1. Senator Bill Weber * Representative Peter Fischer
Legislative Water Commission
June 10, 2019
Co-chairs:
Senator Bill Weber * Representative Peter Fischer
LWC_Directors_Report_ _revision2.pptx

2. Introductions Body First Name Last Name Party District Home Sen Chuck
Wiger
DFL 43
Maplewood
Rep
Jeff
Brand
19A
St. Peter
Rich
Draheim R 20
Madison Lake
Kent
Eken 4
Twin Valley
Peter
Fischer*
43A
Josh
Heintzeman
10A
Nisswa
Chris
Eaton 40
Brooklyn Center
Todd
Lippert
20B
Northfield
John
Poston 9A
Lake Shore
Paul
Torkelson
16B
Hanska
Bill
Weber* 22
Luverne
Michael
Goggin 21
Red Wing

3. Agenda: Legislative Water Commission
Approval of Minutes- April 1
Status of the LWC: Chairs
Session Summary, Water Legislation- 2019
LWC Priorities issues for 2020
HF 2902: Combines CWC & LWC
Trends in General Fund Spending
404 Wetland Permit Assumption
Water-quality standards revision
Consolidated Water Agency
Summer Field Tour
 Adjourn

4. Status: Legislative Water Commission Senator Bill Weber
Representative Peter Fischer

5. Session Summary: 2019 Session
Agenda Item 2
Session Summary: 2019 Session
Water-related legislation

6. Session Highlights
  LWC summary

7. 2019 LWC Recommendations (Bill Recommendation and Status)
Inflow and Infiltration-- Wastewater
Healthy Soil/Healthy Water
Water Infrastructure
Peer review of wastewater standards
Reduce excess chloride
Continuation of the LWC
Keeping Water on the Land
Data, information, Education and Public Awareness
Preserving and protecting our lakes
Expanded source water programs
Increase drinking water protection Fee
Statewide Water Policy
Educational Curriculum- Water- K-12
Update and modifies Clean Water Act Provision

8. Agenda Item 3
Priorities for 2020

9. 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?
HF 2902: Combining the CWC and the LWC
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 ,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?

10. Combines CWC and the LWC
Agenda Item 5
HF 2901:
Combines CWC and the LWC

11. Status of General Fund Spending--Summary
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 communicating outcomes is critical
Water outcomes are difficult to communicate
Where would we be without CWFs?  

12. Conservation Spending from the General Fund
Decreased for 20 years
Currently, at less that 1 % of general fund 

13. “ Conservation Spending” from the General Fund: 1991-2018 (Conservation Minnesota).

14. 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

15. “ Conservation Spending” General Fund and Dedications Funds: 1991-2018 (Conservation Minnesota)

16. Conservation Spending Compare to Other States?
General fund spending for conservation: among the lowest, compared to other states

17. 5
Where does MN Stand? Conservation Spending- General Fund: as a percentage of general funding (Environmental Council of States)

18. Minnesota Relies on Dedicated Conservation Dollars
MN conservation funding is primarily for dedicated funding and from fees 

19. Conservation Spending: Sources Other than from the General Fund: Fees and Dedicated Funds
(Environmental Council of States)

20. Conservation Spending compared to Neighbor States
Comparison is problematic
There are several sources of information
They tell differing stories
To truly understand, we would have to dive deeply 

21. Conservation Spending in the Midwest (2)
Several and conflicting sources of information
Per-capita spending is among the lowest in the Midwest (Council of State Governments) 

22. Conservation Spending Per Capita
Ballopedia

23. Conservation Spending in the Midwest (2)
More recent (mixed sources) tell a different story
This is likely more realistic
Includes all dedicated funds 

24. Total Conservation Spending: 2013-17

25. Conservation Spending in the Midwest (3)
The per-capita spending tells the same story

26. Conservation Spending Per Capita

27. Relies more on dedicated funds Less on Federal Funds
Sources of Conservation Spending (4)
Minnesota:
Relies more on dedicated funds
Less on Federal Funds   

28. Where do “Conservation Dollars” Come From?

29. 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, as least in the Midwest

30. Bottom line(2): Conservation Funding
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

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

32. 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 
Report back efficiency changes--agency input

33. SF 2102: Dept. of Water Resources
Minnesota’s governance is complex
Bill combines agency responsibilities
Abolishes some agencies

34. SF 2102 (2): Department of Water Resources
This has been studied
Possible efficiencies and benefits to citizens
Could be unintended consequences
Many law and rule changes would be needed
Reports offer thoughtful recommendations
Topics needs discussion and planning over the interim

35. Suggestions: Dept. of Water Resources
MPCA and UM have led evaluations:
Reported to Legislature:
Did not recommend major organizational change:
Create interagency water-management “system”– improve lateral coordination
Use resources more efficiently
Improved customer service (regional interagency customer advocate?)

36. SF2102 (3): Dept. of Water Resources
 Some recommendations are implemented
Super agency:
Might be more efficient
Could create a simplified permit processes– regional permit advocates?
Might reduce organizational silos

37. SF2102: Dept. of Water Resources
 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

38. Evaluate other priorities Proposed field CWC Next meeting?
Closing Thoughts
Continue to focus on 2020 priorities and specific actions for legislation
Evaluate other priorities
Proposed field CWC
Next meeting?

39. Thanks!