Legislative Water Commission

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 draheimgop district 20 Madison lake • Senator chriseatondfl district 40 Brooklyn center • Senator kentekendfl district 4 twin valley • Representative peter fischerdfl 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 postongop district 9a lake shore • Representative paul Torkelson gop district 16b hanska • Senator bill weber gop district 22 luverne • Senator chuck wigerdfl 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 SummaryLWC 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. 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 1991 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!