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

2. 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

3. 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

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

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

6. 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

7. 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?

8. Combines CWC and the LWC
HF2901
Combines CWC and the LWC

9. 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

10. 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]

11. 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 through 2018]

12. 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]

13. 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]

14. 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]

15. 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]

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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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?)

22. 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

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