Policy Ad Hoc Committee (Committee) Meeting Agenda Clean Water Council (Council)

April 22, 2016 10:30-2:30

MPCA, 520 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul, MN MPCA Conference Room 100

2015-2016 Policy Ad Hoc Committee members: Mark Abner, John Barten (Vice Chair), Gary Burdorf, Pam Blixt (Chair), Warren Formo, Gene Merriam, Victoria Reinhardt

10:30 Regular Business · Approve agenda· Chair and Staff update

10:40 Clean Drinking Water: Source to Tap – Minnesota Department of Health Background on source water protection activities and barriers in Minnesota and discussion of potential policy approaches that could address those challenges. Includes a discussion of lead and copper issues and potential policy approaches.

12:00 Lunch

12:30 Continue discussion of new policy ideas from stakeholders Continue to review new policy ideas from stakeholders and decide if any of these topics should be considered by the Committee this year.

12:45 Policy Topics Review the status of policy topics and draft timeline and discuss how to narrow the list of topics. Discuss the timing of policy recommendations. Debrief on the shoreland rules presentation.

1:15 Drainage - Al Kean, Board of Water and Soil Resources Overview of the Drainage Work Group, current discussion topics and potential policy recommendations. More information about the Drainage Work Group can be found at http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/drainage/DWG/DWG.html.

2:15 Protection Policy Topic Discuss how to scope and who to invite to speak on the draft policy idea to protect targeted lands from the worst impacts from land use conversion.

2:30 Adjourn

The next Policy Ad Hoc Committee meeting will be held on Friday, May 27, 2016. The Policy Ad Hoc Committee web page can be found at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/r9rq9y3

wq-cwc5-15d

1  

 Policy Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Summary 

Clean Water Council (Council)  March 25, 2016, 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. 

 Committee Members present:  Mark Abner, John Barten, Pam Blixt, Gary Burdorf, Warren Formo, Gene Merriam, and Victoria Reinhardt  To watch the WebEx video recording of this meeting, please go to https://www.pca.state.mn.us/clean‐water‐council/policy‐ad‐hoc‐committee.   Regular Business 

Note handout from Katrina Kessler, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) stating that state agencies do not at this time have any specific policy proposals ready to share with the Committee related to Contaminants of Emerging Concern (CECs). 

Add drinking water and lead as a future policy topic.  State of our knowledge related to nonpoint source implementation and nutrient management  Presentation on the findings of State nutrient plans, barriers to nonpoint source implementation, and potential policies that would accelerate the restoration and protection of water resources. Dan Stoddard, Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) 

Multiple state agency reports relate to this topic – examples are the Minnesota Nutrient Reduction Strategy and Minnesota Nitrogen Fertilizer Management Plan. Reports highlight how much nitrogen needs to be reduced to meet water quality goals and how to reduce nitrogen (e.g. vegetative cover, tile water treatment, or fertilizer management). Nitrate from fertilizers will leach into waters even if some Best Management Practices (BMPs) employed. 

Source Water Protection is required in statute for groundwater systems – goal is to prevent contamination in a well’s recharge area. Good application for living cover. There are 360,000 vulnerable source water protection areas in Minnesota – protecting these lands is achievable. 

One Watershed, One Plan aligns local water planning efforts with major watershed boundaries. 

Living cover as a policy has the greatest potential for environmental benefit because has the potential to be economically sustainable with no subsidies. Ideas are to enhance existing markets for perennial fed beef and dairy products and bioenergy from perennial crops and marketing the Minnesota Agricultural Water Quality Certification Program (MAWQCP) to identify value for crop production that protects water quality.  

Doug Thomas, Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) (WebEx 00:16:00) 

Building soil health is an important component and a major component for conservation planning. Handout provided shares information on cover crops, soil health, and soil erosion and describes the following potential policies. 

Soil Health ‐ adopt a soil health policy statement similar to other state policies related to water. Could also increase funding to support research, demonstration, local capacity, and incentive programs to achieve widespread adoption of key principles of soil health. 

Cover Crops (Insurance) – assist in advancing the adoption of cover crops by requesting the Federal Risk Management Agency (FRMA) to allow insurability of a crop that has been properly interseeded and to request the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to rewrite their Cover Crop Standard to encompass this practice. 

2  

Soil Erosion – assist in advancing reforms that will require on Highly Erodible Land (HEL) a conservation plan or system which will prevent water and wind erosion from exceeding tolerable soil loss limits as identified in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Field Office Technical Guide. 

Prohibitions to plant cover crops before September with crop insurance. The introduction of June cover crops does not diminish yield. 

Soil erosion ‐ under the Farm Bill, a producer must fill out a form that they have a plan but these are fairly old and allows for erosion.  

Randy Ellingboe, Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) (WebEx 00:30:46) 

Living cover is protective of groundwater and surface water and builds soil health. Incentive programs can help but must be sustainable so markets are needed. More research, development of markets, promotion of multiple benefits, etc. will help promote more living cover in Minnesota.  

Living Cover (wellhead) ‐ promote living cover (perennial and cover crops), particularly in vulnerable wellhead areas to prevent groundwater contamination.  

Brad Redlin, MDA (WebEx 00:30:46) 

Motivate consumers to make choices for products that have been grown in a way that promotes clean water. Examples of companies that are marketing sustainability are Walmart and General Mills. Consumers are interested. 

Challenges are that it is hard to trace where the products came from through the supply chain and there are really diverse ways to produce agricultural products and landscape differences. One way to do this is by using attributes (standards) that reduce water quality risks in producing products rather than promoting single practices.  

Not sure what is meant by attributes. Organic is a label used field to table and requires very specific standards for each commodity. If you label for clean water through attributes it means looking at each field (doesn’t matter on the type of crop or animal) and assessing risks to water quality instead of having standards for labeling.   

Clean Water Certified Products ‐ promote products that have been produced with water‐friendly methods using a system based on attributes/standards. Could use the MAWQCP as a standard for certification. 

Glenn Skuta, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) (WebEx 0:49:15)  Water Storage (2014 Council recommendations) – require all major watersheds outside the seven‐

county Twin Cities Metro Area to develop local comprehensive watershed management plans. These plans must establish water storage goals, expressed in acre‐feet, and standards for water storage, retention, and infiltration. 

Need to implement practices that slow the flow of water off the land and through our streams. We have altered flows (e.g. higher, more frequent peak flows). Types of practices that are needed are adding habitat (off‐stream storage and/or restored riparian areas, controlled drainage, two‐stage ditches, wetland restoration, and crop residue management. 

General Discussion (WebEx 00:59:38) 

Seem like cover crops (insurance) and soil erosion policy proposals are low‐hanging fruit and will not require legislative action so could move them separately. Need to get more information about who would make the recommendation and to whom. May want to invite federal agencies (e.g. Farm Service Agency, Risk Management Agency, and NRCS) to a future meeting when this is discussed or work with them separately. 

Request that BWSR return to the Policy Committee with more complete policy recommendations on the cover crops (insurance) and soil erosion policy proposals.  

Warren Formo will work with Doug Thomas on this policy proposal.  

3  

Discussion of next steps for potential nonpoint source implementation and nutrient policies  Living Cover (WebEx 01:34:00) 

Request that MDA and MDH return to the Policy Committee with more complete policy recommendations on the living cover items listed below.  o Use living cover around wellheads to prevent groundwater contamination. o Develop markets for low impact forage and cover crops. Promote the use of alfalfa ‐ in rotation 

with corn and use to feed beef cattle. Consumers could request that beef cattle diet includes alfalfa. 

o Enhance existing markets for perennial‐fed beef and dairy products and bioenergy from perennial crops.  

o Create a market for profitable perennials versus harvesting corn stover to meet renewable fuel standards. 

o Encourage the use of perennial crops to meet the cellulosic ethanol mandate.  o Provide cost sharing for practices that promote living cover. 

Living cover is an important topic but hard to tell what the actual policy proposals would be – these seem more like strategies or budget proposals. Supporting the development of markets for living cover is a good idea but is not specific enough to be a policy proposal. An example is that people wanted to reduce the number of smokers so policy was “no smoking in buildings”. Need to understand barriers.  

One example of a potential policy proposal is to require that some of the E15 (15% ethanol, 85% gasoline) would need to be produced from perennial crops. That would create the market. 

Dan Stoddard and Randy Ellingboe will be the point people to further developing these policy recommendations and will bring these back to the Committee.

Clean Water Certified Products related to MAWQCP (WebEx 1:49:32) 

Is there a policy recommendation here? Does it feel ready? No, do not believe that it is ready. Feels like a lot of work is being done and could maybe discuss in a year. Seems like this is in the early stage. MAWQCP is something the Council has supported with budget recommendations so that could be a separate endorsement. 

Policy recommendations are different. Right now, there is no policy obstacle preventing this work from being done. MDA could craft a statement that reaffirmed if farmers are meeting risk mitigation factors (attributes) with MAWQCP and water quality has been improved.  

In the past, the Council has made resolutions supporting program approaches so that is another possible action. There would need to be more work and investigation. Don’t think we are at that point for this program.   

We have plenty of other policy topics on our plates – need to wait for more results from MAWQCP. No action is needed on this topic at this time. 

Soil Health (WebEx 1:57:50)   

Does the Committee want to develop and adopt a soil health policy statement? 

Would like to make sure urban areas are included in this topic. Developers can completely remove the topsoil in urban areas which makes impacts water quality. Huge issue.  

Was the intention only rural areas? It was because the topic was focused on nonpoint but could include urban settings. 

How are living cover and soil health included? If you have living cover, the soil health will be improved, but the policy idea for living cover is broader to include markets. 

Request that BWSR return to the Policy Committee with more complete policy recommendations on the soil health policy proposal and that it would address both rural and urban areas. 

John Barten will work with Doug Thomas on developing this policy proposal.  

4  

Some of these policy proposals may also need funding support but that doesn’t necessarily mean it has to come from CWF. Note that when the Council recommends a policy initiative for clean water it may budget connections. For some of these initiatives however, there are already CWFs being used. Just need to keep in contact with Budget and Outcomes Committee members. 

Nonpoint Source Implementation and Nutrients – additional topics (WebEx 2:08:43) 

The items below were supposed to be part of the topics covered in the agency presentations today. How does the Committee want to proceed? 

Request that agencies return to the Policy Committee with more complete policy recommendations on the topics listed below.  o Develop performance‐based standards for nonpoint pollution sectors (e.g. consider doing this by 

watershed).  o Consider policy options that require a basic “standard of care” for crop agriculture.  o Promote landscape Best Management Practices (BMPs) (e.g. buffers, BMPs on new tile systems, 

cover crops, no‐till, etc.) for nutrient management.  o Address challenges for landowners to implement Best Management Practices o Consider a polluter pays principle for nutrient management.  o Recommend a nutrient accountability program (e.g. fall fertilizer application prohibitions).  o Recommend adding the word “sustainable” to maximum return to nitrogen guidelines provided 

by the University of Minnesota.  o Institute a fertilizer surcharge to provide compensation for drinking water treatment where 

contamination has occurred o Promote practices to reduce animal (cattle) access to streams o Regulations to reduce animal (cattle) access to streams 

Very valuable information presented from agencies this morning – recommend a similar type of presentation on these topics. 

Agencies will screen these to see which might be potential policy proposals. Disclaimer is that some of these ideas came from stakeholder groups and agencies may not be on the same page. Council staff will reach out to stakeholder groups on these agenda items.  

Many of these topics aren’t policy recommendations but more like budget recommendations. Agencies will concentrate presentation on what are policy barriers and opportunities but could speak about related funding ideas too.  

Could you be ready to discuss these agenda items next month? Probably not.  Review and discuss policy priorities and new ideas from stakeholders, future policy topics, and Policy Committee timeline (WebEx 02:22:00) 

Council staff reviewed the handouts that summarize stakeholder comments from January 2016 on their ranking of policy priorities and their new policy ideas.

The topic of cumulative impacts of groundwater withdrawal is important. Need to do also something related to drinking water protection. Seems related. With what happened in Flint, MI, this would be a good time to make a policy recommendation on drinking water. Drinking water is very important – need to discuss source to tap.  

Is the Committee just interested in a presentation on the part of the distribution related to lead – all the way to the tap? Committee is interested in the whole source to tap discussion of drinking water. 

For the April 22, 2016 Policy Committee meeting, request that MDH present a background and policy proposals on clean drinking water source to tap (including but not limited to lead) and DNR present an update on cumulative impacts of groundwater withdrawal. 

5  

Recommend adding the topic of shoreland rules. Request that DNR present the background and status to the full Council at a future meeting. 

May need to discuss a few more of the new stakeholder comments at a future meeting. 

One of the stakeholder ideas on aquatic invasive species (AIS) would change the way people access public water resources. Another stakeholder idea is to view AIS as biological pollutants. These are both very controversial. Seems like a better discussion to leave with the AIS Committee.  

For the drainage topic, what does the Committee want to discuss? Could get an update from the Drainage Work Group. 

For the April 22, 2016 Policy Committee meeting, recommend inviting the Drainage Work Group to update the Committee on their past work and current initiatives and their input on draft policy proposals. 

Seems as though three topics per meeting is too much. But having two topics per meeting pushes our timeline out. Need to discuss at the next meeting how to prioritize and may need to cut some topics out this year – will need to discuss the timeline at the next Committee meeting.   

 ENSURING  SAFE  AND  SUFFICIENT  DRINKING  WATER  

Advancing Drinking Water Protection PROTECTING  OUR  SOURCES  OF  DRINKING WATER  

Background: Source water protection of both groundwater and surface water is the most cost‐effective way to protect against threats from both known and unknown contaminants. Wellhead protection plans are required and reduce the need for new wells, costly treatment systems, and clean‐up of groundwater contamination. Of the 360,000 acres in high risk wellhead protection areas, 115,000 are in row crop production and only 9,600 acres are protected by easements. Surface water intake protection plans are voluntary; 3 out of 24 surface water sources public water supply systems have approved plans 

Barriers: Taking action to protect the land area that drains to a public water supply well is challenging for city utilities. Cities are not always included as partners in Minnesota’s watershed approach to water resource planning. Land use in wellhead protection areas is often controlled by private land owners and may be outside of municipal boundaries. Conditions placed on land easements limit profitable land uses that still protect or improve groundwater. Many factors discourage farmers from adopting living cover; high risk and uncertainty, lack of insurance options, crops that are not well adapted to Minnesota’s climate, and crop changes that may require significant shifts in seeds or equipment.  

Policy Options: 

Prioritize economically attractive living cover in high risk wellhead protection areas. 

Increase flexibility of permitted land use options in easements that protect groundwater 

while still providing economic value. 

Identify a clear pathway for land purchase in high risk wellhead protection areas 

through MN RIM program based on drinking water protection needs. 

Promote multiple benefits from land use practices that protect groundwater; pheasant 

habitat, solar power, or wind farms. 

Create tax benefits for appropriate land use in wellhead protection areas. 

Support surface water intake protection through legislative authority and/or dedicated 

hydrological and planning resources. 

Build local capacity for groundwater and drinking water protection actions on the land.  

 

A D V A N C I N G   D R I N K I N G  WA T E R   P R O T E C T I O N  

BEYOND  THE  SAFE  DRINKING  WATER  ACT  

Background: While the Safe Drinking Water Act provides a basic level of protection, emerging threats demand increasing vigilance and anticipatory action. Current compliance monitoring and treatment focuses on 100+ contaminants that are well understood and have effective treatment available. The ability of our federal partners to anticipate and manage additional or new threats lacks timely relevance for Minnesota.  

Barriers: Water quality sampling for unregulated contaminants in public water supply sources is very limited. Both MPCA and MDA have well‐established monitoring programs with very specific purposes, but these have limited application for source water for public water supplies. More knowledge is needed about the unique vulnerabilities of smaller community and non‐community public water supplies. Risk management expertise and experience is essential to protect public health through cost‐effective protection, monitoring and treatment. 

Policy Options: 

Develop reconnaissance system for contaminants determined to be of concern in source 

water in Minnesota, and ensure a robust risk assessment system for new/emerging 

contaminants is maintained. 

Establish a “Drinking Water Think Tank” to translate emerging science and monitoring 

results into protective public health policy and action. 

Develop Minnesota‐specific risk management practices that address health risks from 

unregulated contaminants and identify health benefits through public health policy and 

action recommendations.   

 

REDUCING  EXPOSURE  TO  LEAD  AND  COPPER  

Background: The number of community water supplies that exceed the lead action level in Minnesota has been reduced from nearly 90 in 1990 to only one currently. Increases in our understanding of lead toxicity (there is no safe level) and success in reducing children’s exposure to lead in dust and paint, together with the Flint situation, has renewed the public’s concern for lead in drinking water. Required monitoring in the Safe Drinking Water Act is designed to measure the effectiveness of corrosion control treatment in the water system rather than identifying risks to individual households.  

A D V A N C I N G   D R I N K I N G  WA T E R   P R O T E C T I O N  

Barriers: Public water supply systems lack comprehensive and accessible data on lead service line locations. The public (especially renters) lacks awareness of the risk from lead in drinking water and also actions they can take to prevent or reduce harmful exposures. Lead service line replacement is expensive for a homeowner.  

Policy Options: 

Require notification of the existence of a lead service line upon property transfer. 

Inventory and map lead service lines in cities statewide. 

Require landlords to notify renters if a lead service line is present and provide 

educational materials on how to reduce exposure. 

Make lead testing of water available to customers. 

Provide financing for homeowners to replace lead service lines. 

Assist cities to plan for and finance full replacement of all lead service lines. 

Provide funding for fixture replacement or filters. 

Increase outreach and education activities. 

  

PROTECTING  MINNESOTANS  WHO  DRINK  FROM  PRIVATE  WELLS  

Background: The Minnesota Well Code provides public health protection by regulating where and how a well can be constructed. Nitrate contamination is increasing in some areas of the state. The Minnesota Nitrogen Fertilizer Management Plan includes an ambitious program to test about 70,000 private wells in vulnerable areas with row crop agriculture. Nitrate contamination may indicate there is a pathway for contaminants used on the surface, such as pesticides, to reach drinking water aquifers. 

Barriers: Following the initial water quality testing following well construction, maintaining water quality depends on the initiative and vigilance of the well owner. While disclosure of the existence of a well is required on property transfer, there is no requirement for water testing.  

Policy Options: 

Require water testing at property transfer. 

Recommend further study of contaminant occurrence in private wells. 

 

Produced at the request of the Ad Hoc Policy Committee of the Clean Water Council, April 22, 2016. 

1

Handout #4

3/15/16 Input from Stakeholders and Clean Water Council members

New Policy Ideas

Question 4: What additional Policy topics should be added to this list and why do you think they are a higher priority than the items on the existing list? Rich Biske, The Nature Conservancy Consider the role of a nutrient trading program. To provide regulatory relief to point source entities allowing them to avoid costly infrastructure upgrades. Allowing point sources to purchase credits from non-point polluters may allow for increased financial assistance to implement practices in the larger watershed while increasing funding for local capacity and Clean Water Fund leverage. Bart Biernat, MN Environmental Health Association Drinking Water Protection (topic) - By addressing the protection of sources of drinking water, the Clean Water Council makes a critical connection between people and their environment. Where some people may understand why clean water is important (e.g. industrial stormwater pollution, septic system maintenance, feedlot management) - much more instinctively understand the importance of drinking water protection as it relates to Clean Water initiatives. Steve Morse, Minnesota Environmental Partnership The state ought to grant cities authority to restrict cropping systems on lands that are outside of the municipal boundary, but identified in the MN Dept of Health Source Water Protection Plans as developed by the local governments. This is a basic tool to protect drinking water for residents of rural MN. Dalma Martinovic, University of St. Thomas I am satisfied with the policy topics currently on the list and am particularly interested in following two: · Capacity for responsible parties to implement - critical to achieve water quality/quantity goals. · Leveraging opportunities exist – it is critical to take advantage of leveraging opportunities to

implement projects for which funds may not be available in the future. Jeff Forester, Minnesota Lakes and River Advocates · Contaminants of Emerging Concern would top my list - with the caveat that invasive aquatic plants

and animals be viewed as biological contaminants. Unlike other contaminants, however, they are more pernicious, impossible to eradicate in most cases, self-distributing within a waterbody, and even after control measures are put in place, can expand their negative impacts. Some, like zebra mussels and invasive carps can impact water quality and increase toxic blue green algae loads. In addressing this issue, it is not a matter of more funding, but a real need to have factual policy statements of need, a clear statement of the economic choice of “doing very little” and the potential for success. Some work has been done by the CWC in searching for ways to eradicate ZM, but success in finding an agent to kill them after the fact is far from assured and will be far into the future. But containment of AIS is possible, and far cheaper in the long run. At an early meeting of the Statewide AIS Advisory Committee put together by the MN DNR, one of our first resolutions, which passed unanimously, was that, “We can be successful stopping the spread of Aquatic Invasive Species.”

2

Our biggest obstacle to success is not a lack of funding for AIS efforts, nor a lack of knowledge regarding what to do. It is the will to take the measures that have worked in other areas. A policy statement from the CWC would be very helpful in this area. a) The entire western half of the United States, everything west of the 100th Meridian, has three

times the number of registered watercraft that Minnesota has, more lakes and rivers, and a lower rate of spread. The entire budget for AIS prevention west of the 100th Meridian is estimated at $20 million annually.

b) In the Pacific Northwest, including the five Canadian Provinces, they have no zebra or quagga mussels and very few other AIS. They have estimated the financial impact of allowing the area to be overrun with invasive mussels at $5 billion annually. They are spending $13 million annually in protection.

c) Minnesota’s funding for AIS prevention is about $15 million of public funds, and an estimated $5 million annually of private contributions and local money. So the money is there to address this problem. What we lack is commitment. There is a real opportunity for the CWC to champion this issue with policy recommendations and to use the bully pulpit to inform both the public and policy makers of the real need to change the way we access water resources in Minnesota.

Doug Busselman, Minnesota Farm Bureau We don’t believe policy pursuits by the Clean Water Council fits the purpose of the Council. If building partnerships in rural Minnesota is important or a desired approach, does the adoption of policy by the Clean Water Council alienate possible cooperation with important groups who appear to be the targets for imposing policy-driven requirements? Attempts to force an agenda from the top-down are not viewed as reason for working with those advancing a policy agenda which doesn’t fit with those impacted by being regulated by more intrusive government. Working on water quality is important and something we would like to do – being more regulated by ever-expanding agency over-reach, in the name of water quality, is not something we are interested in working cooperatively to accomplish.

Handout #5List of Potential Policy Ideas and Status - Policy Ad Hoc Committee, Clean Water Council (DRAFT 4/19/16)

Topic Original Policy Ideas (2015-early 2016) from Stakeholder Groups or Agencies Newer Draft Policy Ideas (2016) Notes Next steps (discuss on April 22)

Aquatic Invasive Species(1) View AIS as biological pollutants, (2) Change the way people have acess to public waters to limit the spread of AIS

Discussed in March. Committee decided not to pursue this topic.

Certification Enhance Minnesota’s certification system for responsibly produced agricultural product

Clean Water Certified Products - promote products that have been produced with water-friendly methods using a system based on attributes/standards. Could use the MAWQCP as a standard for certification.

Discussed in March. Committee decided not to pursue this topic.

Chloride(1) Reduce liability for applicators who attend training on best management practices. (2) TBD - Example (promote alternative practices to reduce the amount of chloride used for de-icing impervious surfaces)

Discuss in May?

Contaminants of Emerging Concern (CECs)

TBD - Example (Promote prevention of CECs through prescription drug collection efforts)

(1) Agencies do not have any specific policy recommendations ready at this time - they recommend waiting until next year to move forward on this topic; (2) in the meantime could invite Leo Raudys to speak on product stewardship to future Committee meeting

Discussed in January. Consider removing from list of topics.

Cover Crops (insurance)

Assist in advancing the adoption of cover crops by requesting the Federal Risk Management Agency (FRMA) to allow insurability of a crop that has been properly interseeded and to request the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to rewrite their Cover Crop Standard to encompass this practice.

Doug Thomas and Warren Formo will return to the Committee in May with a more complete policy proposal.

Cumulative Impacts of Groundwater Withdrawals

Manage the cumulative impacts of groundwater withdrawals

(1) Support DNR report and/or legislative proprosal related to cumulative impacts , (2) Consider rule change related to lake levels and use of surface water vs. groundwater for golf course irrigation

Need update from DNR at future Committee meeting on their draft policy proposal (note that as of March 2016, DNR indicated they will not be pursuing a policy for the 2016 session).

Discussed in January; revisit in July?

Drainage

(1) Develop drainage performance standards and require Best Management Practice treatment where appropriate. (2) Improve watershed resilience through watershed management, including agricultural drainage systems. (3) Leverage local agricultural accountability by creating agricultural management areas and drainage authority accountability at the subwatershed level.

Discuss in April

Drinking Water Discuss in AprilFeedlot Management Enforce existing feedlot laws. Discuss in June?

Handout #5List of Potential Policy Ideas and Status - Policy Ad Hoc Committee, Clean Water Council (DRAFT 4/19/16)

Local Water Governance and Planning

(1) Reform watershed governance (e.g. combine some WDs/WMOs with SWCDs) (2) Consider policy options for watershed governance to deliver water quality goals for the agricultural sector. (3) Require watershed governance structures statewide that have full-fledged autonomy to act (e.g. raise funds, regulate, and execute priorities) (4) Enhance and streamline local watershed planning and align it with One Watershed, One Plan and Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (WRAPS). (5) Manage water using One Watershed One Plan (6) Promote infiltration and water retention in local watershed management plans (7) Provide tax levy authority in greater Minnesota to allow the same capacity for local water planning, management and implementation that exists in the Seven-County Metropolitan Area. (8) Regulate water quantity through watershed districts. (9) Require local comprehensive watershed management plans that set water retention, storage and infiltration (volume control standards) that will hold the first X inches of rainfall for at least 24 hours by the year 2020. (10) Require local water management authorities to implement water plans. (11) Require that local comprehensive watershed management plans address altered hydrology through water retention, storage, infiltration goals.

Discuss in June?

Nonpoint Source Implementation - Animal Management

(1) Promote practices to reduce animal (cattle) access to streams (2) Regulations to reduce animal (cattle) access to streams

Request that MDA provide guidance to the Committee on the policy ideas in May.

Nonpoint Source Implementation - Living Cover

(1) Use living cover around wellheads to prevent groundwater contamination. (2) Develop markets for low impact forage and cover crops. Promote the use of alfalfa - in rotation with corn and use to feed beef cattle. Consumers could request that beef cattle diet includes alfalfa. (3) Create a market for profitable perennials versus harvesting corn stover to meet renewable fuel standards. (4) Encourage the use of perennial crops to meet the cellulosic ethanol mandate. (5) Enhance existing markets for perennial-fed beef and dairy products and bioenergy from perennial crops. (6) Provide cost sharing for practices that promote living cover.

Discussed in March. Requested that MDA/MDH return to the Policy Committee wil more complete policy recommendations in May.

Nonpoint Source Implementation - Protection

Protect targeted lands from the worst impacts from land use conversion (e.g. require Best Management Practices if x number of acres is converted from forestland to potatoes)

Discuss in April

Nonpoint Source Implementation - Standard of Care and Best Management Practices

(1) Develop performance-based standards for nonpoint pollution sectors (e.g. consider doing this by watershed). (2) Consider policy options that require a basic “standard of care” for crop agriculture. (3) Promote landscape Best Management Practices (BMPs) (e.g. buffers, BMPs on new tile systems, cover crops, no-till, etc.) for nutrient management. (4) TBD - Address challenges for landowners to implement Best Management Practices

Request that MDA provide guidance to the Committee on the policy ideas in May.

Nutrients

(1) Consider a polluter pays principle for nutrient management. (2) Recommend a nutrient accountability program (e.g. fall fertilizer application prohibitions). (3) Recommend adding the word “sustainable” to maximum return to nitrogen guidelines provided by the University of Minnesota. (4) Institute a fertilizer surcharge to provide compensation for drinking water treatment where contamination has occurred

Request that MDA provide guidance to the Committee on the policy ideas in May.

Handout #5List of Potential Policy Ideas and Status - Policy Ad Hoc Committee, Clean Water Council (DRAFT 4/19/16)

Point Source Implementation

(1) Consider changing caps and match requirements for CWF infrastructure grants. (2) Address WWTF infrastructure needs so funding can be more sustainable.

Discuss in May?

Septic System Management

Enforce existing septic system laws. Discuss in June?

Shoreland Rules Discuss in April

Soil Erosion

Assist in advancing reforms that will require on Highly Erodible Land (HEL) a conservation plan or system which will prevent water and wind erosion from exceeding tolerable soil loss limits as identified in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Field Office Technical Guide.

Doug Thomas and Warren Formo will return to the Committee in May with a more complete policy proposal.

Soil HealthAdopt a soil health policy statement similar to other state policies related to water. Needs to address both urban and rural areas.

John Barten and Doug Thomas will return to the Committee in May with a more complete policy proposal.

Sustainable Water Use(1) Improve industrial water efficiency (2) Motivate consumers to conserve water (3) Promote regional water supply and sustainability (4) Use agricultural irrigation water more efficiently

(1) Committee would like agencies to provide more detailed policy recommendations on this topic; (2) Could have a few water utilities present at a Committee meeting to share their perspective on this topic; (3) Staff shared idea of taking Met Council water efficiency grants and industrial water use programs statewide with BOC;(4) Reminder that water reuse has been deferred until interagency team develops white paper next year; (5) For ag. irrigation efficiency - need more training for producers - need UMN technical assistance (BOC had UMN Extension presentation in March)(6) Didn't discuss industrial water efficiency much - could be a future meeting topic

Committee needs to discuss whether to pursue any of these policy topics.

Urban Stormwater(1) Control and filter runoff with green infrastructure, (2) Institute Minimal Impact Design Standards, (3) Provide funding to deploy smart technology, (4) Require stormwater capture at construction sites

Discuss in May?

Handout #5List of Potential Policy Ideas and Status - Policy Ad Hoc Committee, Clean Water Council (DRAFT 4/19/16)

Water Storage (1) Revisit Council 2014 policy recommendation (2) public land issues (3) wildlife versus storage (4) wetland design (5) fairness

(1) Expand the current Council policy on water storage and retention to add guidance to agencies and/or local governments, (2) consider developing a set of recommendations/principles designed to integrate all of the pieces such as soil health, living cover, conservation cropping systems, and water storage (3) a statewide soil health watershed policy(4) BOC discussed this idea in March 2016 - where appropriate, require comprehensive watershed management plans that use the One Watershed, One Plan framework to include water volume reduction (or storage) goals.(5) There is so much overlap on these topics – should also consider developing a more overarching policy. For example, a policy recommendation that watershed plans have water quantity (storage) and

Committee would like agenices to discuss policy ideas in further detail at a future meeting.

Discussed in January; revisit in July?

1

Handout #6 4/12/16

Policy Ad Hoc Committee Draft Timeline December 14, 2015 · Developed Committee Charter · Organized list of potential topics and reduced list of topics (from 27 to 16 topics) · Elected Vice Chair

o Developed factors to consider when selecting policy recommendations (e.g. capacity for responsible parties to implement, cost benefit relationship, leveraging opportunities exist, likely champions to lead efforts, politically feasible, technical information is available to implement)

January 22, 2016 · Presentations/Discussion of the following policy topics:

o Contaminants of Emerging Concern o Cumulative Impacts of Groundwater Withdrawals o Sustainable Water Use o Water Storage

March 25, 2016 · Presentations/Discussion of the following policy topics related to nonpoint source implementation

(note this will be more high level discussion) o Living Cover o Certification o Soil Health o Soil Erosion o Cover Crop (Insurance)

April 22, 2016 · Potential topics

o Drinking Water Protection o Drainage o Nonpoint Source Implementation – Protection (high level discussion) o Shoreland Rules

May 27, 2016 · Potential topics

o Revisit the following topics - Soil Health, Soil Erosion, Living Cover, Cover Crops (insurance) o Discuss whether to pursue nonpoint source implementation – standard of care, animal

management, and nutrient topics o Chloride o Urban Stormwater o Point Source Implementation

2

June 24, 2016 · Potential topics

o Local Water Governance and Planning o Feedlot Management o Septic System Management o TBD – may need to revisit additional topics

July 22, 2016 · Potential topics

o Revisit Cumulative Impacts of Groundwater and Water Storage o TBD – may need to revisit additional topics o Narrow down list to 2-3 topics to bring to the full Council

August 26, 2016 · Draft/discuss more detailed policy recommendations · Present more detailed draft policy recommendations to full Council September 23, 2016 · Revise policy recommendations based on full Council comments

October 28, 2016 · Present final policy recommendations to full Council for vote

1

Handout #7 3/15/16

Input from Stakeholders and Clean Water Council members Policy Priorities

Question: Using the “Draft Policy Ideas” spreadsheet, which 2-3 topics do you view as a priority and why? Numbers below indicate the number of stakeholders that selected this topic as a policy priority Living Cover (Nonpoint Source (Nonpoint Source (NPS) Implementation) = 5 Cumulative Impacts of Groundwater Withdrawals = 5 Standard of Care/Best Practices (NPS Implementation) = 3 Local Water Governance/Planning = 3 and (-2) Water Storage = 2 Protection (NPS Implementation) = 2 Contaminants of Emerging Concern = 2 Sustainable Water Use = 2 Drainage = 1 Feedlot Management/Septic System Management = 1 Nutrients = 1 Urban Stormwater = 1 Point Source Implementation = 1 Animal Management (NPS Implementation) = 0 Chloride = 0 Living Cover · Living Cover (NPS Implementation) another area in which careful management of resources can

have an outsized positive impact on water quality (and may even improve farm value). Heiko Schoenfuss, St. Cloud State University

· Living Cover (NPS Implementation) - In review of the potential policy, the area where we would be in agreement deals with wellhead protection. We support using the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) for this type of permanent cover protection. Doug Busselman, Minnesota Farm Bureau

· Living Cover (NPS Implementation) Strategies, especially around creating markets through biofuels and promoting perennial based ag products. Steve Morse, Minnesota Environmental Partnership

· Living cover (NPS Implementation); gives farmers options & produces multiple benefits. Steve Woods and Darrell Gerber, Freshwater Society

· Living cover (NPS Implementation) - I feel on this topic there is the most potential to make a large impact. I think living cover – adding perennials where they can do the most good and having incentives and markets for perennial crops would do the most good. Also need technical help for farmers. Thom Petersen, Minnesota Farmers Union

Cumulative Impacts of Groundwater Withdrawals · Cumulative Impacts of Groundwater Withdrawals - Manage the cumulative impacts of groundwater

withdrawals. Rich Biske, The Nature Conservancy · Cumulative Impacts of Groundwater Withdrawals - The health and vitality of a community depends

on a safe and sustained source of clean water. Bart Biernat, MN Environmental Health Association

2

· Cumulative Impacts of Groundwater Withdrawals are a serious issue and given potential of long-term irreparable consequences, and direct connection to drinking water quantity and quality this issue is critical. Dalma Martinovic, University of St. Thomas

· Cumulative impacts of Groundwater Withdrawals - Use by multiple entities of local source water has shown impacts to the environment, both above (changes to lakes, streams, wetlands) and below ground (lower aquifer levels). Jon Eaton, American Water Works Association (Minnesota Section)

· Cumulative Impacts of Groundwater Withdrawals; timing is good given the recent investments made in groundwater management and DNR’s willingness to put the word “manage” back into their management approach. Steve Woods and Darrell Gerber, Freshwater Society

Standard of Care (NPS Implementation) · Standard of Care (NPS Implementation) - Watershed level nonpoint performance standards. Steve

Morse, Minnesota Environmental Partnership · Standard of Care (NPS Implementation) - Need to develop a Standard of Care for NPS that includes

drainage, nutrients, feedlots, cropping systems, etc. Betsy Lawton, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy

· Standard of Care (NPS Implementation)Nonpoint Source Implementation – Standard of Care/Best Practices - I feel on this topic there is the most potential to make a large impact. Thom Petersen, Minnesota Farmers Union

Local Water Governance/Planning · Local Water Governance/Planning - Promote infiltration and water retention in local watershed

management plans. Rich Biske, The Nature Conservancy · Local Water Governance/Planning - Implement the standards of care through watershed

governance structure. Betsy Lawton, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy · Local Water Governance/Planning - I believe the CWC should focus on budget items – AMC and the

affiliates we represent may have concerns with some of the items listed under Local Water Governance and Planning. Jennifer Berquam, Association of Minnesota Counties

· Local Water Governance/Planning - Unless directly related to funding recs, don't see it as role of council to spend a lot of time on policy issues. Strongly advise against delving into LGU governance issues and restructuring, especially as one watershed one plan plays out. Sheila Vanney, Minnesota Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts

· Local Water Governance and Planning - See attached Case study and Annual report. The top priority, mostly because it is so misunderstood, is the idea of "Building Local Capacity.” The model to date is that the experts come in and set an agenda and hold listening sessions to get public input, or they are there to “educate.” But the view from the public side is that these meetings have little impact on eventual outcomes, produce little buy in from the community, or increase the civic capacity of a community around water issues. I have heard a comment that captures the view well, “We need experts on tap, not on top.” One lake association leader from within Middle St. Croix management association said, in relation to government, “You guys need to start thinking of buy-in as a BMP. Without it you can’t do anything.” The MPCA, along with 18 water professionals, has been building a model for Civic Governance that is showing promise and producing better outcomes. Please see the attached case studies and annual update. You can talk with Lynne Kolze at MPCA about the model she has been developing for a more powerful Civic Governance around water - it has produced some remarkable results. Jeff Forester, Minnesota Lakes and River Advocates

3

Water Storage · Water Storage – The old paradigm of getting water to the river asap needs to continue to shift to

holding water and long as possible (reusing it as much as possible). Jon Eaton, American Water Works Association (Minnesota Section

· Water storage, water storage, water storage. Because the tile isn’t coming out of the ground and excess runoff is what carries all the pollutants. Steve Woods and Darrell Gerber, Freshwater Society

Protection (Nonpoint Source (NPS) Implementation) · Protection (Nonpoint Source (NPS) Implementation) - Protect targeted lands from the worst impacts

from land conversion. Rich Biske, The Nature Conservancy · Protection (NPS Implementation) - While runoff from farms is a major concern and huge driver of

declining water quality in the state, many of our most pristine waters are declining due to residential over development or poor development of shoreline. These lakes and rivers should be protected before they have to be restored. Much work has been done putting Conservation Easements (CEs) on shoreline as a way to protect water quality. But as was noted in the 2008 Minnesota Statewide Conservation and Preservation Plan, there is an unused tool in the water protection toolbox - Incentives. CEs are expensive and cannot in themselves change residential development patterns enough to reverse declining water quality trends. By creating a Sustainable Shoreline Incentive Act with a 90- year covenant, and at least leveling the playing field so that owners are not forced to sell or subdivide riparian habitat simply because they cannot afford the taxes, or if they choose voluntarily not to take actions like clearing aquatic vegetation, we could do much to protect healthy riparian habitats and restore degraded riparian areas for very little public investment. Our surveys show that shoreline owners that would politically oppose stronger Minimum shoreland standards would applaud incentives. So politically, establishing shoreline incentives would be easier and politically less expensive than trying to update Minnesota’s woefully out of date minimum shoreland standards. Jeff Forester, Minnesota Lakes and River Advocates

Contaminants of Emerging Concern · Contaminants of Emerging Concern – a topic still not fully integrated into existing water resource

management paradigms. What needs to be done, what can be done efficiently, where is the biggest bang for the buck? These are all questions in dire need for answers. Heiko Schoenfuss, St. Cloud State University

· Contaminants of Emerging Concern – due to the large number of unknowns associated with these largely unregulated group of contaminants, as well as known hazards, it is important to consider minimizing input into aquatic systems; much of the effort can be paired up with non-point and point source efforts and educational outreach efforts. Dalma Martinovic, University of St. Thomas

Sustainable Water Use · Sustainable Water Use - The health and vitality of a community depends on a safe and sustained

source of clean water. Bart Biernat, MN Environmental Health Association · Sustainable Water Use –Additional public education is needed to help the public understand the

resource is not endless, discuss ways to make it sustainable, and implement some actions. Jon Eaton, American Water Works Association (Minnesota Section)

Drainage - Performance Standards for drainage systems. Steve Morse, Minnesota Environmental Partnership

4

Feedlot Management/Septic System Management (and others) - Enforce existing laws. Betsy Lawton, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy Nutrients – this group of contaminants are a priority for several reasons, one being that that there is a strong evidence that nutrient issues impact drinking water quality and aquatic ecosystem functions and services (to MN citizens). Dalma Martinovic, University of St. Thomas Urban Stormwater projects could have an outsized impact on water quality that has not been fully realized. Innovative ideas are needed to address the stormwater issues, especially at a time where PAHs, heavy metals and other compounds trapped in older stormwater retention ponds raise questions about their future utility. Heiko Schoenfuss, St. Cloud State University

Point Source Implementation - Consider changing caps and match requirements and address WWTF infrastructure needs so funding can be more sustainable. As noted above, the costs to local governments to meet new and increasing standards as well as upgrading and repairing existing systems is staggering. The caps are too low and should be increased. As part of looking at WWTF infrastructure needs, any study should include an analysis of more cost-effective ways to achieve pollution reduction. Elizabeth Wefel, Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities and Minnesota Environmental Science and Economic Review Board General - The potential policy topics should be very focused and limited to 1-2 topics that fit with the Guiding Principles and Funding Priorities. Tony Kwilas, Minnesota Chamber of Commerce

Handout #8 12/14/15

Policy Ad Hoc Committee of the Clean Water Council Committee Charter 2015-2016 Policy Ad Hoc Committee (Committee) Members: Mark Abner, John Barten, Pam Blixt, Gary Burdorf, Warren Formo, Gene Merriam, Victoria Reinhardt Considering the progress to date and the complexity of water resources issues, the Clean Water Council (Council) recognizes that Clean Water Fund dollars alone will not be able to meet the expectations of Minnesota citizens for clean and sustainable water. Therefore the Council created a Policy Ad Hoc Committee. The Policy Ad Hoc Committee will develop policy recommendations for consideration by the Council. Recommendations should accelerate the adoption of policies that will better restore and protect water resources. The Policy Ad Hoc Committee shall consist of a minimum of five voting members and a maximum of a non-majority of the current seated voting Council members. The Policy Ad Hoc Committee:

· Reviews existing policy information from Council meetings and relevant reports; · Prepares policy recommendations for the Council; · Is accountable and advisory to the full Council; · Solicits input on potential policy recommendations from stakeholder groups,

agencies, and other experts; and · Elects its own Chair and Vice-Chair.

Membership of this Committee is reviewed every year or by the Council Chair’s discretion and is approved by the Council. If the number of members interested in serving 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 two consecutive Committee meetings, the Council Chair may remove this person at his/her discretion. The Clean Water Council will review, revise, and decide whether to adopt the Committee’s policy recommendations.

Handout #9

12/14/15

Policy Ad Hoc Committee (Clean Water Council) Factors that should be discussed and considered in selecting a smaller list of potential policy topics to recommend to the Clean Water Council. Factors are not limited to the following: · Capacity for responsible parties to implement · Cost benefit relationship · Leveraging opportunities exist · Likely champions to lead efforts · Politically feasible · Technical information is available to implement

Policy Ad Hoc Committee web page - http://www.pca.state.mn.us/r9rq9y3

Drainage Work Group Overview and Topics

Clean Water Council Policy CommitteeApril 22, 2016

Al Kean, Chief Engineer, BWSR

Drainage Work Group 

(DWG)Membership

Typically 20‐30 per meeting

Drainage Authorities

AMC – Association of Minnesota Counties (and some county staff)

MAWD – Minnesota Association of Watershed Districts

Farm Groups MFB – Minnesota Farm Bureau

MFU – Minnesota Farmers Union

Other Ag and Producer Groups (MAWRC, MCGA, MSGA, etc.)

Environmental Groups

MCEA – Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy

FWLA – Fish and Wildlife Legislative Alliance

MCF – Minnesota Conservation Federation

Other Associations

MASWCD – MN Assn. of Soil and Water Conservation Districts

MVA – Minnesota Viewers Association

MACATFO – MN Assn. of Co. Auditors Treasurers Financial Officers

MADI – Minnesota Association of Drainage Inspectors

RRWMB – Red River Watershed Management Board

MAT – Minnesota Association of Townships

MRCC – Minnesota Rural Counties Caucus

State Agencies + BWSR, DNR, MDA, MPCA + UMN

Legislature House and Senate staff and/or Legislators

DWG Origin

• 2005 directive and appropriation to BWSR ‐ ‐> Public Drainage Ditch Buffer Study, Feb. 2006

• Study to be done in consultation with:  farm groups, WDs, SWCDs, Counties, conservation orgs., and federal agencies with buffer programs

• When study was complete, the study work group decided to discuss buffer strip and other drainage issues, potential areas of consensus, and associated recommendations.

3

DWG Characteristics

• Voluntary membership

• Consensus based

• Purposes: 1) Foster science‐base mutual understandings;          2) develop consensus recommendations for updating drainage law and related provisions

• Facilitated by BWSR ‐ ‐ drainage stakeholder coordination authority in 103B.101, Subd. 13 ‐ ‐ DWG recommended

• Typically meets monthly, June until the next legislative session

4

DWG Consensus Recommendations for Drainage Law and Related Topics

• 2007:  clarify ditch buffer strip requirements, repair of conservation 

practices along drainage systems, and drainage system inspection;  add 

incremental buffers;  recommend drainage records modernization, update 

of MN Public Drainage Manual, and interagency drainage mgmt. team

• 2010:  clarify drainage system impoundment and rerouting, partial 

abandonment, and drainage inspector requirements;  update $ thresholds 

in drainage law; codify BWSR authority for drainage stakeholder 

coordination and roles of the DWG in 103B.101

5

DWG Consensus Recommendations for Drainage Law and Related Topics

• 2013:  enable reestablishment of drainage system records, and official 

copies of records for partially transferred drainage systems;  enable            

2‐stage ditches for petitioned repairs

• 2014:  update drainage project environmental, land use and multipurpose 

considerations;  add requirement to investigate external sources of 

funding for multipurpose projects ‐ ‐ both to enable better compatibility 

with Local Water Planning and 1 Watershed ‐ 1 Plan implementation

6

Drainage Work Group Current Priority Topics

1) Buffer law and drainage law – drainage system retroactive acquisition and compensation for public ditch buffer strips

2) Runoff‐based drainage assessments option in drainage law

3) Public Waters and Drainage – DNR policies: ‐‐ drainage projects and public waters permitting law; ‐‐ public waters permission in drainage law

7

Buffer Law – Buffer or Alternative Practice Acquisition and Compensation via Drainage Law

Section 103F.48, Subd. 10. Landowner financial assistance and public drainage system procedure. 

• Paragraph (b) is about “public drainage system procedure” ‐‐ enables drainage authorities to acquire or compensate all or part of buffer strips or alternative practices in advance or retroactively

• Drainage law buffer requirement and authority is triggered independent of the buffer law (i.e. when viewers are appointed, or for incremental buffer strips ordered by the drainage authority)

• DWG recommended clarifications of paragraph (b) to work retroactively for compensating “damages” for ditch buffer strip right‐of‐way

8

Acquisition and Compensation via Drainage Law (DWG recommended)

Section 103E.315, Assessment of Drainage Benefits and Damages., Subd. 8. Extent of Damages. … (b) When damages are determined to acquire or otherwise provide compensation for buffer strips or alternative riparian water quality practices previously installed as required by section 103F.48, subdivision 3, the viewers and drainage authority shall consider the land use prior to buffer strip or alternative practice installation in determining the fair market value of the property under paragraph (a), clause (1).

9

Drainage Law and Buffer Law Q & A about Ditch Buffer Strips

Both Drainage Law and Buffer Law allow haying and grazing

Starting point for measuring buffer strips is the same

10

Runoff‐Based Drainage Assessments Option

Buffer Law will trigger more petitions for redetermination of benefits?

Investigate adding a runoff‐based option in drainage law for assessing drainage system costs ‐ ‐ particularly buffer strip and repair costs

Evaluating use of GIS application to consider slope, soils, land use, erosion, and sediment to the drainage system by parcel 

Evaluate consideration of tile drainage and conservation BMPs

International Water Institute (Chuck Fritz, Exec. Dir.) investigating via BWSR grant to the Red River Watershed Management Board

11

Public Waters Law and Drainage Law

DWG subgroup discussing DNR public waters policy

• provisions in public waters law about DNR public waters work permit requirements (drainage project exemption or not)

• Provision in drainage law about public waters DNR permission

DWG member concerns about statute interpretation and consistency for DNR policy (past, present and statewide)

DNR drafting updated policy to replace 1980 DNR policy DWG subgroup to further discuss before taking to full DWG

12

Drainage Policy Observations

1) Drainage is critical for productivity on much of MN ag lands

2) Multipurpose drainage management is critical for water quantity and quality mgmt. (need public and private funding partnerships, such as BWSR CWF Multipurpose Drainage Management Program)

3) Need more distributed storage on‐field, on‐farm and on‐drainage system at multiple scales, and in the soil profile (soil organic matter)

4) Local water planning and implementation, including 1W‐1P, are the best ways to lead multipurpose water management ‐ ‐ drainage law has and should continue to become more compatible

13

End

From: Westerlund, Julie (DNR) Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 4:20 PM To: Peichel, Barbara (MPCA) Cc: Shillcox, Jennifer (DNR); Petrik, Daniel (DNR); Moeckel, Jason B (DNR) Subject: FW: April 22 Policy Ad Hoc Committee - Clean Water Council Barb – I won’t be able to be at the meeting tomorrow, and I’m not sure anyone else from DNR will either – but I’m forwarding some thoughts from Dan Petrik. Not sure how you want to share these with the committee, but they are being offered in the spirit of one idea about how to think about this issue (not necessarily a department position on the topic). Hope this helps. Thanks! Julie Julie Westerlund 651.259.5704 From: Petrik, Daniel (DNR) Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 2:06 PM To: Westerlund, Julie (DNR) Subject: RE: April 22 Policy Ad Hoc Committee - Clean Water Council Hi Julie, I’m in between sessions while doing floodplain and shoreland training so here’s some quick thoughts. I’d encourage them to think beyond best management practices to also include ways to encourage limits or restrictions on land use. Row cropping is a land use and it has big impacts, especially on ground water in Becker County and other areas with sandy/porous soils. In the land use world, we never think twice about prohibiting or placing restrictions or conditions on certain land uses. However, when it comes to Ag, we seem to think that we have to allow it. I know this is a paradigm shift, and land use is a local control issue. However, if the state could provide “cover” to local governments to prohibit or restrict this type of use that might be worth considering. Some may say this is a taking, however, such prohibitions or restrictions are not. Local governments would still allow other land uses that are consistent with protecting the resource. This could include at a minimum low density residential. Row cropping could be allowed with conditions, if appropriate. But, someone who is an expert on conservation techniques should weigh in on those. My key message is perhaps row cropping just shouldn’t be allowed in some places. Could the state find ways to help local governments make this decision? Dan Petrik | Land Use Specialist Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) 500 Lafayette Road | St. Paul, MN| 55155-4032 651-259-5697 | www.dnr.state.mn.us

Jeff Forester, Minnesota Lakes and River Advocates Protection – shoreland development standards · Passing stronger minimum standards for shoreline development has proven to be politically

impracticable. Stronger shoreline rules are difficult and expensive to enforce and the intent is often short circuited by local variance boards. Also, stronger shoreland development minimum standards do not help us restore land that has already been poorly developed. The Governor's new riparian buffers will have little impact on the problem of runoff on lakes due to the "mowable vegetative cover" language. I would like to present the idea of using a Sustainable Shorelands Incentive Act, similar to the Sustainable Forestry Incentive Act, but revenue neutral for the state and local governments, to provide incentives for riparian owners to protect or restore their shoreline properties. Current grants for shoreland restoration (through SWCD or Watershed Districts) can help qualified owners restore the shoreline in their care beyond the current minimum standards. Using Conservation Easements to accomplish this is often difficult for many owners since CE’s do not usually impact property taxes, and it is market driven property tax increases that drive the bulk of the seasonal property sales. Some years ago MLR commissioned an independent researcher to look at seasonal property owners intended actions on their property. We discovered that the average household income of a seasonal property owner in Minnesota was $58,000 annually. Here are some further results from the independent survey commissioned by Minnesota Lakes and Rivers.

Advocates in 2005: · Only 8% of Minnesota seasonal property owners purchase recreational property as an investment. · 72% purchase their seasonal property for recreational and retirement use while 20% of seasonal

property owners inherited their property or purchased it from a family member. · 86% of Minnesota seasonal property owners indicated that they would not sell their property in the

next three years. In fact, 30% of the 86% said that they would pass or have passed their property on to a family member. Some seasonal property owners are fourth generation owners of some seasonal property.

· 6% of property owners said they may possibly sell their property in the next three years because it is no longer affordable for them to keep their property.

Despite these findings, lakeshore cabins are being sold at an alarming rate, usually driven by market value induced property tax increases. In the last decade the average size of a seasonal lot (including hunting lands) has fallen by 50%. When shoreline is redeveloped typically large lots are subdivided, old “ma and pa” cabins are replaced with four season homes to the detriment of the water quality. Once development pressure reaches a certain level, the water quality cannot be fully restored. It is almost impossible, as the BWCAW exemplifies, to “undevelop” a lake. To protect our lakes from the overdevelopment, or poor development of lakeshore, I would suggest an incentive program for shoreline owners that restore or protect the riparian areas they steward beyond the current State minimum shoreland standards. In order to qualify, the owner would work with an approved water resource manager at the SWCD, WD or MN DNR (that the owner pays for) to write a shoreline management/restoration plan. There is already a largely underutilized grant program to help owners restore shoreline that can help partially defray the costs. They can file a certificate with the assessor, sign a 90 year covenant, and qualify for the reduced tax rate. Every so often (5-10 years perhaps) the project would need to be recertified to make sure that the protection or enhancement is continuing to provide public benefits.