Legislative Water Commission March 18, 2019 Co-Chairs: Representative Peter Fischer Senator Bill Weber Jim Stark, Director

Agenda Approval of Minutes February 11, 2019 Welcome to new member: Senator Michael Goggin GW Management Area Progress – Jason Moeckel, MN DNR Phosphorus in the LeSueur River – Anna Baker. U of M, USGS Update: Section 404 Assumption – Clean Water Act History of proposed changes to specific conductance standard Discussion: Progress and next steps – LWC bills Discussion: Bill – Consolidated Water Agency Proposed field tour with CWC, LCCMR, LSOHC ~ Summer Status of other introduced water legislation Scheduling meetings during session Adjourn

12 Appointed Members Representative jeff brand dfl district 19A st. peter Senator rich draheim gop Madison lake Senator chris eaton dfl district 40 Brooklyn center Senator kent eken dfl district 4 twin valley Representative peter fischer dfl district 43a Maplewood Senator Michael Goggin gop district 21 red wing Representative josh Heintzeman gop district 10a Nisswa Representative todd Lippert dfl district 20B northfield Representative john poston gop district 9a lake shore Representative paul Torkelson gop district 16b hanska Senator bill weber gop district 22 luverne Senator chuck wiger dfl district 43 Maplewood

Update dnr groundwater management program Jason Moeckel presenting

New science: Sources of phosphorus in the Le Sueur river Anna baker, u of m, usgs Dr. Jacques finlay, u of m Dr. karen gran, u of m - duluth

Update: section 404 assumption clean water act Adapted from MN inter-county association Simplifies the wetland permit process One permit for projects with wetland impact One regulatory agency Should save time & money Little reduction in the protection and retention of wetlands Clean water act and the state wetland conservation act will continue in effect and require appropriate mitigation of adverse wetland impacts

challenges Wetlands conservation act (wca) and section 404 need to be harmonized so that they can be administered together Mapping of waters assumed will need to be completed

Legislation to begin the process of assumption has been introduced SF 962, Mathews Hf 1170, Ecklund While the bills will lay the groundwork for assumption, a final application for assumption will require additional legislation sign off Delays in legislative action may allow other states to get ahead of Minnesota in the queue for section 404 assumption

Next steps in the process Interagency coordination (bwsr, dnr, pca) Negotiations with epa Stakeholder outreach and coordination Specific and targeted statute and rule changes Funding for application development and program implementation Budget and staffing impact analysis needed If legislation is not passed – potential lwc recommendation topic?

History of proposed changes to the specific conductance standard specific conductance water quality standard Conductivity is a measure of water’s capacity to pass electrical current Specific conductance (sc) is a measure corrected to 25 degrees C Sc is used to compare waters Changes are an indicator of changes in quality of water Significant changes may be detrimental to water quality and to aquatic organisms

Specific conductance No universal standard in water Sc standard, for most rivers, is 1,000 microsiemens per centimeter Some approximate values for specific conductance: Waters of Minnesota are grouped into classes Within classes, standards exist for use and benefits Sc standard applies to class 4 waters Relates to water for irrigation Class 3 and 4 standards were adopted in the 1960’s

Specific conductance water quality standard (part II) Cwa requires reviews of standards 2008-2012 review – mpca contracted um Um recommended updates to the class 3 & 4 The um report was completed in 2010 Based on those recommendations, and other factors, mpca is considering a change process to rules A change in the sc standard is proposed Mpca completed a preliminary comment period Comment process is used to obtain input Mpca has provided ideas and sought feedback for rulemaking That process is complete Mpca now has a request for comments The formal rulemaking process begins thereafter

13 recommendations Inflow and infiltration – wastewater Healthy soil/healthy water Water infrastructure Peer review of wastewater standards Reducing excess chloride Continuation of the legislative water commission Keeping water on the land Data, information, education, and public awareness Preserving and protecting our lakes Expanded source water program Increase drinking water protection fee Statewide water policy Educational curriculum – water – k-12

Status of lwc bills Most have been introduced All heard in the house Moving forward One bill heard in the senate Next steps and discussion

Sf 2102: creation of a department of water resources Combines agency water responsibilities Proposes new laws and statutes Abolishes bwsr, eqb Background on framework – 2011 Um and partners addresses water governance Water agencies: 20 federal, 7 state, many local evolved independently over time Policy development in an additive manner Recognize inefficiencies and disconnections Lack of integration over natural water and political boundaries

Framework makes recommendations Increase coordination across agencies Increase legislative capacity better coordination with local agencies Better coordination with local agencies Systems (watershed and aquifer) management rather than on political boundaries Increase ability to manage long term issues (water sustainability and climate change) Water congress to review, assess statutes, rules crossing agencies and to suggest changes Create a water sustainability act More authority to watershed organizations Increase agency and local coordination develop an interagency data/information portal

Mpca led governance evaluation - 2013 Reported to legislature Create interagency water-management “system” – improve lateral coordination Agencies: use resources more efficiently Improved customer service (regional interagency customer advocate?) Improve sustainable water management – implement 1 water/1 plan Simplify the permit process Increase the ability to manage long-term issues (climate change)

Some things to consider Some recommendations are implemented Super agency Could be more efficient Could create a simplified permit process – regional permit advocates? Might reduce organizational silos Many laws/rules would need revision In some agencies, water is a component of a larger mission (Health and agriculture, for example) Some agencies are constrained by delegated federal authority – complicated and potential loss of federal funds? Wisconsin DNR is an example – regional silos

Discussion and next steps If bills are not passed, this could be a topic for LWC review and recommendations discussion

Closing thoughts Proposed field tour with cwc, lccmr, lsohc – summer Spring flood update Next meeting: ? Thanks!