clean water council · • irrigation scheduling software – bruce montgomery, m innesota...

Clean Water Council Budget and Outcomes Committee (BOC) Meeting Agenda

Friday January 4, 2019 9:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. MPCA Conference Room 100

520 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul, MN

2017-2018 BOC Members: John Barten, Sharon Doucette (BOC Vice Chair), Warren Formo, Bob Hoefert, Frank Jewell, Holly Kovarik, Todd Renville (BOC Chair), Pat Shea

9:30 Regular Business · Approve agenda· Approve September 07, 2018 meeting minutes· Chair and Staff update

9:40 Additional CWF money forecasted for FY 20-21: Todd Renville · Priorities· Contingency plans

10:00 2019 Legislative Session: Todd Renville and Sharon Doucette · New Governor, Commissioners and House Committee leaders: Focus of the administration

and building relationships· Stakeholder support· Legislative Factsheets

11:00 Review Agencies’ CWF Report Card as an adequate measure of progress and benchmarks: Discussion with Shannon Lotthammer, Victoria Reinhardt and Bonnie Keeler (invited)

12:00 Lunch

12:30 Continue measures for progress and benchmarks.

1:30 New Business: · Leadership and continuing to serving in BOC.· Future BOC Meeting Dates

February 1, 2019 March 1, 2019 April 5, 2019 May 3, 2019 June 7, 2019

2:00 Adjourn

wq-cwc4-81a

Budget and Outcomes Committee Meeting Summary Clean Water Council (Council)

September 7, 2017, 9:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.

Committee Members present: John Barten, Sharon Doucette, Warren Formo, Bob Hoefert, Frank Jewell, Todd Renville, and Pat Shea Members absent: Holly Kovarik

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, or contact Brianna Frisch.

Regular Business · Agenda and 8-3-18 meeting summary approved.· Chair and Staff update – no updates.

Updated/New Programs (WebEx 04:30:00) · Irrigation Scheduling Software – Bruce Montgomery, Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) and Dr. Vasudha

Sharma (University of Minnesota)§ This program would support an Irrigation Specialist at the University of Minnesota Extension to develop

guidance and provide education on irrigation and nitrogen best management practices (BMPs). This positionprovides direct support to irrigators on issues of irrigation scheduling and soil water monitoring and worksclosely with local and state government partners.

§ This is a new tool to help irrigators. Properly managing irrigation is a tremendous way to manage nitrogen andother contaminants that may impact surface and groundwater. This tool helps ensure a stable system.

§ The software (http://ima.respec.com/): Anyone can create an account.· In the Benton County: Little Rock Creek Watershed and surrounding region· They expanded to the East Otter Tail: Becker, Hubbard, Otter Tail, Todd, and Wadena county regions.

This expansion meant that additional soils needed to be included in the software and the nearbyweather stations in the area were added to the software as well.

· Login with email and password (first time will need to create an account). There is a guide online.· Next, the user creates their fields. They can draw the boundaries. Within a particular field, they will need

to add in the field description (including crop type and maturity of the plant). They also need to includethe delivery rate for their field irrigation. The software pulls all other necessary information from thenearby weather stations. We want to best estimate what the field is at for irrigation/rainfall and soilmoisture. This is done behind the scenes every day. The users can override the rain gauge calculations tobe able to fine-tune precipitation levels. The software calculates weather conditions in real-time. Thesoil moisture is driven by the water content, but it can also be adjusted. The graph provides the story ofthe soil moisture (field water balance) over the growing season.

§ The user has to create the account using a desktop computer (or a laptop); once created the users can accessthe account via smartphones. This software is based on steps in an article (based on scientific knowledge).

§ One of the important features of this is that the crops face different stresses at different times of the growingyear. Usually irrigators tend to over irrigate early in the season and cut off the water too early prior to theharvest. The water scheduling is important for the reproductive process of the corn; nitrogen levels are also aconcern at this time. This tool will work on a smartphone, and the growers with advanced knowledge oftechnology are heavy users of this program; they can turn their irrigators on and off with their smartphones. Ifwe make advancements in soil sensors or crop temperature sensors somehow to help look at which parts of thefield are going into water stress, the farmers may be able to water parts of the fields. Other features could beadded into it too. If the grower has sensors, they can add this in as well to the software to provide them moreinformation on their fields. There are reports (NRCS report for irrigation scheduling) and this has been used aswell.

§ RESPEC would continue the development of the tool. The funding would help to expand the software coverageinto five or six more counties and this would allow 80% of the state to have coverage. Training and educationwill be a big part of this program, and Dr. Sharma would work on the education and outreach. RESPEC staff will

https://www.pca.state.mn.us/clean-water-council/policy-ad-hoc-committee

https://www.pca.state.mn.us/clean-water-council/policy-ad-hoc-committee

mailto:[email protected]

http://ima.respec.com/

http://ima.respec.com/demo/static/docs/IMA%20-%20Quick%20Start%20Guide.pdf

https://www.respec.com/project/benton-county-irrigation-scheduler/

talk to the Soil and Water Districts (SWCDs), irrigation implement dealers, and other interested parties. We would also examine where we need additional weather stations: currently estimated to be 12 more stations).

§ Minnesota irrigators use 80 billion gallons of water per year, about one-third of our total groundwater use, so anything we can do to help make it more efficient is a positive. The main goal is to minimize leaching to try to protect groundwater from nitrates and other contaminates. The education plays an important role as well.

Questions: · This request is for additional funding? Answer: Correct. · Comment: This seems pretty simple, but there is a lot going on in the background. The old checkbook method is

done by paper in hand. It has been researched to be better than the checkbook method (more accurate). This software would be very useful, in particular for the larger growers. There are so many moving parts and this helps to keep track of everything.

· We asked Margaret Wagner to combine these irrigation programs, so the total request would be $770,000? Answer: Correct. We would like to see and updated document with this additional request.

· This program closely supports Dr. Sharma’s work; will the program eventually be housed at the University of Minnesota (UMN), or will part of it stay with the agency? Answer: The way I think this is going to work, is the entire allocation comes to the department and the MDA will have a contract with University of Minnesota Extension service for Dr. Sharma’s position. If the additional training money were approved, it would all go through as part of contract that funds Dr. Sharma. The MDA would contract with RESPEC separately. The only part of the new funding that would stay with the department would be the twelve weather stations. Response: I think we are okay on that funding side, but we need an updated description of those details (should be correct in the spreadsheet at this time).

· Robust Drinking Water Protection – Chris Elvrum and Tannie Eshenaur, Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) (WebEx 00:25:00) § At the request of the Council and Governor’s Office, we are presenting ideas on recommendations to enhance

or create more robust drinking water protection in the state. There was vigorous discussion about drinking water protection. We also submitted updated activity forms.

§ There are six different options. The first three look at the water management in the state, looking at how we can enhance the groundwater work going on in the system, and going on to protect drinking water.

§ Options four and five are looking at public water supply, and how we can learn more about what is in surface waters that is used for public water supply. The Council wants to do more to on the ground to protect people who drink from private wells.

§ Option number six, is in response to the discussion from last month on what research might be needed to help us develop better water quality standards for water reuse.

§ We understand it is a concern of the Council that we do not add additional line items to the lists. Therefore, we are building these into the work we are already doing. This is why we have taken what was already approved by the BOC and are adding additional work activities and looking for an increase in the funding amounts.

§ Option 1: Groundwater Restoration and Protection Strategies · There is a gap found in understanding technical assistance at a local level, taking the data and turning it

into on-the-ground activities. We have been doing some small experiments of giving grants to SWCDs to fund parts of full-time positions, who would help to create activities and interest around groundwater protection. This increase would do more of that work. Additionally, making the groundwater information more readily available. This would help build up the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) watershed help assessment framework and tools available for the groundwater protection strategies. It would help provide more access to the data.

· This covers multiple programs (items 14, 19, 47, 9, 8, and 60 in the spreadsheet). · Would that be a competitive process with the SWCDs or would it be more of a partnership? Answer: We

would probably review the readiness of the SWCDs and the interest on their part. We would want to work where people are prepared. I do not know if it would be competitive at this point. If there were more money and more interest, we would have to come back to the process. There is a lot of administration work that is used in a competitive grant process.

§ Option 2: Accelerated Implementation

· This is a Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) line item. They have a good model of providing technical assistance. We would like to include the content area of groundwater and drinking water into this. When an SWCD wants to do work in groundwater protection or drinking water supply management, there should be someone available to help them with the technical expertise that is specialized in groundwater. There are eight SWCD technical service areas. Our proposal would be to create four positions, targeted towards areas of the state with significant groundwater issues.

§ Option 3: Drinking Water Protection · Regarding water reuse, we are trying to figure out how it fits into the water resource management

framework. We had funding to look at specific challenges and threats to drinking water. We are working with a think tank at the UMN to identify those challenges and address them. For example, the MDH will present the draft report, which the Council requested on lead and drinking water. This report looks at all places where lead could enter the drinking water supply. What are the interventions we can take to make sure it does not adversely affect people’s health? Another is looking at risk management for unregulated contaminants. This is a huge challenge. We have a statewide plan for nutrient reduction, we have the nonpoint priority funding plan, and the joint agency approaches to these specific content areas. While we have bits and pieces, and we are able to take action as the MDH, based on the current work we do not have a statewide plan for drinking water protection, and this is a huge gap. This plan would help us bring together both the statewide water agencies in the executive branch, but also the local partners. We are moving towards a comprehensive, systematic approach to protecting drinking water into the future. This includes an addition of $400,000.

· Question: So, you are jumping from plans to address Groundwater Restoration and Protection Strategies (GRAPS) to a comprehensive plan. Is that enough money to do that? Answer: I think so. There are many needs out there for CWFs. We have the $300,000 to continue the work of the think tank, and this will be another layer. Pulling that all together will take additional staff time and some outside expertize from the UMN.

· Question: What would be a good implementation program for the private wells over time? Are you including this area? Answer: We do not have a plan for how to address private wells, but we are working on it. They do not have the same protection. There is a later proposal that will help them get treatment for private wells. The overarching plan, this would have to be a part of that. We did call out private water supplies.

§ Option 4: Private Well Protection. · This work has funded our efforts to look at arsenic. It is fairly widespread in the state. Our efforts have

been limited to outreach and education. We have not had any funding for financing the treatment for issues at the local level. We heard from the Council regarding the inequity that exists when people have a contaminant in their well and are not able to finance the treatment. The MDH has an existing program of Health Homes, which works with local partners to fund interventions that protect people from radon in their homes, or lead exposure from pain and dust. There is an existing model. We are proposing to expand the model to include private wells. We have a delivery system with grants to local partners and local public health agencies across the state, or to housing groups that work in sustainable housing at the local level. This is an additional $1 million.

· Question: Part of what we have heard at the Council is the concern that private well owners do not even know they are drinking bad water. This seems to be responding to people who find out there is a problem. How are we dealing with people who do not know about their well water? Response: We have increased our efforts for education and outreach. With the funds that were already identified, we are working on getting more testing, and the testing is cheaper than treatment. We had a testing clinic in Sterns County, back in July with the SWCDs. The advertisement and outreach was done by the SWCDs and we gave money to provide the testing. We were partners in the information dispersion. We would like to expand that and we would target counties with a high arsenic or nitrate incidences. Those are the ones we know have issues that can be directly addressed. We are going to test different models, and we already feel that it is going to be expanded. We recognize the first step is to know if there is a problem.

· Question: Is there a map of this testing? You suggest we are concentrating on the places we know have high results. Answer: We do not know how many people test on their own (through a private lab). Part of the work now is to contact labs for any data of private well samples. We can track over time if that

has increased. We created a baby brochure regarding water and distributed it statewide (via WIC, low-income housing and expectant mother programs). We do not have a good way to measure if there is an increase in testing or addressing these issues. We are trying to collect the data in many ways. Response: You will get that from Representative Wagenius. It is an important piece. We do not know vital information at this point. We want to know this information, to be able to say there is an impact. Comment: One of the advantages of being the source of funding is that we can require criteria for the funding. It is a requirement to record how those dollars are used.

· You are requesting more funds and developing programs to provide some sort of grant funding to private landowner well contamination. There are people on municipal systems on Clear Lake, Minnesota who would love it if it only cost them $1,000, one-time to address a private issue, instead of paying the cost every year in perpetuity for a very similar issue. We want to encourage people to get their well tested, but people do not want to know because they do not want to have to pay to fix the issue or make the improvements. Is there a conversation about that? Answer: We really struggle with the issue of equity and justice, and it is a thorny problem. I do not think there is a sliver bullet. In Clear Lake, it costs $7,500 per household versus St. Peter is $1,600. The bigger customers, the more the cost can be spread out. It does not justify the approach. We have to go where the interventions are possible, and we do have a model for this. There used to be something called the harmful substances board (appeal to the board to get rid of the substance). People who own a private well can appeal and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) can place filters. There are other instances with the superfund to help private well owners. The issue for public water supply is difficult. It is a case-by-case situation, and some have been able to go to the Legislature to get funding. You raise and important issue. We do not want to make private well owners wait until we solve this issue. The EQB’s water report had an idea to include a fee on nitrate fertilizer, which would help cover the nitrate issues costs. Regarding what we are doing, this would be using CWFs and this would help address naturally occurring contaminants.

· Comment: I recognize that private well ownership is different. For the municipal systems, the responsibility belongs to the supplier. The private well owners, you are the water supplier. I understand people do not test their wells, for different reasons. I cannot be the only person in Minnesota who regularly tests their well. I would expect the labs are willing to share the results. You know there are regions that have specific issues. I think this is a great program, and we need more information.

· Comment: I have a feeling that many people do not know to test their well. They assume the water is clean (you cannot see issues or smell issues) so it must be clean.

§ Option 5: Drinking Water Contaminants of Emerging Concern. · This is an initiative that we have had since the beginning of the CWFs. It is a program that develops

health guidance for unregulated contaminants. Sometimes it takes a national standard and review it from a purely health based perspective. We have these numbers to guide this work. What we do not have is a way to go out and look for contaminants in the source water in the state, both surface water and groundwater. In the early years of the program, we had enough in the budget to fund the safe drinking water activities, which we could squeeze in sampling where we knew there could be a problem. As you are aware, we have gone to the Legislature three times for an increase in our safe drinking water fee but have been unsuccessful so far. We put in a Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR) grant for $2 million for source water monitoring for a range of unregulated contaminants, as well as monitoring the water that has been through the treatment process to see if there is any change in the level of those contaminants in the finished water that people are drinking. As it went through the LCCMR process, the budget was cut in half and limits what we are able to do (both the number of sources we can test and the number of times we can test those sources). We are asking for part of that work to be restored by asking for more funding, so we can focus on source water.

· No questions. § Option 6: Water Reuse.

· At the last BOC meeting, the funding requests from the MDH came for pass through funding for a facilitator, which would continue discussions for a stakeholder group to continue the recommendations from the water reuse report released this year. My concern at that point was to continue the conversation and follow through on those recommendations, because there are still many unanswered questions in the research areas. There is a LCCMR project, to start answering water reuse questions, but

we will not have the results until early next year. I think this research will lead to more questions about water reuse and the safety of it. We met this week with MDH and UMN, looking at the possible questions from the current research project. It is a limited sample size and the number of times the samples are taken (only 2 from 40 different systems). One of the questions will be “are two samples really representative”. We do not know where the research funding will be focused at this point. There is an additional $100,000 dollars of placeholder to start answering the next set of questions. Note: there is a typo on the document. It should be an additional $200,000 ($550,000 as total). By the time we go the Legislature we will hopefully know more.

· Anita Anderson (MDH) via WebEx: We recognized the research gap; we are starting that area of research. We talked with the stakeholders. We talked about how variable and challenging stormwater can be, and how important it is to keep doing more. After we get this data back from LCCMR, our idea is that we may need some sort or modeling complete. Perhaps be able to place stormwater in certain categories of risk. The data is still small, so we would want to data to be increased, both to help create that model and to verify and assess variability. We also talked about three different areas of the system (source of the water, what happens when it goes through reuse and the end use). We came up with about $100,000 for the three areas.

· From this morning, we talked about another concern. If there is indeed a public health risk and we need to implement the treatment standards that are required, the anecdotal evidence is that it will price these systems out of their primarily purpose of being used (primarily for a stormwater purpose). For me, that is anecdotal from talking to a few irrigation installers. Another concept would be to complete a more thorough investigation of the cost of implementation and system start-up, if it has all of the required components of public health (total cost of this system). There are some systems being put in that have these components already (i.e., the UV treatment and microfiltration). Also laying out the long-term costs for people to think about. The changing the filters, visiting the site to check on it, special requirements (protected from winter elements issue). If this is a relatively simple exercise, I think that west metro has places implementing the current requirements. I do not know if any of them know the life cycle costs yet, but that would be valuable to know about the increased costs associated. Anita Anderson (MDH): I would support that as well. I know we have talked about a small chance of an EPA grant regarding the costs of these items. We are looking at ways to avoid the use of expensive treatments, and trying to get those costs together. So looking at other options (rainwater use off a roof versus off the ground), instead of more expensive treatment systems. Looking at end uses avoiding or minimizing human exposure (less treatment steps required).

· Discussion from line for line (WebEx 01:08:00) § This total of $3.7 million increase. This is a wish list because it is requesting more funding that we have at this

time. Response: They are genuine options. We can adjust to the costs. Comment: We have an agenda item later to reconcile.

· Were there any other requests? Answer: Yes. If we adjust the line items, we will be over before even getting to the other items.

· Would it be better to hear the other three requests and decide where we would like to place the additional funding? Response: I think it would be better to go through and adjust so we do not need to do this twice. To follow, we will be adding in the requests as we go along to the spreadsheet, and then going back at the end of the day and figuring out where to balance the budget.

· Enhanced Cover Crop Adoption Program – Doug Thomas, BWSR (WebEx 01:14:00) § I am here today to present an idea for you to consider. The purpose of this program, or project, would be to

enhance the adoption of cover crops in high priority resource water protection and restoration, including drinking water and groundwater activity. The basic premise of this is funding that would be used to provide eligible landowners cost share and technical assistance with cover crops with contracts that would range from 3-5 years. It can be thought of as supplemental to the work already being done. It can be done on a one-time commitment. It would be supplemental to a well-established state program (BWSR program). This is scalable and can be rolled out quickly. We think about $500,000 would be the minimum amount to deal with a handful of activities, where the opportunity would be provided for producers. This would support current Council policies

(i.e., living cover and drinking water protection, water retention and storage), as well as supporting many state agency programs (i.e., MPCA nutrient reduction, MDH wellhead protection, MDA fertilizer management, etc.)

§ Question: Which program would this be following? Answer: This would be a new activity. It would be considered a one-time program activity. It would fuse a cover crop demonstration program utilizing state’s existing cost share program with the SWCDs.

§ Considering our other cover crop programs, would this compare to the funding for other programs? Will we get more in the future if the Forever Green Initiative moves forward? Would the amount of acres for the amount of dollars be similar? Answer: That is an interesting question, in the sense that Forever Green is looking to build into the long term investments for perennials that are profitable. This effort is for a short-term perspective. We know from the research that the cover crops have the ability to hold on to the soil and scavenge nitrogen. It is scalable in the sense that, once it is incorporated, it has many benefits to the producers.

§ The NRCS program sometimes has requirements for the kind of seeds or crops planted. Does this adhere to that at all? Answer: This is to enhance landowner adaption. It is to help provide the incentive – to help manage that risk.

§ I like this program and I like the idea. I would suggest $1 million as a placeholder. · Carp Control at Watershed Level to Reduce Impairments – Dr. P. Bajer, UMN (WebEx 01:28:00) § We are spending a lot of effort on BMPs for decreasing nutrients from the land to the surface waters. However,

all the water drains into streams and lakes. Many of those bodies of water include carp. This is a new idea. We think it would make sense to invest some funds in to carp management as well as the BMPs, so it is cost effective. There is data in the published research papers, that carp management can have positive effects on water quality (including reducing phosphorus and nitrogen). However, this is not included in the statewide nutrient reduction strategy. We think it should be considered. We know they are invasive and bad for the lake ecosystems. We now understand why they are abundant. We also have carp solutions. In this proposal, they have three objectives:

· Develop comprehensive carp management programs by field-testing new management tools in a select number of metro area systems

· Link carp management with lake monitoring programs to better understand changes in nutrient dynamics and ecosystems services that result from carp management

· Develop a roadmap for incorporating carp management programs into broadly defined nutrient reduction strategies in watersheds.

§ This would be completed in partnerships with the Metro watershed districts and the University of Minnesota company Carp Solutions.

§ Thinking about the scaled-down version of this research and work, something over $500,000 over two years would help provide us some ways to control carp (in two lake systems).

Questions: · Would this be two lakes? Answer: If we had to scale down for the two years, we would want to use two

lakes (for more data). This would be with independent lake systems. · Are those two lakes currently on the impaired waters list (phosphorus drive by more)? Answer: Correct,

we would be focused on those kinds of systems. § We need to focus on getting water bodies off the impaired bodies list. I support this for these reasons. From my

experience, when we have been able to control carp it helps in this area. Comment: The Rice Creek Watershed District had one lake that was impaired for phosphorus; it has been delisted as a direct result of carp management. Therefore, the impact can be quick and substantial.

§ I understanding carp control is an issue on wildlife lakes (managed for wildlife purposes). It seems like if there are treatments to remove the carp and barriers, they end up finding their way back in. It becomes a cyclic thing. You are not eliminating the problem, just fixing it short term. Is this program something that would address the problem on a long term? Answer: It would, but not by eradication of carp. This is about figuring out how to control carp, in the most efficient and practical way. This is about showing how different technologies can be put together to make them efficient and cost effective. We have about three or four tools. This is to do intense removal for about a year, then come back every few years again.

§ As a Council, we have stayed out of the Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) arena. I rather view it as a slippery slope. From a personal perspective, I like what you are trying to achieve. I am not convinced it is a CWF activity.

Response: Perhaps I can offer a little more information. This is the third or fourth group I have approached with a proposal. We are in a no-man’s land. The University does not want to do it without a few more grants, because it is not good research anymore but applying the knowledge and putting it into use. I have had discussions with my department head before coming here, and they said I should do this through a company. Our aim is to be funded for more research, but an additional reason is that this research does not match in areas. It would be useful to have some more funding, even for a short period of time to help iron out the challenges to better control carp. Once we are over the hurdle, we can maybe have more of a cookbook approach, with using a few different approaches for different kinds of areas.

§ Comment: Many watershed districts are trying to manage carp, and there has been some great research from the UMN this past ten years. There is still some gaps in the research coming out and all wanting to do these different activities, but not really having the right guidance necessary to do the work. Comment: I see your point. To me it is not about AIS, it is about in-lake treatment of a source of phosphorus to work towards in-lake management. When you can find the impairment is linked to carp. I am in support of this. Comment: I think it is more of a wildlife issue, although it addresses a change in the water. Response: If it has to do with lakes regarding clean water quality, the Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Fund (LSOHF) does not do anything with that. They say it is a clean water issue. I previously did apply for some funding regarding that area, and found it out.

§ Adding $500,000 placeholder and we can talk further about this program.

· Clean Water Council Public Information Campaign – Frank Jewell, Clean Water Council (CWC) (WebEx 01:49:00) § This is coming out of the idea that the CWC has been around about ten years now. It seems like an appropriate

time to start telling the story about what is being accomplished. There is more feedback from the Governor’s 25 by 25 that people do not know what has been done with CWFs. We are looking to put out a request for proposal or an agency to develop a two-year process of communicating with folks around the state regarding the CWFs. It will be managed by the Council and our staff, but it will be outside the agencies. They would be hired to work. This also will need further discussion, but having set the CWF framework, mission statement, goals and objections, this fits with the final goal of education. Education has shown up in many areas from the feedback that we are not doing enough with it. There is more work to do with this.

§ Prior to this meeting, we have had discussions with the Governor’s Office talking about this subject. From my perspective, we desperately need this funding in our next budget, and this program. The groups I represent comment that we spend way too much money monitoring and studying and not enough on the ground doing implementation work. It is a common criticism that I hear. I do not think they understand that there is a fair amount of significant funding from the budget that does go towards implementation. I think many of us are scientists and understand it from that perspective, but we are not as good at the marketing piece. Talking about our accomplishments, and there are not a lot of accomplishments, so we need something more to this piece.

§ I have asked John to come to our meeting (we met coaching baseball together). He has been doing a lot of outreach in the conservation community. He might have some thoughts on the structure.

§ John (conservationist and independent communications consultant): I have been around that world, and I think I know some of the challenges ahead of you. I think you have a couple things to help you. The effort to get the public educated and engaged in what is happening here, because I am observing here today and I had no idea. However, you budgeted this is one thing, but the question is what are the metrics and performance measures to reveal that this is going to be a success for the baseline of the issue we have. For example, what is the public’s perception of our Clean Water Activities as a group or independently. In addition, where does it need to go? It may not be as much of an information update, but rather a perception change. Perhaps some baseline learning will provide some results. Then, move forward to help correct those perceptions. When you said there is a lot of work to do, before it, the strategic methods needs to be worked out, so it is done in a scientific basis with clear goals and objectives. Was there any survey done in the last two years by any independent groups collectively to understand the viewpoint? If not, that would be a critical first step. It will help you define what you are looking for in this. Response: We have several things done. We have a contract with the UMN. We have the natural capital project, which is doing the survey work. We decided this was key, because we did not have a baseline for what people thought. We have some baseline based on the Governor’s 25 by 25. The Natural Capital Project is where we are trying to get that information. The next piece is the part we are not as sure about. We talking this morning about the Clean Water Land and Legacy Amendment logo, and that it should be on every project CWF funds. Right now, it is not. We would love more feedback about how to move forward.

§ Comment: I would add to your list things to draw from: The Performance Report too. There are metrics in there, but it is not a general public communications tool. I did not want to forget to mention that one.

§ I am glad you put this project on a biennium because it will take a while to get this going and two years may take that amount of time to go from a baseline to a better baseline. I am happy to talk more about that.

§ Comment: Every project we have done has had the logo attached to it. So, how long does that logo have to be attached? Additionally, once the project is completely used up (i.e., some road segments from funding that have a sign sitting nearby), do we have to keep up any signage? It might be a good idea to create a policy regarding projects that receive funding have to have a communication plan as part of it (some signage, media posts, or submit a letter acknowledging it, etc.). We would not want it to be too problematic. Something that will be shared with the public about how the funds were used. This might be almost no cost. It would be relatively easy. Response: That could be an important part of strategy writing as well. Also, engaging in ambassadors. It would be a critical component. That would connect the people receiving funds to people to people who know what is happening here.

§ The proposal is $500,000. It is listed on the budget already. § Question: Has this ever been done? Answer: No. It is a good place for us to go. § I can also see that the Council budget is set at $117,000. This is an error, and it should be $180,000. I would

suggest we bump it up to $220,000 with the idea that we have a staff person manage this campaign effort. I just did the math on this, the Council’s portion of the total budget out of the $262 million, is 0.027%. It is not as if we are asking a lot. Having someone who helps with this effort, will help us.

Stakeholder letters regarding the BOC’s draft FY20-21 CWF Recommendations - Todd Renville and Sharon Doucette (WebEx 02:07:30)

· We want to acknowledge some letters addressed to the Council. We think the stakeholder input is an important part of our process.

o Minnesota Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts (MASWCD): They are recommending that the $4 million go towards water quality improvement cost share projects. I am not sure which specific programs.

o Minnesota Environmental Partnership (MEP): They have five items discussed. Looking at number five, they support that recommendation for an independent Council staff person. An increase was suggested for SSTS.

· My sense was that we are well covered on dealing with systems that were not working. Response: As we talked about before, there are two places where SSTS funding is going. The MPCA has money they give to each county. The applicants can use non-point surface drinking water program. The BWSR keeps the low-income requirements for this. Frank: Which one provides for systems not working and low income? Response: I think it is both. We have heard, the distribution is relatively small for each county that can utilize for failing systems and those that are have a human health threat. If there is a project tied to a specific water resource identified that is being impacted. Comment: We have the Clean Water loan program. The MDA has the AgBMP program loans. Those programs can fund other things. Many systems need help, but there are many avenues.

· Looking at item #50. MEP is supporting what we have done. · Line #58: Forever Green Agriculture Initiative (Combined). We are providing funding which was requested. · The next step of this process is to go into the final budget discussion. Once we move forward to this next step,

all the programs will be up for discussion. In 2019, we can meet to start going over performance measure outcomes and those decisions.

Finalize BOC FY20-21 CWF Recommendations – Todd Renville and Sharon Doucette (WebEx 02:25:00)

· We are at $2.1 million over, if we included everything. We added funding for programs to discuss them further now. Everything is up to change except Minnesota Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP).

· Are there any other programs that could have a reduction? Response: There is one program, which Shannon informed us about over lunch. It is program #10, the River and Lake Monitoring Assessment program. The MPCA has refined their numbers and projection to reduce this funding to $16.0 million (from $16.2 million).

· We need to reduce another $1.9 million. · The Red River Watch (Item #12) was not uniformly accepted by this group. Comment: I would rather have a

chunk of money not allocated for anyone; rather have someone apply for money through an agency. The

funding is still present – the Red River Folks could apply for those funds (makes it a more competitive and fair process). Question: Could they receive funds from another program? They need about $250,000 to keep their program going and another $250,000 to move statewide. They could be funded under the Community Partners Clean Water Program/Water Legacy Grants Program (Item #28). Comment: That was the solution two years ago. Comment: We like the program; we just want to see if funded in a different way. They know well in advance that they need to start moving in this direction. It will not come up otherwise; we need the right people to know why. We think the program needs to be supported, but in a different (more equitable) way. Comment: We have received some programs that have a higher funding need over this. Therefore, remove funding for Red River project. Spreadsheet adjusted to reflect this change ($500,000).

· Another area to review would be the County Geologic Atlas program (Item #63). This connects with the geologic atlas programs (DNR/UMN). When this issue came up at the LCCMR, the DNR and UMN asked for significant increases to continue this work. Therefore, the DNR has backed off on their CWF request. We did not hear anything from the UMN. Do they still need this? Jason Moeckel (DNR): I do not know where that leaves them. I can see if I can confirm it. Response: We would like to know if they still need it or if they were provided supplemental funding.

· Do we want to increase all of the MDH programs, or only some of them? Comment: I think we should only do $2 million, especially if you are going to cut this other program.

· We need to balance the budget. There could be some other places we could cut. What could we cut here out of the six that would be the most successful? Response: We have talked about what is scalable. We recognize the likelihood to scale some more. It is hard to say which is the top priority. If we look at option 1, we could reduce it by $200,000, but this would slow the speed of the information available on the web. Under the accelerated implementation, we had asked for $800,000. We could decrease that by one person and target the technical experts in groundwater (covering the southeast, southwest, and central sands). Drinking water protection option, the $400,000 is minimum. Under the private well protection option, a reasonable grant that would go out would be around $20,000 (considering the cost of treatment). We would want a minimum of 25 grants to be able to offer across the state. We could cut that in half (reduction of $500,000), and would stand at $500,000. Regarding the CEC monitoring and developing interventions (includes one FTE), but the sampling costs are expensive. However, the sampling and monitoring is scalable (could be cut $250,000). I would not touch the option of the water reuse (that would require Sharron’s input). Those reductions would total $1.1 million. That would be $2.7 million (keeping the drinking water protection plan as it stands).

· Regarding option five on MDHs request, I respect the numbers they brought forward. I would recommend we keep what they proposed. If something comes up, they will have the money to address the concern. Comment: I think the private wells should be kept in there as much as possible. Comment: I was going to make that same argument for the first two options. Response: We have policy statements out there supporting drinking water. Comment: I think the MDH has been historically underrepresented. I am fine with these proposed increases. Adjustments to spreadsheet documented.

· Follow up from Jason Moeckel (DNR): Regarding the UMN atlas funding, the current funding along with what you have recommended, will be able to continue with five per year. He was supportive of the funding, and would like to continue the recommendation as it stands on the spreadsheet.

· What was the requirement to get the new BWSR cover crop program going (Enhancing Landowner Adoption of Cover Crops)? Doug Thomas (BWSR): A minimum of $500,000. We started at $1 million. Adjustments to spreadsheet documented.

· Comment: I am having a concern adding new programs. One of the goals was to start collapsing the programs. However, we do like this program. It is a one-time funding at this point.

· Jason Moeckel (DNR): You can move Forests for the Future (to decrease the number of programs) into the Nonpoint Source Restoration and Protection program (Item #29). It could be moved at another time too.

· We still have to cut $899,000. Start from the top again. · Let’s look at the Carp management again. Is that somewhere that could be adjusted? Could it be funded under

other general water quality protection activities? There are many watershed districts that may identify this as a concern and could do that activity. Could those carp activities be done under those management plans, and what might be required to do the research along with that, to help improve this in the future?

· Glenn Skuta (MPCA): It would be hard to know if their project could be filled. However, we have many Total Daily Maximum Load reports (TMDLs) that call for carp control, to help get the body of water back

to the standards. Carp are a source, and a force, that suspends phosphorus. There are numerous lakes that will not reach levels without carp control. There is money available, but this sounds like a research project (looking at efficiency and cost effectiveness). This is an ongoing issue. There is a need for further research. Comment: It would be better to find out this information for the future, than try to collect it slowing with activities here and there.

· We are back to reviewing all the programs, something still needs to be adjusted. · I would like to keep the Carp Management program and look at decreasing the Enhancing Landowner Adoption

of Cover Crops program. Comment: I agree, I would rather keep the Carp Management program. · I want to make a suggestion; I would suggest taking the other $399,000 out of CREP. They are getting $20

million. That allows us to support the other programs. · Doug Thomas (BWSR): Put in the position of having to respond to that, following the supplemental 2019

request, you did add $5 million on to line item #27 (Surface and Drinking Water Protection/Restoration Grants), so this might be where it could be from there instead of CREP. Keeping what is recommended now, gets us to roughly that $150 million needed from the original state requirement. It is important to maintain the federal leveraging. It is a permanent protection program, compared to the others. Response: So that would be the line where the increase was for drinking water. Tannie Eshenaur (MDH): Although we changed it earlier, and that was the concept, but the way that it was phrased was that 20% of that would be designated. Spreadsheet adjusted for documentation.

· Motion to approve, seconded, and approved. Draft Clean Water Fund Framework- Chris Elvrum, MDH/Interagency Coordination Team (ICT) (WebEx 03:09:00)

· We came up with four goals. The agencies are in the process of vetting them. We want to be stronger with this relationship between the agencies and the Council. So far, there have not been any major concerns, only wordsmithing discussions. We talked about the Ramsey County process of having broad goals, and then tying the budget to the broad goals. Therefore, this is a step in that direction.

· Regarding goal number four: Minnesotans value water and take actions to sustain and protect it. It supports the other goals, but it needs to be highlighted on its own.

· The objectives below are the items that needs to be done, clear items to help support the goal. The item number could be linked to the categories. Aspects to each of these goals are clear things that could be done, to meet those goals. There is a table that goes along with this with some activities.

· We connected with Anna Henderson. She was concerned with how the programs align to the goals, which we are working on now (aligning with the watershed cycle). We are planning to invite the team back to revisit this topic. We would like to have something that the agencies and Council can provide this document to the Legislature. To be able to walk them through understanding why the funding is being supported. This does not have the measureable outcomes (how much do we need to meet this goal); we are caught up in the budgeting cycle right now, and will approach that at a later time. After May next year, we can come back and start this work. That is where the challenge will be. The feedback is that this makes sense and looks good. If someone felt strongly about something, we could tweak it.

Discuss and potentially adopt the draft CWF framework – Todd Renville and Sharon Doucette (WebEx 03:20:00) · The graphics really help with quick identification. It works well and it is useful. This was not a simple process, but

it was needed at this point in the Council. · From my perspective, this is the format that I would like to have presented to the Council in this way. I think it is

adding another column to the recommended appropriation. · One of the things I was thinking about how it would play in the current funding goals of the BOC. They are not

conflicting, because these are general and overall reaching goals, versus the mechanical goals with the budget. I was contemplating that this is something we start after the next Legislative session to work on the next budget cycle. However, we already have this; I think it would be nice to have it in the report.

· This would replace the spreadsheet. If we can get that ready before the September. I think it will really help the Council (with adding in the dollar amounts). Acceptance that this is the format to present. If we come back and meet with the ICT on September 17 or October 15, to hopefully to finalize it with a vote.

· For our purposes, we need to keep the rational for the parts with the spreadsheet.

· Would there be a habitat goal? Response: I keep coming back to that. In addition, engaging in your ambassadors. I think the mission is understandable. The goals are understandable. The objectives, I feel like you are talking at a higher level. You are moving your ambassadors. We want to keep moving this forward to keep that engagement moving forward.

· I think the next steps are to come up with a means to attach the goals and objectives to measurements. · I think there has been a lot of work. I think there is more work to do too. · Is everyone in support of this? I am ready to bring this to the full Council.

o Bring it to a vote: Motion, second, and approved. o Present it jointly (CWC and ICT). It was a collaborative effort, involved stakeholder feedback, and the ICT

has done a lot of work with us. We want to thank you. We will pick it back up in 2019. New Business: Future BOC Meeting Dates (WebEx 03:34:30)

· As part of the cost containment of our budget, I proposed to cancel the December meeting. We do not need to meet until about February. We may need to schedule something if deemed appropriate.

· Frank Jewell and Pam Blixt met with the MPCA Commissioner Stine, regarding staffing. I also reached out regarding our budget. I do not think it is workable to keep chopping away at our meetings, when it is clear we will need to be at the Capitol to talk about the recommendations. Trying to come up with about $10,000 dollars, more to cover that seems important. I am not sure how we will do that, but it seems possible. In the last few years, we have had about $15,000 go back as unused funds. We overspent, so now we are trying to figure out how to spend what we have in 2019, which is tight. We are cancelling meetings so we cannot spend money. Response from Shannon Lotthammer (MPCA): I spoke with Commissioner Stine earlier today, and we will talk to you and work it out. We will figure out how to make that work. Response: Given where we are, I do not just want to stop to be able to connect later at the Legislature for the recommendations. Therefore, that is great to hear.

· Regarding the October meeting, outside of the report we may not have a lot to talk about. After the next meeting with the ICT, we may need to meet to go over items. I am not sure I am making a formal meeting suggestion, or not yet. It is something to think about. Response: It is Deepa’s first time doing the report, we are likely changing what it is going to look like, and the deadline is a little sooner (11/30/18), so we want to make sure she has the support to get it done. Therefore, that is an important piece of any upcoming meetings. It may be better to optimize these as well. Only if needed.

October 5, 2018: 9:30 to 2:30 at MPCA Room 100 November 2, 2018: 9:30 to 2:30 at MPCA Room 100 December 7, 2018: 9:30 to 2:30 at MPCA Room 100 - CANCELLED January 4, 2019 - CANCELLED February 1, 2019 March 1, 2019 April 5, 2019 May 3, 2019 June 7, 2019

Adjournment (WebEx 03:43:20)

($ thousands)

FY20 FY21

Unobligated Carry Forward from Prior Year 32,736 5,731

Sales Tax Receipt Forecast 114,621 119,640

Investment Income & Other Revenue 1,820 1,820

Transfers from other Funds - -

Estimate of Total Resources 149,177 127,191

Budgetary Balance 149,177 127,191

Required 5% Reserve 5,731 5,982 Total for Biennium

Estimated Amount Available to Appropriate 143,446 121,209 264,655

This informational table is based on forecasts from the November 2018 consolidated fund statement. Actual sales

tax and other receipts may be higher or lower.

Estimate of

Amount Available to

Appropriate

Nov Forecast 2018

Clean Water FundMinnesota Management and Budget

Draft 12-20-18

For informational purposes only

FY 20-21 Clean Water Council Draft Budget Recommendations As of September 11, 2018

Page 1 of 14

# Agency Activity

Enacted Budget

FY2018-19(000s)

ICT FY20-21 Budget Request (000s)

Proposed Budget

FY2020-21(000s)

ICT/Program Proposer NotesBOC funding direction for FY 20-21

BOC Rationale (based on discussions in late 2017)

BOC DiscussionFinal BOC Recommendation

Monitoring, Assessment, and Characterization

1 DNR

Aquifer Monitoring for Water Supply Planning: Collect and analyze critical aquifer level data and groundwater flow dynamics, develop groundwater models and work with stakeholders to address sustainability management and planning through groundwater management areas and other forums.

$ 2,750 $ 4,050 $ 4,650

FY18-19 enacted reflects a one-time reduction made in 2017 session to address CWF revenue shortfall. FY20-21 proposed amount of $4.05M restores capacity to maintain current system, but would not support any appreciable expansion of monitoring network.

Increase

The DNR has 1070 wells in its statewide network of water level monitoring. The absolute total need is unknown, but the DNR has already identified a need for an additional 500 more wells. Once the well network is in place, the expenses of maintenance, monitoring and data management should be stable.

Revisit for potential increase.

Added $600,000 more to allow construction of 30 more wells each year. Final amount is $4.65 M

2 DNR

Fish Contamination Assessment: Sample mercury and other contaminants in fish to determine fish consumption advisories, impairment status, and trend markers for those sites.

$ 270 $ 270 $ 270 Steady

The need to determine the level of contamination in fish popular with Minnesotans will continue for years. This is supplemental to other base funding.

Accept Accept ICT Request

3 DNRLake IBI assessment: Support MPCA’s lake water quality assessments with by providing data and interpretation about fish and plant populations.

$ 2,500 $ 2,500 $ 2,500 Steady

The current level of effort should be maintained until all watersheds have WRAPS or Comprehensive Water Management plans. Once all watersheds are comprehensively sampled, the follow up efforts would mostly to determine the effectiveness of restoration efforts.


4 DNRBuffer Map Maintenance: Update and maintain maps of public waters and ditch systems that require permanent vegetation buffers.

$ 200 $ 200 $ 200 Steady

The DNR plans to update maintain the statewide buffer maps. The maps show which areas require a buffer and what type. This level of funding would be necessary to continue the program.


5 DNR

Stream flow monitoring: Collect stream flow data, which is used to calculate pollutant loads for MPCA’s water quality assessments. Sample bedload at select stations to analyze sediment transport in streams.

$ 3,900 $ 4,400 $ 4,400

FY20-21 proposed amount of $4.4M prioritizes maintenance of existing stream gauge network and online data access. Bedload sampling will be significantly reduced at this level of funding.

Steady

This an on-going, long-term program that will be crucial to evaluating the effectiveness of the restoration/protection efforts and changes over time.

Ok with ICT request, but may have to revisit as CWC wanted to keep the funding level steady.

Accept the ICT request

6 MDA

Monitoring 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 for pesticide monitoring.

$ 700 $ 700 $ 700 Steady

This an on-going long term program that will be crucial to evaluating the effectiveness of the restoration/protection efforts and changes over time.

Revisit for potential decrease



Page 2 of 14

# Agency Activity

Enacted Budget

FY2018-19(000s)


Proposed Budget

FY2020-21(000s)




7 MDA

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

$ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 Steady

The CWC would like pesticide user fees to pay for the sampling and analysis in the long term. However, the MDA program is considered the most robust in the nation and should continue at the current capacity for the next 5 years. After that we should reduce CWF's contribution.

Revisit for potential decrease


8 MDH

Drinking Water Contaminants of Emerging Concern Program: Continue to protect human health by developing guidance and providing consultation on emerging contaminants so that timely and targeted health information is available for decision-making by state programs and the public. Increase outreach and education through grants or contracts that focus on education, prevention, and behavioral action to reduce contamination. Work will include developing partnerships and capacity on laboratory methods, researching and conducting rapid assessments, full chemical reviews, and participating in studies that measure the occurrence of emerging contaminants and provide public health context to the resulting data.

$ 2,200 $ 2,200 $ 3,000 Steady

The CWC believes there is a need to determine the human health and environmental impacts of chemicals used. However, the manufacturers should bear the responsibility for funding those efforts, as part of their product stewardship responsibility. The CWC's 2018 Waste Pharmaceutical Policy recommends that manufactures bear all product stewardship costs.

09/07 update: the original request was $2.2 M. In response to CWC's request for robust drinking water protection, MDH increased the request to $3.0 M.

Accept MDH's modified request

9 MDH

Private Well Water Supply Protection: Expand the evaluation of the occurrence and distribution of contaminants in private wells. Increase education, outreach and interventions to protect private well owners.

$ 800 $ 1,200 $ 1,700 Increase

The 1.1 million Minnesotans who get their drinking water from private wells have little statutory protection. MDH's efforts protected this underserved population is important and should be supported long term.

09/07 update: original request was $1.2 M; the MDH's 09/07 request was $2.2 M and BOC recommended $1.7 M

Recommended $1.7 M

10 MPCA

River and Lake Monitoring & Assessment: 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.

$ 16,300 $ 16,200 $ 16,000

In FY18/19, we actually received $16.55M for monitoring, but 250k of it was appropriated to the RRWMB (meaning our program received $16.3M). If the Leg plans to pass through 250k to RRWMB again, we would need $16.45M - $16.2M for our monitoring program, and $250k for RRWMB.

Steady

The MPCA will be completing its 10 year cycle of intensive surface water assessment in the next biennium and in the process of evaluating the data needs of the watershed districts based on most current data (from cycle 1). The CWC anticipates less sampling when monitoring for problem areas or evaluating the effectiveness of the restoration projects.

09/07 update: original request was $16.2 M; the MPCA notified BOC that it only needs $16.0 M

Accept the MPCA's request


Page 3 of 14

# Agency Activity

Enacted Budget

FY2018-19(000s)


Proposed Budget

FY2020-21(000s)




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.

$ 2,363 $ 2,363 $ 2,363 Steady

The CWC recommendation is keeping with other water monitoring programs. The need to high level of funding is expected to be less in ten years, but will be revisited in the future.

AcceptAccept the ICT request

12 MPCA

Red River Watch (Red River Watershed Board): Engages K-12 students & citizens throughout the Red River Basin in field-based applied watershed science, research activities. RRWB wants to expand into or assist with the expansion of River Watch activities to other major river basins in Minnesota to deliver field-based applied watershed science and research activities in their local watersheds.

$ 250 $ - $ -

This appropriation was legislatively directed and not requested by MPCA. 7/23/18 DSD: based on program description provided, the RRW is requesting $500,000 for FY 20-21. Any funding will be appropriated to the MPCA as pass-through.

No FundingThis can be funded by BWSR's program #28

Vote 3-2: BOC accepted the program with the stipulation that the program be Statewide. No votes because other entities who do similar work do not get funded by CWF.

Do not fund this request.

Monitoring, Assessment, and Characterization total

$ 34,233 $ 36,083 $ 37,783

Watershed & Groundwater Restoration/Protection Strategies

13 DNR

Watershed 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. Note: may need to change description to better match evolving work.

$ 3,772 $ 4,032 $ 4,032 Increase

The DNR anticipates increased costs to provide its share for WRAPS in the short term, but does not expect any additional need in 5 to 10 years.


14 MDH

Groundwater Restoration and Protection Strategies: Scale up the Groundwater Restoration and Protection Strategy development to begin matching local needs regarding data/information delivery, staff capacity, training/education, and strategy development. Continue to coordinate with other state agency efforts and complete projects coordinated with WRAPS or 1W1P efforts.

$ 400 $ 800 $ 1,300 Increase

The MDH needs to do more to support LGU as they draft their Comprehensive Watershed Management Plans. Once the necessary capacity is reached, it has to be maintained over time.


Accept the MDH's modified request

15 MDH

Source Water Protection: Continue source water protection planning and implementation for communities served by groundwater with vulnerable water supplies. Address gaps in source water protection planning and implementation for surface water systems. Increase coordination and integration with comprehensive watershed planning efforts.

$ 5,494 $ 5,494 $ 5,494 Steady

Protecting the drinking water of 80% of Minnesotans who get their water from community water providers is important and must be supported long-term.



Page 4 of 14

# Agency Activity

Enacted Budget

FY2018-19(000s)


Proposed Budget

FY2020-21(000s)




16 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.

$ 19,047 $ 16,100 $ 16,100

This is $3M less than the current biennium, and the current biennium is $1M less than last biennium, and this would be the lowest biennial amount of money for this program since the advent of the CWF. It is a 20% reduction from the historical biennial high point for this program. So, we are controlling our costs as we crest the lifecycle of this program and start down to a lower maintenance mode for the program.

Steady

The MPCA has completed about 40% of WRAPS and expect to have all of them completed and put on Public Notice by 2023. Therefore, the Agency will need steady funding though 2023. The MPCA and CWC expects the funding need to be less after 2023 as they will be updating existing WRAPS and TMDLs.


Watershed & Groundwater Restoration/Protection Strategies total

$ 28,713 $ 26,426 $ 26,926

Comprehensive Local Watershed Management

17 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) by providing technical assistance, program oversight, and grants to local governments.

$ 3,990 $ 4,540 $ 4,540 increase

In the next biennium more watersheds will be drafting their comprehensive water management plans and the funding need is expected to be steady at five years and will decline in 10 years as most will have completed this process.

Potentially increase. 8/3 14-15 done in a biennium. Locals may not have the capacity to handle multiple watershed plans at he same time.


Comprehensive Local Watershed Management total

$ 3,990 $ 4,540 $ 4,540

IMPLEMENTATIONNonpoint source implementation

18 BWSR

Grants to Watersheds with Multiyear Plans / One Watershed, One Plan Implementation: A non-competitive, performance based, pilot grants program for local government units to implement projects that protect, enhance, and restore surface water quality in lakes, rivers, and streams, protect groundwater from degradation, and protect drinking water sources. Projects must be identified in a comprehensive watershed plan developed under the One Watershed, One Plan or Metropolitan Surface Water Management framework and groundwater plans.

$ 9,750 $ 29,422 $ 29,422

Shifts focus of this program to One Watershed, One Plan Implementation. This aligns with CWC recommendations for this program. 7/23/18 DSD update: The total includes $25M ICT request and $4.422 M FY 19, CWC supplemental budget recommendation.

Increase

As watersheds complete their comprehensive watershed plans, the funds to implement them will increase for the next 10 years.



Page 5 of 14

# Agency Activity

Enacted Budget

FY2018-19(000s)


Proposed Budget

FY2020-21(000s)




19 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.

$ 7,600 $ 11,500 $ 12,100 Increase

Need to increase funding to ensure most LGUs who have comprehensive watershed plans and want funding for implementation can get them. Funding need to be steady thru FY 23 and by FY 28, most watersheds should have implemented their plans and need for funding would be less.

The MDH will add ground/drinking water technical specialists to regional TSAs. The MDH's request was for additional $0.8M, and the BOC recommended $0.6M for a total of $12.1 M

Recommended a total of $12.1 M

20 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.

$ 1,500 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 SteadyThere is a continued need to support the local drainage authorities and their ability to improve water quality in their areas.


21 BWSR

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP): To purchase and restore permanent conservation easements to treat and store water on the land for water quality improvement purposes and related technical assistance. This work may be done in cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture.

$ 3,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000

7/23/18 DSD update: the total includes $5 M ICT request and $ 15 M FY 19 CWC supplemental budget recommendation.

Steady

The CWC believe that the necessary $150 million total State share of CREP can be met with other sources and will revisit this issue if it is not the case.


22 BWSR

Critical Shoreland Protection-Permanent Conservation Easements: To purchase permanent conservation easements to protect lands adjacent to public waters with good water quality but threatened with degradation.

$ 2,000 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 Increase

This program protect areas with high water quality, which is one of the 10 goals of CWC (Increase CWF dollars by 10-20% for projects that provide protection for high-quality waters and/or waters at the greatest risk of becoming polluted.) TNC committed to provide $10M.

Accept Accept the ICT request

23 BWSRGrants to Soil and Water Conservation Districts: To supplement, in equal amounts, each Soil and Water Conservation District's general service grant.

$ 22,000 $ - 0 No FundingThe CWC did not recommend funding for this program during FY 18-19 and has not plans to do so in the future.

No funding requested by BWSR

24 BWSR

Measures, Results and Accountability: This fund is to provide state oversight and accountability for grants to local government, support program and outcomes reporting, evaluate results and measure the value of conservation program implementation by local governments, including submission to the legislature a report from the board.

$ 1,900 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 Steady

This is a statutory requirement and the amount of funding required is proportional to the number of grants/contracts BWSR annually manages. The number is expected to decrease in 10 years.



Page 6 of 14

# Agency Activity

Enacted Budget

FY2018-19(000s)


Proposed Budget

FY2020-21(000s)




25 BWSR

Shoreland Buffer Compliance Program: Provides program oversight and grants for purposes of supporting local governments in their implementation of the statewide buffer and excessive soil erosion laws.

$ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Steady

The CWC wants to ensure the buffer law is implemented by the LGUs and wants to provide adequate funding. However, the LGUs need a reliable source of funding besides CWF, which will expire in 2034.


26 BWSR

Riparian Buffer-Permanent Conservation Easements: Purchase and restore permanent conservation easements on riparian buffers adjacent to lakes, rivers, streams, and tributaries, to keep water on the land in order to decrease sediment, pollutant, and nutrient transport; reduce hydrologic impacts to surface waters; and increase infiltration for groundwater recharge. This appropriation may be used for restoration of riparian buffers protected by easements purchased with this appropriation and for stream bank restorations when the riparian buffers have been restored.

$ 9,750 $ 9,750 $ 9,750 Can leverage federal funds via CREP 3 as well as fund priority buffer easements outside the CREP area.

Increase

This program funds purchase of permanent buffers along waterways wider than required by the Buffer law. Wider buffers provide better water quality and better nesting habitat. The CWC wanted to fund the program at $12M range and keep it that level.


27 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 by implementing priority actions in local water management plans. A subset of this program (Water Legacy Grants Program) can provide competitive grants or contracts of up to $100,000 to governmental, non-governmental, and tribal organizations for implementation projects that protect, enhance, and restore water quality or protect groundwater and drinking water sources from degradation.

$ 24,500 $ 33,000 $ 32,601

Increase to restore funds that were shifted in FY16-17 to fund SWCD capacity grants. 7/23/18 DSD update: the total includes $28 M ICT request and $ 5 M FY 19, CWC supplemental budget recommendation, specifically for Local drinking water projects.

increase

The demand for these grants are quite high: requests for $22 million for $6 million available in the first round of FY 18. This fits in with CWC's goal of increased drinking water funding. Should be increased across the 10 years.

The BOC wants to make sure sizable portion would go to drinking water (at least $5M). Revisit to potentially include specific language on amount that must be spent on drinking water. Revisit 08/03 update: ICT will talk to Governor's office and get back to CWC about separating Surface and Drinking water projects & creating two programs.

The original request was $33.0 M and the BOC reduced the recommendation to $32.601 M to balance the budget.

28 BWSR

Community Partners Clean Water Program / Water Legacy Grants Program: Provides competitive grants or contracts of up to $100,000 to local, regional, state, tribal, and national organizations for implementation projects that protect, enhance, and restore water quality, and protect groundwater and drinking water sources from degradation.

$ 2,000 $ 2,000

Modified to allow direct granting/contracting with non governmental organizations which aligns with CWC recommendations.

Steady

Allow non-traditional groups such as Lake Associations and other non-profit organizations to apply for competitive grants. The Clean Water Legacy statute include public education and at the town hall meetings (25% by 2025) education was one of the top items. With non-traditional group participation, would achieve education needs.



Page 7 of 14

# Agency Activity

Enacted Budget

FY2018-19(000s)


Proposed Budget

FY2020-21(000s)




29 BWSR

Enhancing Landowner Adoption of Cover Crops for Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection: The program is premised on: 1) the benefits of cover crops to reduce nutrient loss, 2) supplemental appropriation to a well-established state/local program, 3) contracts with landowners/operators for 3 to 5 years, and 4) a goal of 2000 acres of cover crops in a defined drinking water management supply area or groundwater protection area.

$ - $ - $ 500 Accept BWSR request

30 DNR

Nonpoint source restoration and protection activities: Support local planning and implementation efforts, including: One Watershed, One Plan, systematic conservation planning based on community values, technical assistance with implementation, and targeted forest stewardship for water quality.

$ 1,900 $ 2,400 $ 2,400 Maintain current level of effort (DNR).

Increase

As the Watershed Comprehensive Water Management development efforts increase, the requests for DNR's technical assistance would also increase and would level off over time.


31 DNR

Color Infrared Imagery Analysis: Collect color infrared imagery for determining perennial cover statewide; collecting approximately one-fifth of the state each year would result in an updated data set every five years.

$ 650 $ 650 Increase

No funding was allocated for this program for the current biennium. The DNR consider this a critical technical need for the LGUs, therefore the increased funding in FY20-21 and steady funding thereafter to maintain the 5 year rotation to track the health and the progress of the buffer strips.

Flag for further discussion. Some believe counties can do the work, and don't want DNR do it. 8/3 DNR works with LGUs


32 DNR

Aquatic Management Area: Purchase permanent conservation easements and fee lands adjacent to public waters in order to maintain good water quality and fish habitat for the future.

$ - $ - No FundingWhile important, DNR decided not to ask for funding from CWF for this program.

Revisit. This is a TNC proposal. 8/3 update The BOC supports this program may revisit if more $ available.

33 DNR

Forests for the Future: Purchase permanent working forest conservation easements in targeted areas to protect the forests and shorelands that supply clean water to lakes, rivers and streams.

$ 1,000 $ 1,500 SteadyPotentially fund (1M in supplemental)/ TNC proposal.

08/03: Voted to recommend 1.5 M for this program, the same amount as the last biennium.

34 MDA

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

$ 150 $ 150 $ 150 Steady

Program in place for a long time and had helped farmers improve their farming operation. The CWF dollars supplement. The CWF dollars are tracked separately and can only be used to water quality improvement project only. It is not a large amount and should continue.



Page 8 of 14

# Agency Activity

Enacted Budget

FY2018-19(000s)


Proposed Budget

FY2020-21(000s)




35 MDA

MN Agricultural Water Quality Certification Program: The MAWQCP is a first of its kind partnership between federal and state government and private industry. This innovative and nationally recognized voluntary program targets water quality protection on a field by field, whole farm basis. It comprehensively identifies and mitigates agricultural risks to water quality and protects and restores Minnesota’s water resources. Increased funding will be used to catch up on backlog and accelerate progress.

$ 5,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 Steady

The program has a robust assessment of BMP and farmers work with local technical experts to get certification. Ag retailers are also starting to work with MDA, which is a positive development.


36 MDA

Technical Assistance: Funding supports on-farm demonstrations and enhances outreach and education to the agricultural community and local government partners. Demonstration projects evaluate the effectiveness of conservation practices and support peer-to peer learning among farmers. Outreach activities directly align with the 25 x 25 Report where education was identified as a top priority. Increased funding also will be used to support farmer-led councils.

$ 2,250 $ 3,250 $ 3,250 Steady

Support on the ground technical support and demonstration programs to farmers. Much of the work is done on working farms (Demonstration Farms) and farmers are likely to listen to their peers. The projects supported are tailored to the region. The CWC would like to evaluate this program more in the future before continuing funding long-term


37 MDA

Vegetative Cover and Soil Health: Program will focus on identifying and removing obstacles to accessing markets for environmentally protective crops in targeted high risk areas. Efforts will be integrated with other vegetative cover initiatives and implementation activities, and will focus on traditional and cover crop systems.

$ 150 $ 150 $ 150 No Funding

The CWC did not see a great need for this funding. If the projects funded by this program is successful, funding would be reconsidered. 08/03: MDA explained that this funding is focused on existing crops (such as alfalfa) and find ways to make them profitable for farmers.


38 MC

Water demand reduction grant program: Provides grants to assist municipalities in metro area with implementation of water demand reduction measures to ensure the reliability and protection of drinking water supplies.

$ - $ 1,000 $ 1,000 100% pass through. Increase for additional activities and more local impact

Steady

The CWC believes reducing water demand is critical to the long term sustainability of the water supply in the Metro Area. Any LGU action to encourage reduced water use should be supported.


39 MPCA

Great 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 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 Steady

The CWC wants to fund the sediment clean up and effectiveness monitoring for the next 5+ years. The AOC would be delisted in 2025, therefore, no need for special funds besides routine monitoring.


40 Nonpoint source implementation total $ 97,950 $ 135,272 $ 136,473

41 Point source implementation


Page 9 of 14

# Agency Activity

Enacted Budget

FY2018-19(000s)


Proposed Budget

FY2020-21(000s)




42 MPCA

Accelerated Implementation of MS4 Permit Requirements: Additional technical assistance to municipalities experiencing difficulties understanding and implementing the basic requirements of the municipal stormwater program.

$ 450 $ 450 $ 450 Shifts MPCA priority from research to outreach and technical assistance for accelerated implementation.

Steady

The MS4 permits are new to the Local Units of Government. Once the LGUs become more comfortable with their permit requirements, need for technical support would be reduced.


43 MPCA

Chloride reduction efforts: Assist communities in reducing salt at the source. These funds will allow the MPCA to administer the Smart Salting Training & Certification program for those who provide snow and ice services in both the public and private sector. Also, to reduce chloride entering our waters through wastewater treatment plants with grants to communities to work with residents and businesses to upgrade softeners to low-salt use systems or to those communities centrally softening their water to ensure complete removal of home water softening units.

$ - $ 600 $ 600 CWC policy recommendation NewAccept the ICT request

44 MPCA

NPDES wastewater/stormwater TMDL implementation: Integration of watershed approach (WRAPS and TMDLs) with wastewater and stormwater permitting programs (includes Stormwater Manual updates).

$ 1,800 $ 1,800 $ 1,800 Maintain current level of effort. Steady

This program helps MPCA provide technical assistance to LGUs in compliance with their NPDES permits and work with LGUs during the permit reissue period. The funding should be maintained across the 10 years.


45 PFA

Point Source Implementation Grant (PSIG) Program: Provides grants to help cities upgrade water infrastructure treatment facilities to comply with TMDL wasteload requirements and more stringent water quality-based effluent limits for phosphorus, chlorides, and other pollutants. The PFA administers the program in partnership with the MPCA.

$ 15,750 $ 18,000 $ 18,000 Governor's bonding proposal for PSIG grants intended to supplement not supplant CWF dollars

Steady

This program receives additional funding from bonding and other resources. The PFA only funds projects that are developed and ready for construction. The current funding level is adequate for the demand.


46 PFA

Small Community Wastewater Treatment Program: Provides grants and loans to assist small unsewered communities with technical assistance and construction funding to replace non-complying septic systems with community subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS). The PFA administers the program in partnership with the MPCA.

$ 250 $ 250 $ 250 Steady

In the past this program has received $2.5 to $5.0 million per biennia. The PFA has adequate funds to support the current demand. For now, CWC will the funding recommendation the same as FY 18-19.


Point source implementation total $ 18,250 $ 21,100 $ 21,100

Groundwater/Drinking Water Implementation


Page 10 of 14

# Agency Activity

Enacted Budget

FY2018-19(000s)


Proposed Budget

FY2020-21(000s)




47 BWSR

Targeted Wellhead/Drinking Water Protection: For permanent conservation easements on wellhead protection areas under Minnesota Statutes, section 103F.515, subdivision 2, paragraph (d), to permanently protect groundwater supply sources in wellhead protection areas. Priority to be placed on land that is located where the vulnerability of the drinking water supply is designated as high or very high by the commissioner of health, where drinking water protection plans have identified specific activities that will achieve long-term protection, and on lands with expiring Conservation Reserve Program contracts.

$ 3,500 $ 4,750 $ 4,750

Can be used to leverage federal dollars via CREP 3 agreement as well as fund priority wellhead protection easements outside the CREP area.

Increase

BWSR have had more requests for funding than funds available. Only about 50% of the vulnerable lands are protected now. Therefore, the need to increase funding over the 10 year period.

These funds can be used as State match for Federal CREP if the land in question qualifies for CREP (in one of the approved counties). Revisit


48 MDA

Irrigation Water Quality Protection: Funding supports an irrigation water quality specialist who develops guidance and provides education on irrigation & nitrogen best management practices and supports the development of irrigation scheduling program for counties with high number of licensed irrigators. The irrigation specialist is located in U of M - Extension and a private contractor will develop the irrigation scheduling program.

$ 220 $ 270 $ 770 Steady

Much of MN's irrigated farmland is located in areas with permeable soils which can move contaminants to shallow groundwater. The work of the Irrigation Specialist will continue to be needed and good education tool.

09/07: the original request was $0.27 M; the BOC accepted MDA's request to fund irrigation scheduling program at $0.5 M

Accept the modified MDA request

49 MDA

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

$ 4,171 $ 5,170 $ 5,170 Steady

The hope is that with all the protection activities happening in areas with vulnerable groundwater and Rule making, the need for funding for nitrate monitoring would be reduced in 10 years.

Accept for now, but will revisit if necessary: $1 M more than previous year and BOC wanted to keep the funding steady.


50 MDH

Drinking Water Protection: Develop public health policies and an implementable action plan to address threats to safe drinking water in Minnesota by engaging local and national experts. Conduct an analysis to determine the scope of the lead problem in Minnesota's water and the cost to eliminate lead exposure in drinking water.

$ 300 $ 300 $ 700 CWC budget recommendation Steady

Well thought-out action plans take time to develop and implement. Therefore we should provide steady funding to ensure the success of this program.


Accept MDH's modified request

51 MDHWell Sealing Cost Share: Continue addressing the need for sealing for both private and public wells.

$ 500 $ 500 $ 500 Steady

This is a cost effective program as each unused, abandoned well pose a treat to groundwater by being a direct conduit for contaminants. Therefore, program should be continued long-term.



Page 11 of 14

# Agency Activity

Enacted Budget

FY2018-19(000s)


Proposed Budget

FY2020-21(000s)




52 MC

Metropolitan Area Water Supply Sustainability Support: Metropolitan Council will continue implementing projects that address emerging drinking water supply threats, provide cost-effective regional solutions, leverage inter-jurisdictional coordination, support local implementation of water supply reliability projects, and prevent degradation of groundwater resources.

$ 1,900 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 Steady

The Metro Area communities or Met Council has no funding to coordinate long-term sustainability of the drinking water. Therefore, providing funding to ensure the long-term supply of drinking water is critical to the health of the people and the economy.


53 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.

$ 6,870 $ 7,876 $ 7,876 Includes a 25% increase in grants to upgrade SSTS's for low income homeowners

Steady

The funding is for inspections to identify and financial support to bring non-compliant (mostly) individual SSTS in to compliance. The need for this funding is expected to be high for the next five years and the CWC expects a sizable reduction in non-compliant SSTS past year five.

Although different from the recommended funding direction, Accept.


54

MPCA (pass

through)

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

$ 2,000 $ - $ 1,550 No Funding Not a CWC proposed project Ok with 1.55 MAccept proposer's request

Groundwater/Drinking Water Implementation total

$ 19,461 $ 20,866 $ 23,316

Research, Evaluation and Tool Development

55 BWSR

Tillage and Erosion Transects: Program to systematically collect data and produce statically 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.

$ 850 $ 850 $ 850 Maintains operational costs. Decrease

Much of the information needed will be gathered by end of FY19, but it is important to provide some funding to update the database and the models developed using the data.


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

$ 168 $ 168 $ 168 SteadyIt is a small program and required by Statute, therefore need to keep the funding steady.


57 DNR

Applied research and tools: Maintain and update LiDAR-derived elevation data and tools; develop fine-scale watershed models; assess relationships among disturbance patterns, BMP applications, and water quality in forested watersheds.

$ 1,350 $ 1,400 $ 1,400 Steady

Highly technical projects like LiDAR derived elevations models, watershed modeling and others are difficult for the local entities to implement because of high start up cost and expertise. This program used by LGUs when making water related decisions, therefore, should be continually funded.



Page 12 of 14

# Agency Activity

Enacted Budget

FY2018-19(000s)


Proposed Budget

FY2020-21(000s)




58 DNR

County 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.

$ 250 $ 300 $ 300

FY20-21 increase is needed to maintain pace of county geologic atlas work, absent further LCCMR funding. This level of funding would support completion of four new atlases per year, and allow modest acceleration of top priority areas. The atlases are critical to state agencies, LGUs, and other stakeholders.

Steady

In the recent years, CWF provided the smallest portion of the overall funding to this program. DNR anticipates not needing CWF support when all of the atlases are complete.

Little concerned about large increase to DNR. Discuss in Aug. BOC. Can change based on Stakeholder comments. 08/03: The DNR has requested funding from LCCMR for FY20 and if appropriated by the legislature, could work with only $300,000 for the biennium

Reduce the recommendation to $300,000

59 MDA

Agricultural Research/Evaluation: Supports research projects to identify processes that affect water quality and evaluate the costs and benefits of specific agricultural practices. BMPs will be developed and evaluated to protect and restore water resources.

$ 1,325 $ 1,325 $ 1,325 Steady

The program provide quantifiable information about the BMPs and other practices used to improve water quality. Testing new ideas and methods of determining sources of pollution and mitigating pollution had been funded by this program and should continue to be funded.

Accept. potentially increase if funding is available, MDA does not have a problem handling increased funding.


60 MDA

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

$ 100 $ 100 $ 100 Steady

Keeping abreast with newest research findings and access to research data, scientific papers, reports and white papers is important to find and implement best practices on the ground. But CWC is not sure if this is the role of CWF. Will revisit the issue in the future.


61 MDA

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

$ 1,500 $ 3,300 $ 3,300 Increase

In the long term, changing our cropping systems and presence of vegetative cover for much of the year must be part of sustainability of farming. In the recent years this program has attracted much attention. Short term infusion of financial support is needed ensure the long-term profitability.

Further discussion needed. Some additional money can be spent if available. 08/20 update: the MDA consolidated 3 existing and new programs to bring the total request to $3.3M.

Accept the MDA's modified request.

62 MDH

Groundwater Virus Monitoring Plan: Based on the results of previous virus monitoring, determine pathogen transport pathways from contaminant sources and evaluate human health risks from bacteria and parasites that were also found in addition to viruses. Develop new wellhead protection measures or well construction measures as needed.

$ 200 $ 500 $ 500 Steady

The CWC wants MDH to continue the study and incorporate other parameters such as precipitation in its analysis, but does not think of this as an on-going program.



Page 13 of 14

# Agency Activity

Enacted Budget

FY2018-19(000s)


Proposed Budget

FY2020-21(000s)




63 MDH

Water Reuse: to create an expanded workgroup with practitioners, advisors and stakeholders to continue development of standards and programs. A facilitator is needed to create and manage this workgroup. The workgroup would then prioritize and develop work plans to begin to address the remaining seven recommendations.

$ - $ - $ 550

08/03: ICT will explore the possibility of funding research to determine the public health impacts of stormwater reuse and means of mitigating any negative effects.

The MDH added $0.20 M to conduct more research to inform health risk management and water quality guidance development.

Accept the MDH's modified request

64U of MN

Stormwater BMP Performance Evaluation & Technology Transfer: This program has begun to address high-need stormwater research and technology transfer, including a systematic assessment of priority needs and initial research on maintenance of stormwater retention ponds. Future work will address the backlog of priorities through competitively reviewed proposals, with selection of projects guided by a committee of stormwater practitioners.

$ 1,500 $ - $ 1,500 Steady

There is still much work to be done in the stormwater realm: research, BMP development and long-term efficacy. The CWC believes this program needs steady funding to maintain the momentum in the next decade.

AcceptAccept U of MN request

65U of MN

Clean Water Return on Investment Pilot: To provide guidance documents and tools evaluating the Clean Water Fund’s return on investment (ROI) in water quality improvements and human wellbeing, as well as to assist in future funding decisions.

$ 265 $ - $ 343

The program has changed significantly from what was first proposed. The original request was for $50,000. See project description for the new additions. (DSD)

AcceptAccept U of MN request

66U of MN

Geologic Atlas with Dept. of Natural Resources: Provides planning scale comprehensive geologic mapping and associated databases useful for managing water and mineral resources.

$ 250 $ - $ 1,000

LCCMR recommended $2.5million for FY 2019, but only $1.24 million was appropriated. Also, BOC recommended increase for FY 20-21 (DSD)

Increase

County geologic atlases are a resource used by both Public and private entities and the CWC would like to accelerate the pace of atlas completion. By 2023, majority of the atlases would be completed and therefore less funding beyond 2023.

Accept. Check if U of M can utilize the funds if LCCMR gives more money


67U of MN

Carp Management: This program aims to increase the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of nutrient reduction strategies by developing comprehensive carp management programs and documenting their effectiveness.

$ - $ - $ 500

Common carp management can significantly reduce phosphorus levels in carp infested waters.

Accept U of M's request.

Research, Evaluation and Tool Development total $ 7,758 $ 7,943 $ 11,836

Administrative

68 MPCA

Clean Water Council budget: This budget includes increased funding for CWC operations ($0.12 M; a $20,000 increase) and additional funding to hire a dedicated staff person to oversee Public education, engagement and outreach throughout the State.

$ 100 $ 110 $ 220 Not discussed in 2017 AcceptAccept modified CWC request


Page 14 of 14

# Agency Activity

Enacted Budget

FY2018-19(000s)


Proposed Budget

FY2020-21(000s)




69

MPCA (pass

through)

Public Information Campaign: conduct a Public Information Campaign, by hiring a contractor to provide Public education, engagement and outreach throughout the State

NA $ - $ 500 Not discussed in 2017

Part of CWC's statutory responsibilities is to provide public education and increase public engagement.

Accept CWC request

70 LCC Legislative Coordinating Commission $ 15 $ - $ 9 LCC requested $9,000 for the biennium

Not discussed in 2017 Accept Accept LCC request

Administrative Total $ 115 $ 110 $ 729 $ 210,470 $ 262,703

Projected FY 20-21 CWF Available $ 262,703 February 2018 CWF forecast - (updated by S.Fahnhorst, EBO at MMB)

Total All Recommendations

Clean Water Council 2019

Fiscal Years 2020-2021 Clean Water Council Recommendations

What is Clean Water Council? The Legislature established the Clean Water Council (Council) in 2006 to advise the Legislature and the Governor on the administration and implementation of the Clean Water Legacy Act (CWLA). In 2008, Minnesota voters approved an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution (known as the Legacy Amendment) to collect an additional 3/8 of one percent of sales tax and dedicate the monies to clean water (via Clean Water Fund) and other outdoor and cultural programming. The Governor appoints 17 voting members to the Council, whose primary objective is to recommend to the Legislature and the Governor how to spend the money in Clean Water Fund (CWF) and make policy proposals. In FY 20-21, the CWF is expected to have $264.655 million. The mission of the Clean Water Council is to Protect and Restore Minnesota’s Waters for Generations to Come.

Highlights of the Council’s FY 20-21 CWF Budget Recommendations Monitoring, Assessment and Characterization $37.783 million (14.4%) Funds are used to determine the conditions of States’ surface and groundwater, both before restoration/protection actions and to determine the effectiveness of such interventions.

Watershed and Groundwater Restoration/Protection Strategies $26.926 million (10.2%) Funds used to support local entities in developing Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (WRAPS) for each of the 81 major watersheds in Minnesota, Groundwater Restoration and Protection Strategies (GRAPS) and drinking water resource planning.

Comprehensive Local Watershed Management Plans (One Watershed, One Plan or 1W1P) Development $4.540 million (1.7%) Funds that support local entities such as Soil and Water Conservation Districts, County and City governments, Watershed Districts, in developing comprehensive watershed management plans using prior sampling, WRAPS, GRAPS and local knowledge and priorities.

Local Implementation $180.889 million (68.9%) Funds used for conservation easements, reducing soil erosion, upgrading wastewater, stormwater and septic system infrastructure, and protecting community wellhead areas and other drinking water sources.

The implementation funding recommendations are further divided into the following sub categories:

· Nonpoint source ($136.473 million, 51.95%)

· Point source ($21.100 million, 8.03%)

· Groundwater and drinking water ($23.316 million, 8.88%)

Research, Evaluation and Tool Development $11.836 million (4.5%) Funds that support research, developing and evaluation of new methods of restoration and protection activities as well as the cost-effectiveness of implementation actions.

Administrative Expenses $0.729 million (0.3%) Funds to operate the Council, CWF’s portion of the cost of maintaining Legacy website, and to conduct a citizen information campaign. The purpose of this campaign is to apprise Minnesotans of local and State agency efforts to restore and protect their waters, and engage them in the continuation of this process.

FY 2020 and 2021 CWF Recommendations

Research, Evaluation & Tool Development $11.836 million

Highlights of the Council’s FY 20-21 Policy Recommendations The CWF dollars alone are not sufficient to achieve the Council’s mission of protecting and restoring Minnesota’s waters for generations to come. During 2017 and 2018, to further protect water quality, the Council adopted three policy recommendations:

· Reducing de-icing chloride (road salt) use to address the increasing chloride in urban surface waters and some shallow groundwater sources.

· Preventing water pollution from unwanted pharmaceuticals through proper disposal.

· Enhancing water quality by increasing continuous vegetative cover and establishing administrative infrastructure necessary to achieve this goal by bringing producers, the agricultural industry and crop developers together.

Monitoring, Assessment & Characterization $37.783 million (14.4%)

Administrative Expenses $0.729 million (0.3%)

Comprehensive Local Watershed Management Plans Development $4.540 million (1.7%)

Watershed and Groundwater Restoration/ Protection Strategies $26.926 million (10.2%)

Local Implementation $180.889 (68.9%)

Clean Water Fund Expenditures by Watershed from 2009 to 2016

Clean Water Council Mission, Goals and Objectives Statement The Clean Water Council developed a mission, goals and objectives in an effort to align activities funded by the CWF with the Legacy Amendment and the CWLA. Input and discussion with stakeholders were instrumental to developing the statement. Mission

Protect and restore Minnesota’s waters for generations to come.

Goals and Objectives Drinking water is safe for everyone, everywhere in Minnesota

· Protect public water supplies · Ensure private well users have safe water

Groundwater is clean and available

· Improve and protect groundwater quality · Ensure sustainable long-term trends in aquifer levels · Avoid adverse impacts to surface water features due to groundwater use

Surface waters are swimmable and fishable

· Prevent and reduce pollution of surface waters · Maintain and improve the health of aquatic ecosystems · Protect and restore hydrologic systems

Minnesotans value water and take actions to sustain and protect it

· Build capacity of local communities to protect and sustain water resources · Encourage systems and approaches that support, protect, and improve water · Provide education and outreach to inform Minnesotans’ water choices · Encourage citizen and community engagement on water issues

2018 Clean Water Fund Performance Report | www.legacy.leg.mn iii 2018 Clean Water Fund Performance Report | www.legacy.leg.mn

Outcome Status ScoresWater quality is high – we are on track to meet long-term water resource needs and citizen expectations

Water quality needs improvement or it is too early to assess – it is unclear if we will meet long-term water resource needs and citizen expectations; and/or water quality varies greatly between regions

Water quality is under intense pressure – long-term water resource needs and/or citizen expectations exceed current efforts to meet them

Action Status ScoresWe are making good progress/meeting the target

We anticipate difficulty; it is too early to assess; or there is too much variability across regions to assess

Progress is slow/we are not meeting the target; or the activity or target is not commensurate with the scope of the problems

Report Card Legend

2018 Clean Water Fund Report Card

Minnesotans care deeply about the state’s natural resources and cultural heritage. In 2008, we voted to increase our sales tax and pass the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment, providing 25 years of constitutionally-dedicated funding for clean water, habitat, parks and trails, and the arts.

The following report card highlights work done using Clean Water Land and Legacy Amendment dollars for Minnesota’s many water resources. The Report Card tracks a suite of performance measures that are described in the full report that follows. It provides a qualitative assessment of how well actions are being implemented and what outcomes are being achieved.

The legend shows the symbols used to describe how measures were scored. Measures are scored according to their status as of the end of fiscal year 2017 (FY17) and for their trend over time. Scores were developed using data-informed professional judgment of agency technical staff and managers.

TrendImproving trend

No change

Declining trend

Clean Water Fund Report: Highlights in the 4th Edition

Tracking spending patterns

• Legislative appropriations of Clean Water Funds focused on implementation activities and drinking waterprotection have increased over time, spending on monitoring/assessment and the development of watershedrestoration and protection plans has remained constant (p. 10);

• When spending is tracked by watershed, a broad-based pattern across the state is seen, with projectimplementation funding, in particular, more concentrated in watersheds with significant water quality challenges(p. 12);

• Projects implemented with Clean Waters Funds continue to leverage substantial amounts of matching fundsfrom local and federal sources (p. 14).

Expanding information and resources to guide local planning and implementation efforts

• MPCA’s initial comprehensive assessment of all of the state’s watersheds is on schedule to be completed in 2018 (p. 16);

• Public water suppliers have increased their source water protection efforts using Clean Water grant funds andtechnical assistance provided by MDH (pp. 36 & 38);

• More information on status of the state’s groundwater resources (nitrate, arsenic, chloride, and pesticideconcentrations, and trends in ground-water levels) is being organized and provided to local communities andland-owners to guide their decisions (pp. 39, 50, 56, & 58).

Reducing pollutants and documenting successes

• Clean Water Fund supported wastewater construction projects (p. 23) and nonpoint source BMP implementation efforts (p. 21)are each reducing the amount of phosphorus entering the state’s waters by an estimated 100,000 pounds or more per year;

• Minnesota continues to make progress towards reaching its goal of a 93 percent reduction in air emissions of mercury (p. 31);

• Clean-up efforts have now allowed 46 lakes and streams to be taken off Minnesota’s list of impaired waters (p. 29).

A new measure – Water Efficiency

• A new measure focused on statewide and per-person water use was added to the 2018 report (p. 60).

250

200

150

100

50

02006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Billi

ons o

f Gal

lons

Minnesota Water Use in Billions of Gallons(Excluding Power Generation)

Public SupplyIndustrial ProcessingIrrigationOther

lrp-f-3sy18a

iii 2018 Clean Water Fund Performance Report | www.legacy.leg.mn 2018 Clean Water Fund Performance Report | www.legacy.leg.mn iv

MEASURE STATUS TREND DESCRIPTIONDRINKING AND GROUNDWATER MEASURES

Number of community water supplies assisted with developing source water protection plans

It will be difficult to meet the 2020 goal for vulnerable systems because of competing demands for plan development resources.

Number of grants awarded for source water protection

Increasing funds accelerate implementation of proven strategies for source water protection.

Number of local government partners participating in groundwater nitrate-nitrogen monitoring and reduction activities

New local partnerships continue to be established for nitrate-nitrogen monitoring and reduction activities.

Number of new health-based guidance values for contaminants of emerging concern

Met target for FY 16-17. On track to meet goal of ten guidance values developed each biennium.

Number of counties completing a county geologic atlas for groundwater sustainability

Significant progress has been made completing county geologic atlases and the rate of completion has increased. Counties continue to step up to participate. Substantial work remains before all counties in Minnesota are done.

Number of long-term groundwater monitoring network wells

Many areas of the state still lack important groundwater information. Long-term ramp-up in monitoring accelerated by Clean Water Fund investments is filling gaps.

Number of unused groundwater wells sealed

FY16 funding was awarded to seven public water-suppliers to assist in sealing nine unused wells. FY17 funding was awarded to six local government units to assist in sealing over 200 private unused wells.

Changes over time in pesticides, nitrate-nitrogen and other key water quality parameters in groundwater

Pesticides Variable trends for five common pesticides indicate a mixed signal. Low levels are frequently detected in vulnerable groundwater

Nitrate-Nitrogen statewide

No trend information available.

In many agricultural areas, drinking water supplies are not vulnerable to surficial contamination and most wells have low levels of nitrate–nitrogen. However, in vulnerable groundwater areas, nitrate contamination is a significant concern.

Nitrate-Nitrogen southwest region

Most agricultural areas in southwest do not have vulnerable groundwater. In areas where groundwater is vulnerable, nitrate levels can be high. Of the 11 vulnerable townships tested in southwest Minnesota (2013-2016), 100% of them were determined to have 10% or more of the wells over the nitrate-N 10 PPM standard.

Nitrate-Nitrogen Central Sands

Trend data from the Central Sands Private Well Network shows no change. However, Township Testing data show a high level of nitrate in some vulnerable aquifers in the Central Sands. Of the 119 vulnerable townships tested (2013-2016), 29% of them were determined to have 10% or more of the wells over the nitrate-N 10 PPM standard.

Nitrate-Nitrogen southeast region

Trend data from the Southeast Minnesota Domestic Well Network shows no change. However, Township Testing data show a high level of nitrate in some vulnerable areas in southeast Minnesota. Of the 46 vulnerable townships tested (2013-2016), 54% of them were determined to have 10% or more of the wells over the nitrate-N 10 PPM standard.

Changes over time in source water quality used for community water supplies

Not enough information for a trend determination at this time.

Identifying correlations between drinking water contaminants is a significant step in trend analysis of source water quality.

Nitrate concentration in newly constructed wells

Since 1992, there has been a general increase in the percent of new wells that have nitrate levels above the drinking water standard. Since 2014, there has been a slight decrease in the percent of new wells with nitrate higher than the drinking water standard.

Arsenic concentration in newly constructed wells

The percentage of wells with arsenic above the drinking water standard has remained steady over the past 10 years. Evaluation of ways to reduce this percentage is ongoing and may take years before significant progress is made.

Changes over time in groundwater levels

Most observation wells show no significant change or an upward trend (up 24% since 2014), but many areas of the state lack important groundwater information while some areas experienced groundwater level declines.

Changes over time in total and per capita water use

There has been a slight improvement in water efficiency in recent years, although continued tracking is needed to determine the amount of impact from annual difference in weather versus changes in management.

SOCIAL MEASURES AND EXTERNAL DRIVERSSocial measures Not enough information for

a trend determination at this time.

In recent years, state agencies have developed and piloted the Social Measures Monitoring System. This work integrates social science into Clean Water Fund projects.

External drivers The external drivers identified continue to alter land-water interactions across Minnesota, impacting how Clean Water Funds need to be invested.

AC

TIO

NO

UTC

OM

ED

RIV

ERS

MEASURE STATUS TREND DESCRIPTIONINVESTMENT MEASURES

Total Clean Water Fund dollars appropriated by activity

FY10-11: $152.2M FY12-13: $179.4M

FY14-15: $182.5M FY16-17: $228.3MFY18-19: 201.4M

Appropriation levels will vary by biennium and the strength of the economy. FY10-17 funds have been allocated, while FY 18-19 allocations are in progress.

Total Clean Water Fund dollars per watershed or statewide by activity

Most watersheds in the state are benefiting from local and statewide projects.

For FY10-17, all 80 watersheds benefited from Clean Water Fund supported activities. Implementation activities comprise the largest portion of spending in watersheds statewide.

Total Clean Water Fund dollars awarded in grants and contracts to non-state agency partners

$361M was awarded in grants and contracts to non-state agency partners in FY10-17.

About 81 percent of grant and contract awards are for implementation activities; 48 percent of total FY10-17 appropriations were awarded to non-state agency partners.

Total dollars leveraged by Clean Water Fund $199M was leveraged by Clean Water Funds in FY10-17, or 73 cents for every implementation dollar invested.

Required Clean Water match funds were met and exceeded.

SURFACE WATER MEASURESPercent of major watersheds intensively monitored through the watershed approach

Steady progress is being made at the pace set in 2008.

Local partner participation in monitoring efforts As of 2017; all programs are meeting participatory goals.

Number of nonpoint source best management practices implemented with Clean Water funding and estimated pollutant load reductions

Although funding has increased and there is a continued increase in practices and projects being implemented, the total request for projects has remained three times greater than available funds.

Number of municipal point source construction projects implemented with Clean Water Funding and estimated pollutant load reductions

Total applications for eligible projects is twice the amount of funds available.

Rate of impairment/unimpairment of surface water statewide and by watershed

Stream/lake swimming


Water quality varies greatly by region. Watersheds yet to be assessed will influence the statewide impairment/unimpairment rate. It is unclear whether long-term goals will be met.

Stream aquatic life

Changes over time in key water quality parameters for lakes and streams

Lake clarity


There are improving trends in lake water clarity in more lakes than not.

Nutrients and sediment in large rivers

In general, concentrations in phosphorus and sediment are declining while nitrates are increasing in surface water.

Pesticides in streams

Detections in streams vary greatly as a result of hydrologic and agronomic conditions; concentrations above water quality standards are rare.

Pesticides in lakes

Detections in lakes vary by region; detections in lakes have been well below water quality standards.

Number of previous impairments now meeting water quality standards due to corrective actions

Although many projects are making progress in improving water quality, more waterbodies are being listed as impaired relative to the slower rate of waterbodies being restored.

Mercury in fish Mercury in game fish is not yet responding to decreases in local mercury emissions, although these reductions likely have prevented a steeper upward trend. Global emissions have increased. The time lag between emission reductions and response is likely several decades. It is too soon to see a measurable response in fish mercury levels. Long-term and consistent monitoring is necessary to track changes in fish tissue.

Mercury emissions Significant progress has been made reducing mercury emissions from power plants and is expected from the mining sector. To meet Minnesota’s 2025 emissions goal, further reduction of mercury use in various products will be necessary.

Municipal wastewater phosphorus discharge trend

Significant phosphorus load reductions have been achieved through regulatory policy, infrastructure investments and improved technology.

INV

ESTM

ENTS

AC

TIO

NO

UTC

OM

EClean Water Fund Report Card

Clean Water Fund Goal/Performance Measure Alignment Mission: Protect and Restore Minnesota's Waters for Generations to Come

Goal Objective CWF Performance Report Measure Measure Type (Action/Outcome)Drinking water is safe for everyone, everywhere in Minnesota

Protect public water supplies

Number of community public water supplies assisted with developing source water protection plans drinking water/actionNumber of grants awarded for source water protection drinking water/action

Ensure private well users have safe waterNitrate concentrations in newly constructed wells* drinking water/outcome Arsenic concentrations in newly constructed wells* drinking water/outcome

Source water protection

Changes over time in source water quality used for community water supplies drinking water/outcome

Groundwater is clean and availableImprove and protect groundwater quality

Number of new health-based guidance values for contaminants of emerging concern groundwater/action

Number of long-term groundwater monitioring network wells (2 quality, 1 quantity) groundwater/actionNumber of unused groundwater wells sealed groundwater/actionChanges over time in pesticides, nitrate-nitrogen, and other key water quality parameters in groundwater - pesticides groundwater/outcome

Changes over time in pesticides, nitrate-nitrogen, and other key water quality parameters in groundwater - nitrate-nitrogen statewide* groundwater/outcome

Changes over time in pesticides, nitrate-nitrogen, and other key water quality parameters in groundwater - nitrate-nitrogen southwest region groundwater/outcome

Changes over time in pesticides, nitrate-nitrogen, and other key water quality parameters in groundwater - nitrate-nitrogen central sands groundwater/outcome


Goal Objective CWF Performance Report Measure Measure Type (Action/Outcome)Changes over time in pesticides, nitrate-nitrogen, and other key water quality parameters in groundwater - nitrate-nitrogen southeast region groundwater/outcome

Ensure sustainable long-term trends in aquifer levelsNumber of counties completing a county geologic atlas for groundwater sustainability groundwater/actionChanges over time in groundwater levels* groundwater/outcome

Avoid adverse impacts to surface water features due to groundwater useChanges over time in total and per capita water use groundwater/outcome

Surface waters are swimmable and fishablePrevent and reduce pollution of surface waters

Percent of major watersheds intensively monitored through the Watershed Approach surface water/actionNumber of nonpoint source best managment practices implemented with Clean Water fundng and estimated pollutant load reductions surface water/actionNumber of municipal point source construction projects implemented with Clean Water funding and estimated pollutant load reductions surface water/actionRate of impairment /unimpairment of surface water statewide and by watershed - stream/lake swimming* surface water/outcome

Number of previous impairments now meeting water quality standards due to corrective actions surface water/outcomeChanges over time in key water quality parameters - lake clarity surface water/outcomeChanges over time in key water quality parameters - nutrients and sediments in large rivers surface water/outcomeChanges over time in key water quality parameters - pesticides in streams surface water/outcomeChanges over time in key water quality parameters - pesticides in lakes surface water/outcome

Maintain and improve the health of aquatic ecosystems

Rate of impairment /unimpairment of surface water statewide and by watershed - stream/aquatic life surface water/outcome*Mercury in fish surface water/outcomeMercury emissions surface water/outcomeMunicipal wastewater phosphorus discharge trend surface water/outcome


Goal Objective CWF Performance Report Measure Measure Type (Action/Outcome)Protect and restore hydrologic systems

sediments in large river systems go here?

Minnesotans value water and take actions to sustain and protect itBuild capacity of local communities to protect and sustain water resources

part of future social measures?

Encourage systems and approaches that support, protect, and improve waterLocal partner participation in monitoring efforts surface water/actionNumber of local grovernment partners participating in groundwater nitrate-nitrogen monitoring and reduction activities groundwater/actionExternal drivers - land use, demography, climate external drivers

Provide education and outreach to inform Minnesotan's water choices

Encourage citizen and community engagement on water issuesSocial measures - individual, relational, organizational, programmatic, justice social measure

* Measure found in the Roadmap or can be adjusted to align with the Roadmap measure.

How important is it to protect and restore Minnesota waters (lakes, streams, rivers, and groundwater) for the following values and uses?

Highest score in all regions:a)Drinking water that is safe and clean

Second highest score in all regions:f) Future generations

Third highest score in all but 1 region:h) Habitat for native fish and wildlife to survive

Usually fourth highest:b) Beaches and lakes that are safe for swimming and playing

Disagree

Agree

Neutral

Whose responsibility is protecting water?

MyResponsibility

Local Gov State Gov Local Residents Ag Community Urbancommunity

Strongly Agree

Agreement between regions in views on responsibility…

The …Ag communityUrban communityLocal governmentState government… in my area should be responsible for protecting water

However, some variation in intensity

The State governmentshould be responsible for protecting water

1 = Strongly Disagree2 = Disagree3 = Neutral4 = Agree5 = Strongly Agree

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Safe drinking water Healthy fish and wildlifepopulations

High quality swimming andboating

Reduce MN's contributionto water problems outside

state lines

Prop

ortio

n of

bud

get (

%)

How should we prioritize funding for clean water?

Where to invest depends on values

Where to invest depends on intended beneficiaries

pebat.umn.edu

Similar to average

Above average

Below average

Does my portfolio address all of my priorities?

clean water council · • irrigation scheduling software – bruce montgomery, m innesota...

Documents