required wetland replacement.

The board may establish, sponsor, or administer a wetland banking program, which may include provisions

allowing monetary payment to the wetland bank for impacts to wetlands on agricultural land, for impacts that

occur in greater than 80 percent areas, and for public road projects. (b) The board may acquire land in fee title,

purchase or accept easements, enter into agreements, and purchase existing wetland replacement credits to

Effect of Change: In Paragraph (a), the deletion of “wetland banking plan” provides BWSR with

flexibility to modify the wetland banking plan approval process established in WCA Rules. This

change allows for the submittal of Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) findings and recommendations to

BWSR for final approval, without changing the role of the TEP in Rule. The change is consistent with

Minn. Stat. §103G.2242, Subd. 4 (below). “Sequencing” is added because it is another category of

WCA approval that was not previously accounted for in this section.

Paragraph (c) directs BWSR to establish an expanded TEP that focuses on the early review and

scoping of potential wetland replacement sites. This language implements the recommendation for

a “rapid response team” that is included in the interagency report “Siting of Wetland Mitigation in

Northeast Minnesota.” See the report at:

http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/wetlands/wca/NE_MN_mitigation/siting_NE_MN_mitigation.html

Effective Date: Any modification to the wetland banking process would not occur until changed in

WCA Rule. The “rapid response team” (expanded TEP) can be established as needed for a particular

project at any time. The team’s structure and purpose will also be established in policy or Rule.

http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/wetlands/wca/NE_MN_mitigation/siting_NE_MN_mitigation.html


facilitate the wetland banking program. The board may establish in-lieu fee payment amounts and hold money

in an account in the special revenue fund, which is appropriated to the board to be used solely for establishing

replacement wetlands and administering the wetland banking program.

(c) The board shall coordinate the establishment and operation of a wetland bank with the United States Army

Corps of Engineers, the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the United States Department of

Agriculture, and the commissioners of natural resources, agriculture, and the Pollution Control Agency.


Subd. 4. Decision. Upon receiving and considering all required data, the local government unit reviewing

replacement plan applications, banking plan sequencing applications, and exemption or no-loss determination

requests must act on all replacement plan applications, banking plan sequencing applications, and exemption

or no-loss determination requests in compliance with section 15.99.

Effect of Change: The deletion of “banking plan” provides BWSR with flexibility to modify the wetland

banking plan approval process established in WCA Rules to accommodate final approval by BWSR. This

change is consistent with the above change in Minn. Stat. §103G.2242, Subd. 2, Paragraph (a).

“Sequencing” is added because it is another category of WCA approval that was not previously listed in

this section.

Effective Date: Any modification to the wetland banking process would not occur until changed in WCA

Rule.

Effect of Change: This subdivision was somewhat reorganized to improve clarity. The change in

Paragraph (a), Clause (1) is merely for consistency in language with federal policy.

Paragraph (a), Clause (2) allows wetland replacement to occur after the impact has been completed

when use of the in-lieu fee (ILF) program has been approved in accordance with criteria established in

the WCA Rules. It also gives BWSR clear authority to require an ILF program sponsor to provide a

programmatic financial assurance, if in-fact a non-BWSR sponsor is allowed. The deleted sentence

was redundant as the authority to establish the banking program is provided elsewhere in statute.

Paragraph (b) provides BWSR with specific authorities to implement the banking program.

Effective Date: The additional language will have no effect until established in WCA Rule, except that

BWSR could use the authority contained in the first sentence of Paragraph (b) for implementation of

projects within the Local Government Roads Wetland Replacement Program.



Subd. 12. Replacement credits.

(a) No public or private wetland restoration, enhancement, or construction may be allowed for replacement

unless specifically designated for replacement and paid for by the individual or organization performing the

wetland restoration, enhancement, or construction, and is completed prior to any draining or filling of the

wetland.

(c) Notwithstanding section 103G.222, subdivision 1, paragraph (i), the following actions, and others

established in rule, that are consistent with criteria in rules adopted by the board in conjunction with the

commissioners of natural resources and agriculture, are eligible for replacement credit as determined by the

local government unit or the board, including enrollment in a statewide wetlands bank:

(1) reestablishment of permanent native, noninvasive vegetative cover on a wetland on agricultural land

that was planted with annually seeded crops, was in a crop rotation seeding of pasture grasses or legumes,

or was in a land retirement program during the past ten years;

(2) buffer areas of permanent native, noninvasive vegetative cover established or preserved on upland

adjacent to replacement wetlands;

(3) wetlands restored for conservation purposes under terminated easements or contracts; and

(4) water quality treatment ponds constructed to pretreat storm water runoff prior to discharge to

wetlands, public waters, or other water bodies, provided that the water quality treatment ponds must be

associated with an ongoing or proposed project that will impact a wetland and replacement credit for the

treatment ponds is based on the replacement of wetland functions and on an approved storm water

management plan for the local government.; and

(5) in a greater than 80 percent area, restoration and protection of streams and riparian buffers that are

important to the functions and sustainability of aquatic resources.

Effect of Change: The deletion in Paragraph (a) allows for implementation of an in-lieu fee program,

in which wetland replacement may be completed after the wetland impacts occur.

The addition of “or the board” in Paragraph (c) provides BWSR with the authority to determine

wetland replacement crediting in accordance with the process established in the WCA Rules. This

change is consistent with the above changes to Subd. 2, Paragraph (a) and Subd. 4 of this section of

statute.

Paragraph (c), Clause 5 adds new actions eligible for wetland replacement credit in northeastern MN,

the criteria for which will be established in WCA Rule.

Effective Date: The changes in this subdivision will become effective when incorporated into the WCA

Rules along with related implementation criteria.



Subd. 14. Fees established.

(d) The board may assess a fee to pay the costs associated with establishing conservation easements, or other

long-term protection mechanisms prescribed in the rules adopted under subdivision 1, on property used for

wetland replacement.

Sec. 90. Minnesota Statutes 2014, section 103G.2251, is amended to read:

103G.2251 STATE CONSERVATION EASEMENTS; WETLAND BANK CREDIT.

In greater than 80 percent areas, preservation of wetlands, riparian buffers, and watershed areas essential to

maintaining important functions and sustainability of aquatic resources in the watershed that are protected by

a permanent conservation easement as defined under section 84C.01 and held by the board may be eligible

for wetland replacement or mitigation credits, according to rules adopted by the board. To be eligible for

credit under this section, a conservation easement must be established after May 24, 2008, and approved by

the board. Wetland areas on private lands preserved under this section are not eligible for replacement or

mitigation credit if the area has been protected using public conservation funds.

Sec. 133. WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT REPORT.

By March 15, 2016, the Board of Water and Soil Resources, in cooperation with the Department of Natural

Resources, shall report to the committees with jurisdiction over environment and natural resources on the

proposals to implement high priority areas for wetland replacement and in-lieu fees for replacement and

modify wetland replacement siting and actions eligible for credit. In developing the report, the board and

department shall consult with stakeholders and agencies.

Effect of Change: The new language allows for the allocation of wetland replacement credit for the

preservation of additional natural resources in greater than 80 percent areas. These new options are

consistent with the new actions eligible for credit in Minn. Stat. §103G.2242, Subd. 12, Paragraph (c),

Clause 5.

Effective Date: These new options for preservation credit will become effective when incorporated into

the WCA Rules along with related implementation criteria.

Effect of Change: BWSR now has the authority to recoup costs associated with establishing easements or

other long-term protection mechanisms on land used for wetland replacement.

Effective Date: The fee authority is effective August 1, 2015, but assessment of the fee will not occur

until the amount is established via BWSR policy.


Sec. 137. FEDERAL CLEAN WATER ACT SECTION 404 PERMIT PROGRAM FEASIBILITY STUDY.

(a) The Board of Water and Soil Resources and the commissioner of natural resources shall study the feasibility

of the state assuming administration of the section 404 permit program of the federal Clean Water Act. The

United States Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District; and the United States Environmental Protection

Agency shall be consulted with during the development of the study. The study shall identify:

(1) the federal requirements for state assumption of the 404 program;

(2) the potential extent of assumption, including those waters that would remain under the jurisdiction of

the United States Army Corps of Engineers due to the prohibition of 404 assumption in certain waters as

defined in section 404(g)(1) of the federal Clean Water Act;

(3) differences in waters regulated under Minnesota laws compared to waters of the United States,

including complications and potential solutions to address the current uncertainties relating to

determining waters of the United States;

(4) measures to ensure the protection of aquatic resources consistent with the Clean Water Act, Wetland

Conservation Act, and the public waters program administered by the Department of Natural Resources;

(5) changes to existing state law, including changes to current implementation structure and processes,

that would need to occur to allow for state assumption of the 404 program;

(6) new agency responsibilities for implementing federal requirements and procedures that would become

the obligation of the state under assumption, including the staff and resources needed for

implementation;

(7) the estimated costs and savings that would accrue to affected units of government;

(8) the effect on application review and approval processes and time frames;

(9) alternatives to assumption that would also achieve the goals of regulatory simplification, efficiency, and

reduced permitting times;

(10) options for financing any additional costs of implementation; and

(11) other information as determined by the board and commissioner.

(b) The board and commissioner shall involve stakeholders in the development of the plan of study consistent

with Minnesota Statutes, section 103B.101, subdivision 16.

(c) By January 15, 2017, the board and commissioner must report the study to the legislative policy and finance

committees and divisions with jurisdiction over environment and natural resources.

Effect of Legislation: This legislation does not affect any current statute, but directs BWSR and DNR to

study the feasibility of State assumption of the Clean Water Act Section 404 permitting program,

currently administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Effect of Legislation: This legislation does not affect any current statute, but directs BWSR to report to

the legislature regarding the development of specified new WCA policies. The report may contain

additional legislative recommendations if identified as necessary for effective implementation.


Questions regarding the statute changes included in this summary can be directed to the following staff of the

Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources:

Les Lemm

Wetland Conservation Act Coordinator

[email protected]

651-296-6057

Or

Dave Weirens

Assistant Director for Programs & Policy

[email protected]

651-297-3432

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

2015 CHANGE FOR CULVERT PERMITTING IN PUBLIC WATERS – WATER QUALITY CONCERNS

DNR Presentation to the Clean Water Council Tom Hovey Water Regulations Unit Supervisor July 20, 2015

Public Waters & Regulation

Stream –Road Intersections

Potential Culvert Problems

–Improper construction

–Improper size

–Improper placement (elevation)

–Improper alignment

–Improper slope

Rate of Channel Adjustment

1998 – Siegel Ck, LNF

1979 – Siegel Ck, LNF

1979

1998 USFS

Culvert Size and Elevation Temperature Impacts

Stream Restoration at Road Crossings

Dale Higgins, USFS

Rosgen

A 2015 Legislative Session law change exempts culvert restoration or replacement from DNR permit requirements when the same size and elevation are maintained as long as the restoration or replacement does not impact a trout stream. Proper Design of Culverts Although the new law allows some existing culverts on public waters to be replaced ‘in-kind’ (same size, invert elevations, alignment) without DNR authorization, doing so may not be the best option. Flood elevations, fish passage, ecological connectivity, lake and wetland control elevation, safety and economics are all pieces that should be considered when a crossing is to be replaced. Many existing culverts are currently undersized and sedimentation has affected the elevation; to replace them in-kind continues an existing problem into the future, undermining efforts towards Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (WRAPS) and healthy watersheds. Recognizing flaws in the existing crossing will help prevent duplicating defects with a new culvert. Problem indicators on existing crossings:

· Plunge pools, stream bank scour, and sediment deposits. · Debris accumulation. · Perched outlet. · Change in road overtopping frequency or depth.

Improving culvert design can reconnect floodplain to reduce flood damage, stabilize streams, and reduce sediment movement. A properly designed crossing should:

· Minimize the consequences of plugging and overtopping. · Prevent stream diversion and unstable banks and road slopes. · Have sufficient hydraulic capacity:

o Headwater depth does not cause pressurized flow during flood events o Culvert hydraulics do not cause scour at the outlet or inlet

· Maximize the life cycle of crossing.

DNR 7-13-2015 For Clean Water Council meeting 7/20/2015

Clean Water Council (Council) Steering Team Agenda

July 20, 2015 2:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m.

MPCA Board Room (Lower Level) Debrief about today’s Council meeting Potential Meeting Topics (Council) - August 17, 2015 · Funding Discussions

o Long-Term Vision for Funding Programs o Guiding Principles & Funding Priorities

· Clean Water Rule – effects of EPA rule change on Minnesota waters · Policy Discussion – discuss the Council’s role and timing of policy decisions · BOC – request interest of Council members in serving on this Committee Potential Meeting Topics - September 20-21 Field Tour (Brainerd) Sunday, Sept. 20 – Clean Water Council meeting, 2-6 p.m. in Brainerd · Invite LGUs in to do presentations at this Council meeting on their local efforts (e.g. Crow Wing

County, SWCD, Miss River Headwaters Board, etc.). Ask them if the State has provided the right kinds of watershed tools for them to do their work – what is working and what is not working. Topics could be protection, Serpent Lake, Pine River and/or Crow Wing WRAPS.

· Presentation from Agencies on what it means for Protection in WRAPS. · Presentation on local drinking water issues (e.g. 3M chemicals in Mississippi River, City of Perham). · How to measure Protection & Prevention Efforts (Measurable Outcomes). Monday, Sept. 21st Monday Field Tour, 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. · See an example of where forest has been converted to agricultural land. · Crow Wing River – hear from local partners how they are using WRAPS to target BMPs. · Big Trout Lake Potential Meeting Topics - October - December 2015 · Outcomes Reporting for each Program/Project Accountability (Measurable Outcomes) · Leveraging (Nonpoint and Point Source Implementation) · Point Sources - Funding Needs & Costs/Benefits (Nonpoint and Point Source Implementation) · Progress Reporting for WRAPS/TMDLs

Documents

New Clean Water Council Meeting Packet, Monday, July 20, 2015 · 2015. 8. 26. · Clean Water Council Meeting Agenda . July 20, 2015 . 9:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. MPCA Board Room (Lower