Legislative Water Commission April 1, 2019 Co-Chairs: Representative Peter Fischer Senator Bill Weber * Jim Stark, Director

Introductions Representative jeff brand dfl district 19A st. peter Senator rich draheim gop district 20 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

Agenda Approval of Minutes-April 1, 2019 Status of the LWC: LWC Chairs Session Summary Water Legislation: 2019 LWC Priority Issues for 2020 HF2902: Combines CWC & LWC Trends in General Fund Spending 404 Wetland Permit Assumption Water Quality Standards Revision Consolidated Water Agency Summer Field Tour Adjourn

Status of Legislative Water Commission Senator Bill Weber Representative Peter Fischer

Session Summary ~ 2019 Session Water-related legislation Session highlights LWC summary

2019 Session Summary LWC recommendations (Bill recommendation and status) 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 Update and modifies clean water act provision

2020 Legislative Priorities Can we improve water quality standard revision process? Is our water management structure efficient compared to other states? one water agency? Agency effectiveness changes – other than a major reorganization? HF2902: combining clean water council and legislative water commission? Have general fund expenditures for the environment eroded? How can we better measure effectiveness of dedicated fund programs? How do environmental and water programs compare to other states? Benefits and consequences around 404 wetlands permit assumptions? Can there be better coordination among LWC, CWC, LSOHC, and LCCMR? Are we effectively conducting water planning for future needs? Minnesota’s most important water priorities? Can we prioritize conservation practices for the greatest benefits? How do we balance the value of protection versus restoration efforts? Others?

Combines CWC and the LWC HF2901 Combines CWC and the LWC

Status of General Fund Spending General fund spending for conservation has declined Even with dedicated funds, conservation spending has decreased Considering dedicated funding – MN is a leader Long-term Continuation of dedicated funds is critical Understanding and communication outcomes Water outcomes are difficult to communicate Where would we be without CWFs

Conservation spending from the General Fund Decreased for 20 years Currently, at least 1% of general fund [graph of conservation spending from the general fund from 1991 through 2018]

Conservation spending with dedicated funds Dedicated funds = legacy and trust funds, plus fees Has Also decreased over 20 years Currently at about 2% of state budget [graph of conservation spending from general and dedicated funds from 1991 through 2018]

How does conservation spending compare to other states General fund spending for conservation is among the lowest compared to other states [graphs comparing conservation spending to other states]

Minnesota relies on dedicated conservation dollars Mn conservation funding is primarily for dedicated funding and from fees [graphs of conservation spending from sources other than general fund]

Minnesota conservation spending compared to neighbors Comparison is problematic There are several sources of information They tell differing stories To truly understand, we would have to dive deeply [graph of conservation spending in the Midwest from 2011 through 2015]

Conservation spending in the midwest Several and conflicting sources of information Per capita spending is among the lowest in the Midwest (council of state governments) More recent (mixed sources) tell a different story This is likely more realistic Includes all dedicated funds Per capita spending tells the same story [graphs comparing spending per capita in the midwest]

Sources of conservation spending Minnesota: Relies more on dedicated funds Less on federal funds [graph comparing conservation dollar sources in midwest]

Bottom line conservation funding in mn General fund spending has declined including dedicated funds, conservation spending still has decreased However, including the dedicated funds, MN is a leader, at least in the midwest Conservation crisis without dedicated funds understanding and communicating outcomes is essential for continued citizen support This needs to be a priority Action: Report back on status of outcomes

CWA: Wetland Permit Assumption BWSR would assume COE permit responsibilities (Section 404) Could save time and money May simplify the process Staffing and costs need evaluation prior to implementation EQB – planning funds Action: Report back to you on next steps

Simplify the water quality standard revision process Issue arose around specific conductance standard Revision process is cumbersome and long Need to identify roadblocks Process may be able to be made more efficient Staffing may be inadequate Input from agencies is a first step in improvement

Sf2102: Department of Water resources Minnesota’s governance is complex Bill combines agency responsibilities Abolishes come agencies Possible efficiencies and benefits to citizens This has been studied Could be unintended consequences Many law and rule changes would be needed Reports offer thoughtful recommendations Topics need discussion and planning over the interim Some recommendations are implemented Super agency: Might be more efficient Could create a simplified permit process – regional permit advocates? Might reduce organizational silos

Suggestions: Department of Water Resources MPCA anD UM had led evaluations: Reported to legislature Did not recommend major organizational change Create interagency water-management “system” ~ improve lateral coordination Uses resources more efficiently Improved customer service (regional interagency customer advocate?)

Sf2102: department of water resources ~ in conclusion However, many laws, rules would need revision In some agencies, water is a component of larger mission. Eg. Health and agriculture Some agencies are constrained by delegated federal authority – complicated and potential loss of federal funds? Wi dnr is an example – regional silos Action: detailed discussion on advantages and unintended consequences with agency input

Closing thoughts Continue to focus on 2020 priorities and specific actions for legislation Evaluate other priorities Proposed field tour with cwc Next meeting: ? Thanks!