Clean Water Council Meeting Packet August 20, 2018

Clean Water Council Meeting Agenda August 20, 2018

9:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m. MPCA Lower Level Conference Room

520 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul

9:00 Regular Clean Water Council (Council) Business

Council Member introductions and updates

Agenda - comments/additions and approve agenda

Meeting Minutes - comments/additions and approve 07/16/2018 meeting minutes

Chair and Council Staff update

9:30 Freshwater Society Report: Steve Woods

10:00 Program Updates:

Forever Green Initiative: Combining Forever Green Implementation, MN AgriculturalDiversification Steering Council & Network and Forever Green Initiative (Research)programs as requested by BOC: Margaret Wagner, MDA

Irrigation Management Assistance Tool (web-based software program): BruceMontgomery, MDA

10:30 Budget and Outcomes Committee (BOC) Update - Todd Renville and Sharon Doucette: Review, discuss and possibly vote on draft budget recommendations.

12:00 Lunch

12:30 Budget and Outcomes Committee (BOC) Update continue

1:00 2020 Water Report: Katie Pratt, EQB

1:30 Policy Committee Update: John Barten & Victoria Reinhardt (status of Continuous productive cover policy, Policy write up for the 2018 CWC report)

1:45 New Business & Debrief from today’s meeting

2:00 Adjourn

2:00 Council Steering Team - Steering Team discusses upcoming meeting topics and other items.

Next Meetings: Policy Committee Meeting – August 24, 2018 BOC meeting – September 7, 2018 CWC meeting – September 17, 2018

wq-cwc2-18h

Clean Water Council July 16, 2018 Meeting Summary

Members present: John Barten, Steven Besser, Pam Blixt, Gary Burdorf, Sharon Doucette, Tannie Eshenaur, Bob Hoefert, Frank Jewell, Holly Kovarik, Douglas Losee, Rylee Main, Jason Moeckel, Raj Rajan, Sandy Rummel, Patrick Shea, Glenn Skuta, Doug Thomas, and Representative Jean Wagenius Members absent: Mark Abner, Sharon Day, Warren Formo, Senator David Osmek, Jeff Peterson, Victoria Reinhardt, Todd Renville, Senator Ann Rest, Susan Stokes, and Representative Paul Torkelson To watch the WebEx video recording of this meeting, please go to https://www.pca.state.mn.us/clean-water-council/meetings, or contact Brianna Frisch. Regular Clean Water Council (Council) Business · Council Member introductions and updates

· Sandy Rummel: The One Water Summit was a big success. There were about 890 people present, with 200 from Minnesota. It is an organization that is looking at taking care of the water, encouraging cross-sector investments in water issues, and understanding of the complexity.

· Doug Losee: The company he works for, Unimin will now be called Covia. · Tannie Eshenaur: Randy Ellingboe at the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) will be retiring tomorrow, after

many years of state service. We appreciate his service to the public and to public health. Randy Ellingboe: I wanted to come over and say thank you to the Clean Water Council. The insights and input from the members to the state agencies, and for the citizens and governor of the state. It has been critical in helping us gain perspectives. The input that has been provided has led to better collaboration amongst the state agencies. This has been inspired by the work the Council has done. It has been wonderful getting to know you all and I am excited to see the work in the future. Thank you for the opportunity.

· Jason Moeckel: There has been a lot of high water throughout the state, and thankfully, things are moving in the right direction. These areas are still well above ordinary water levels. The Governor is out touring some of the damage today. On the plus side, White Bear Lake is looking good (at 924, just below its outlet).

· Glenn Skuta: It sounds like some of the reimbursement requests had a delay. I want to apologize on behalf of the agency for that delay. The budget was a little complicated at the end of the fiscal year. My understanding is that all the reimbursement requests submitted has now been paid. Thank you for your patience.

· Raj Rajan: There is a Global Climate Action Summit on September 12-14 in San Francisco, California. They are expecting 17,000 people.

· Agenda and 6/18/18 Meeting Summary approved · Chair and Council Staff update

· Updated program descriptions in the binders: · University of Minnesota (UMN) Geological Survey County Geologic Atlas Program (9.1) and Return

on Investment for Clean Water Funds (9.3) · Voyageur’s National Park Clean Water Projects (7.23) and Red River Basin River Watch (7.27) · New Agency Programs: Chloride Reduction Efforts (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)

10.1) and Forever Green Implementation (Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) 10.3) · Stakeholder comments behind each program

· Funding requests spreadsheet has been updated (7/6/18) · Contact for St. Louis River Area of Concern is Barb Huberty (please update in binder page 7.15) · Reimbursements submitted by June 30 have been paid.

Freshwater Society (Handout provided) (WebEx 00:14:30) · Update on the work they have been doing this last year, which is a conversation about how we can focus Clean

Water Funds (CWFs) spending on bigger return projects. There will not be any details about the recommendations coming out of this work. I wanted to give you a heads up on what we have been doing, why we have been doing this, some general recommendations, and the people involved. We will come back again in August to talk more about the specific recommendations.

https://www.pca.state.mn.us/clean-water-council/meetings

https://www.pca.state.mn.us/clean-water-council/meetings

mailto:[email protected]

http://globalclimateactionsummit.org/

· Why: The Trajectory Project · This part is to help move more towards the goals and actions, to make sure we are heading in the right

direction. We want to make sure there are certain items on a trajectory forward. · Fourteen years ago was the G16 process (Impaired Waters Stakeholder Process). About 16 interest

groups got together to tackle Minnesota’s impaired waters to make sure that they are coming into compliance of a federal requirement, in a cost effective manner. Of the recommendations (31 total), about 27 are done or in progress, which was really exciting to see that marker of success. We wanted to see what would happen if we did that again. Part of the reason, was that early on, there was a lot of solidarity and cohesion between those different interest groups. We wanted to see what we could do if we bring this coalition back together again, to see about spending money?

· We listed the people this time, with a few additional folks were added. The people bolded are those that were in the first process. Last time they met 18 times, and this time we only want to meet three times and condense the process. We took a quick assessment of the group to see the items that could be on a better trajectory. When we got the survey back, it was more about a lack of cohesiveness. Therefore, we decided to look a little closer at the systemic barriers.

· At the second meeting, we were asked what would change if the funds were gone in 2034? If this money is going away, how do we make sure we have everything in place for a good trajectory? Alternatively, what are we going to wish we would work on if the funds remained? This fed into the final conversations of the third meeting, of the different directions.

· There are three overarching recommendations. First, the updated vision. About 14 years ago, this was regarding cost effective ways for federal Total Maximum Daily Limits (TMDL) requirements, and start to put projects on the ground. We want to identify the new vision. Second, with the vision in place, how can we narrow the focus and scope of investments on this from all of the different groups? Third, is the recommendations of the process of how these investments are carried forward, to see the robust continuation, with fewer surprises on the other side?

· We want to have this all in place, so when the report comes out, there are already steps in place for groups to follow. We want the support to move this forward.

· The first meeting was in December 2017. The Clean Water Council came up a lot. Therefore, we approached the Council chair (Frank Jewell) to invite him to the meeting. He joined up for the other two meetings. We have been seeing some of these suggestions and conversations work out, moving forward.

· Questions: · The CWFs are addressing a small fraction of the overall water quality challenges in the state. Are you

saying that the monitoring and assessment is done? Will something else take care of that? The need to shift is the statement I have issues with. Answer: No, this is not saying that monitoring is done, we should still keep monitoring. However, after the 10 years monitoring cycle, there is an opportunity to start shifting more funds towards implementation. This is true for the projects that have been identified as impactful and local planning processes.

· The G16 predated the Legacy funds. One of the reasons it was written (with an emphasis on drinking water and groundwater), was because the G16 was ignoring drinking water and groundwater. I see this and you are still ignoring drinking water and groundwater (drinking water sources are getting worse). Response: Thank you for the comment and concern. Condensing the meetings, does cause items to be overlooked sometimes. I want to assure you that groundwater and drinking water were included in the conversation (at each meeting). The recommendations will start to come forward in terms of implementation, to help in these areas.

· To what level has your group addressed coordination of funds? Answer: Our group did start to talk about a collaborative approach in terms of leveraging funding, and those benefits. The biggest recommendation is the idea to narrow the focus (return on investment opportunities).

· The original intention was for this to be a report on the ten years, for a progress update. Frank Jewell originally did not want to participate (conflict of role as chair), but at the request of many I agreed to join the meeting and was brought in to participate. We may have challenges, but everyone looks at us with all our resources and they wish they had that. We have great opportunities here.

Red River Basin River Watch: Asher Kingery and Andrew Ulven, International Water Institute (WebEx 00:34:00)

· The International Water Institute was formed after the 1997 flood. http://iwinst.org/

· Environmental Monitoring: Watershed Pollutant Load Monitoring (about 20 locations) as well as special projects (Flood Damage Reduction, MDA pesticide, mercury load project, habitat assessment, etc.)

· GIS/Research · Red River Basin – light detecting and ranging (LiDAR)

· Online decision support tools · Prioritize, Target, Measure Applications (PTMApp)

· Basin Technical and Scientific Advisory Committee (BTSAC) · Watershed Education

· Program Evolution · River Watch pilot project (1995) http://iwinst.org/mesmerize/watershed-education/river-watch/ · River of Dreams (developed 2003) http://iwinst.org/mesmerize/watershed-education/river-of-dreams/ · River Explorers (2012) · Stream tables and groundwater models (2014) · River of Dreams updates and expansion (2015) · Macroinvertebrate sampling (2016) · Continuous monitoring stations (2017)

· Monitoring: Chemistry and Biology · Water Chemistry: Over 10,000 samples collected by 32 schools and groups at 150+ sites. · Training and coordination certification in partnership with the MPCA.

· They have added continuous monitoring stations, macroinvertebrates monitoring, and river explorers, to help bring a more holistic view of the river.

· River Explorers · Goals: Understand local rivers ‘between sites’, provide local managers with unique view of river, and enjoy the

river and learn life-long skills · Since 2013: Over 1,000 students ‘on the water’, 95 unique paddle trips, about 1,972 participants (students and

community members), and altogether about 5,079 miles paddled in the Red River Basin. · Recent Forum themes: River watch in action (service learning projects), college and career fair, and water: any

career, any day. Other coordination: River Watch Camp, and Teacher Training and Workshops. · River of Dreams:

· Goals: establish sense of place, introduce watershed concept, tract paths of local streams to the ocean, inspire creativity, and encourage imagination. They use a 14-inch canoe with trackers to trace the water movement.

· Program components: paddle-to-the-sea, classroom visit, mapping activities and watershed vocabulary, canoe design and story composition, canoe display, database integration, and a canoe launch.

· Ripple Effects: · Database creates opportunity to follow canoes as they travel downstream · Citizens discovering canoes learn about the project and consider the whole watershed · Students share watershed knowledge with family and friends · communities view decorated canoes on display · Learning opportunities travel downstream

· Funding Direction FY20-21 and Beyond · FY20-21: Continue Red River Basin programming ($500,000). Coordinate with Clean Water Council to develop

and expansion plan and funding package to develop River of Dreams materials and reach students in 10 major river basins in Minnesota

· FY22-23: Continue Red River Basin programming. Continue to coordinate with the Clean Water Council for further expansion of River of Dreams to all 80 major watersheds in Minnesota.

· Long-term vision: Reach every student in Minnesota with the River of Dreams program.

Question:

http://iwinst.org/

http://iwinst.org/mesmerize/watershed-education/river-watch/

http://iwinst.org/mesmerize/watershed-education/river-of-dreams/

· All of your work introduces kids at a young age to help provide a lifelong interest. Do you have plans to do a follow up and see where they are? Answer: Most of our information from the beginning is anecdotal. However, I was in the program in 2002, and I became hooked. A few other former students are working for the International Water Institute now. The last few years, we have only started tracking this information.

· Where does your funding come from now? Are we as a Council to fund this activity? Answer: We receive funds from the Clean Water Council (MPCA), which are matched by our partners the Red River Watershed Management Board. We had been told that the Clean Water Council wants programs statewide, and this is for a specific region. Comment from Frank Jewell: The Council has consistently not supported this program, in the budget recommendations. Not because we do not think they are doing a great job. Rather, because of the statewide effort. There has always been funding however, because the Legislature has chosen to fund it. Additionally, the 25 by 25 Governor’s meetings were heavy on education, so we wanted to focus our attention on your program. Comment from Glenn Skuta: Sometimes the Legislation has taken the funds out of the MPCAs allocations of the monitoring and assessment. Then, we have to scramble to figure out how to make up the difference. I wanted to mention this, in case the Council wanted to make a recommendation on this now, so it is less likely for that to happen.

· The LGUs perform many educational activities across the state. Typically, there has not been an avenue of specific funding for these programs. I know that this education has been brought forward many times after the 25 by 25 meetings. I want to make a note of that, that entities are out there who do not have CWFs for them.

Voyageurs National Park Water Quality Program: Mike Jugovich, St. Louis County; Gary Cerkvenik and Colin Marcusen, SEH (WebEx 01:07:30)

· We want to protect the waters of the national park. It is Minnesota’s only national park, and the nation’s only water based park, therefore, it is a unique resource. The water that flows from these four areas of the national park (Island View, Kabetogama, Ash River, and Crane Lake) also flow into the boundary waters canoe area wilderness. What we do influences BWCAW as well.

· When visitors come to the park, they have to enter through one of these four areas. Therefore, these are the four high traffic areas: people leave money and sewage in these areas. These little communities are having trouble with the increase in people that go through their communities. They need resources from other parts of the state to help fund this increase (updated water treatment systems), so people can enjoy the part without negatively affecting it (increased human waste related pathogens in the water).

· The locals are paying their fair share. The per capita sewage cost of an Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDUs) range from $90 - $137 a month. This compares to the average for Minnesota at about $30 - $50 per month. The local folks and local units of government are paying for this already. The visitors flow through these areas to get to the park. There is a lot of rock and not as much soil, so the building systems are expensive (not able to build Sub-Surface Sewage Treatment Systems (SSTS)).

· There are many houseboats in the park. The Voyageurs National Park administration likes the houseboats because of the minimal impact on the park. People bring all the materials. This includes the sewage, which stays on the boat, and is brought back to be dumped into the wastewater treatment systems. The houseboats help to mitigate the impact of tourists in the region, (but increases the sewage quantities).

· We are asking for $1.55 million dollars for the national park. We have received money over the years from a wide variety of sources, including the state and the US Army Corps of Engineers, local counties, United State Department of Agriculture (USDA) rural systems, townships, and small cities programs. Therefore, we have a wide variety of resources to help solve these problems. We want to thank those involved in this funding like the Council for all the funding received. We want to keep on moving forward to continue to address the needs of the park’s water quality.

· What is the Problem? o Non-complying/failing septic systems o 2010 study results reveal a 64% non-conformance rate

§ Island View Project (64% non-conformance rate) § Kabetogama Project (77% non-conformance rate) § In Crane Lake, the non-conformance rate is lower at 41%, because the Crane Lake Water and

Sanitary District serves approximately 100 properties by a community system.

§ Ash River (73% non-conformance rate) § Nearly 900 systems in these four areas alone § About 150 gallons a day of untreated sewage from each of these systems to either subsurface

systems, or pipes straight into the water. There is a real water quality problem. § There are several solutions to this issue. In this area, due to the geology, a grinder system set up

instead of septic tanks. This grinder pipe then goes to a centralized treatment system. · Project User Rates

· Island View: 246 EDUs: $112/EDU per month · Kabetogama: 85 EDUs: $90/EDU per month · Most municipalities in Minnesota have about $35- $50 per month per EDU.

· Island View Projects: subtotal funding is $20,547,800 from nine funding sources (including county, state bonding, legacy funds, Army Corp, etc.).

· Crane Lake Water and Sanitary District: The LGU uses funds from different sources to build small wastewater treatment systems in discrete communities that will have the greatest impact on water quality. They are asking for $600,000 Minnesota Legacy Funds (FY 20-21). This includes individual systems management, where the sewer district will work with the homeowners to construct and maintain decentralized systems (one time capital fee plus a monthly fee). About 28 are complete, one is under construction, and five are awaiting permits.

· Kabetogama Projects: subtotal funding is $4,520,565 from nine funding sources · Ash River Projects: They just started the reporting phase: problem assessment & potential solutions. The report

will evaluate potential solutions and financial options to move forward with the work. The subtotal funding is $460,000. They are looking for a Minnesota Legacy Funds request for $950,000. Then, the total project cost would be estimated at $5,500,000 (as a preliminary estimate).

· Summarize Future Projects and Funding: · Ash River: Requesting $950,000 Minnesota Legacy Funds (FY 20-21) · Kabetogama (2d project): Requesting $0 Minnesota Legacy Funds (FY 20-21) · Crane Lake (decentralized management): Requesting $600,000 Minnesota Legacy Funds (FY 20-21) · Study identified $40 million worth of needs in 2010 · Total Minnesota Legacy Funds (FY 20-21) Request: $1,550,000.

· There is wide support for this funding (federal and state) for this program since 2007. · Project Highlights:

· Improve, protect, preserve water quality of Voyageur’s National Park (Namakan, Rainy, Crane Lakes) · This park is known for outstanding water quality. There are 180,000 visitors per year. It is the 100th

Birthday of the National Parks. The waterways are its highways. · The Joint Power Board has achieved short-term progress for long-term goals of elimination of failing

septic systems. · Collaboration of resources for common goals. The Joint Powers Board is leveraging $4 million in Legacy

funds for over $32.5 million in projects! Questions:

· Do you talk about policies and procedures that are in place for residential construction in the future? Answer: Policies for new construction are to be governed by county ordinances that require them to connect to the pipe we have placed in the ground. Alternatively, they require them to build a system that would be compliant at the time of the construction. There is no economical option besides connecting to the system. The county planning and zoning requirements supersede. Response: In some cases, the ordinances are in place. In others, they are forthcoming.

· The challenge that you describe are not unique to these bodies of water. To what extend do we have these same issues in other important recreational lakes? Is it a bigger challenge than just Voyagers National Park? Comment: It is a national park, which is a huge interest for the State, and the communities around Park are being impacted. Answer: The park only has four access point, and only through these four small communities. The rest of the land is inaccessible. It is an excessive burden for them to have. We all have a state in helping the little communities, because it influences water quality in Minnesota’s only National Park.

· Previously it was not supported because people did not present on the project. We challenged them to come and talk about why it should be funded. Comment: The legislature did look at this. They decided to

create a National Parks Program, under the Clean Water Legacy. We had extensive questioning, from the first time we came to the Council. We even had Jeff Freeman from the Public Works Facility (PFA) testify in support of the request. Some of the existing programs run by the state, does not fit in these circumstances.

· What fraction of the 180,000 visitors come out of the state? What fraction of those people leverage out of state funding, or private parties that are local? Answer: I do not know the percentage of the first two answers. I will get back to you on that as well. We received $4.9 million from the federal government (the Army Corps of Engineers) for part of the Rainy River Project. The locals are contributing from the county (property tax funds, they are also borrowing money from existing programs in USDA, and have debt). Are the locals paying their fair share? The locals are paying high for their portion.

· Previously, you talked about $4 million worth of needs; can you give us a sense of how far along the overall project to completion? What is the timeline? Answer: We have tried to prioritize the areas that have the biggest impact first. We are concentrating on these areas first. Then, moving forward from there.

Legacy Website – Presented by Deepa de Alwis, (WebEx 01:42:00) No slides, page 3.1) · The Council has been paying its fair share to maintain the Legacy Website. It started at $25,000 and has gone to

$30,000. This current biennium is $15,000. They would only like $9,000 for the next biennium. Clean Water Council budget – Frank Jewell, Chair of Clean Water Council (WebEx 01:43:00) (No slides, page 7.3) · As people have heard already, we have overspent our funds in the first year of the biennium. As a result, we needed

to “borrow” from this fiscal year and now need to increase the budget. We are suggesting from $100,000 to $110,000, to cover those increased costs, mainly mileage reimbursement. Then, another $6,000 to prepare the report professionally by a third party. Then, there has been a push for us to consider education – tell the story about how we are investing CWF money. We are unclear at this point as to how to do this, but will make decision in early 2019. This would be about $32,000 a year (total $64,000). Therefore, we should have about $180,000 to the Council over the next biennium. It is something we should have been thinking about as we went along.

Agency Budget Presentations: (WebEx 01:47:00) Non-point source implementation (WebEx 01:47:00) (Slides 1-12, pages 4.7 – 4.8) · AgBMP Loan Program – MDA § No questions.

· MN Agricultural Water Quality Certification Program – MDA (WebEx 01:58:00) (Slides 13-22) Questions:

· Given that we are looking at additional money for the 1W1P, to what degree would you be needing more money? Are we going to be able to catch up? Answer: MAWQCP a way to mitigate risks. A grower who has a risk mitigated, can access any form of help to further mitigate that. Everything helps, and everything is available to the growers. Not necessary standard practices, but to remove risks. These dollars can help with this as well.

· Will there be a backlog to implement those practices. When do you see us catching up? Answer: For better for worse, they will not receive a certification if they do not get their risks mitigated. This creates a challenge for the growers to offset the investment (hard to tell farmers if you ran out of funds).

· At the local level, the RCPP finding is a program farmers can access and there are other programs. Some were successful at obtaining those funds. We have state cost share to help. We will use those funds to help fund the BMPs and piggyback with state cost-share. We work creatively to try to make it work.

· This program was modeled after the forest certification program, which was successful because certain companies would not buy products that did not come certified (i.e., Home Depot). What is your progress for corporations that only want to purchase from water quality certified farms? Answer: That is what we are working towards. Locally, we have a great partnership with land o lakes, and other farms in the region. There are challenges with generic commodity production systems. That is why we joined (and were accepted) in the field to market program. One of the points we bring up is that there is an opportunity with growers and marketers. Our certification provides a neat example akin to certified organic and in this case, it is protecting our waters. We do not take into account type of production: conventional vs. certified organic; crops vs. livestock. We only evaluate if the operation is protective of water.

· You need one large company to agree to it. We are spending Public dollars to pay the polluter at this rate. We need to get companies to say they only want to purchase from these water quality certified farms. We need to keep our eye on the prize. Comment: It will be even cheaper in the future to get this complete. No one has yet engaged the industry to get this complete. It is not that the eye is off the prize at all, in terms of our conservation efforts. We are engaging and the field is working for us.

· The cost analysis of the programs and you tally those up it is $230,000 million a year. As we are thinking about budget, relative to the entire CWFs. This can be dwarfed by other monies. I think we need to step back on where the money goes. Comment: Agriculture is expensive.

· Technical Assistance Program – MDA (WebEx 02:29:00) (Slides 23-37, pages 4.27-4.30) Questions: § Regarding the control drainage slide. The technology has been around for a long time, possibly twenty years.

What is the rate of adoption? Is it starting to become more popular? Answer: It has been around. There are a few challenges. It is expensive to retrofit an old system. The other challenge involves slopes, because holding water back is expensive. In the valley, there is more interest (because it is a really flat landscape). I do not know the rate of adoption, but that is the area that might adopt it more.

§ Regarding pest management, are you looking for the insects that growers do want to keep (eating other bugs)? Answer: The MDA does not collect the farm management data (we are more of a water quality expert for this data). The Discovery Farms program collected data, so I do not know the answer to the question, as we are not collecting that data. It may be collected by them.

· Vegetative Cover and Soil Health – MDA (WebEx 02:50:00) (Slides 1-7, pages 4.31-4.32) Questions: § Are you connected with the UMN extension service, and are you cooperating with educating the producers and

the public about this? Answer: Yes, we had people helping on the front end as part of our advisory team, interviews, and the request for proposals outreach, technical team to distribute those.

· St. Louis River Area of Concern/Duluth Harbor Cleanup – MPCA (WebEx 02:56:30) (Slides 8-25, pages 7.15-7.16) Questions: § Regarding the upcoming biennium, this project has done a great job leveraging state funds and non-state funds.

We want to get this program done by 2025. Perhaps, accessing other great lakes initiatives to work on beyond the AOC and work in other areas. This was a great opportunity leveraging money from the CWFs.

Point Source Implementation: (WebEx 03:22:00) · NPDES Wastewater/Stormwater TMDL Implementation Program – Aaron Luckstein, MPCA (WebEx 03:22:00) (Slides

1-16, pages 7.11-7.13) · No questions

· Accelerated Implementation of MS4 Permit Requirements – Duane Duncanson, MPCA (WebEx 03:58:00) (Slides 17-33, pages 7.1-7.2)

Questions: · You mentioned ordinances and enforcement; do you have a pipeline set up with the League of Minnesota Cities

Insurance Trust? They work to help their local municipalities (i.e., zoning, funding, etc.). They have a lot of research set up. It seems like a natural fit for a regulator, and leverage effort. Answer: No, I have not heard of that. I did not know it existed. We appreciate the input and plan to follow up on that item.

· Point Source Implementation Grant (PSIG) Program- Jeff Freeman, PFA (WebEx 03:42:00) (Handout only, pages 8.1-8.2)

Questions: · I noticed that Duluth is receiving these funds and understand you have a $7.0 million max, but on the sheet, it

shows an eleven million dollar award. Answer: Yes, seven million is the maximum grant under the statutes. However, in this particular case, the Legislature adopted language in the FY2017 bill made an exception because the built size and scope of the project was much larger. Therefore, the Legislature wanted a larger grant.

· Morris wants to build a new wastewater treatment plant at eighteen million. Is that to remove chloride, so it is an eighteen million dollar facility to help remove the chloride? Answer: In this case, the chloride issue, in order to meet the chloride limit, it was determined that the most cost effective way was for the wastewater discharge was to build

a lime softening treatment for the drinking water plant. Then, the residents could remove their water softeners and reduce the chloride output to meet the chloride limits.

· Small Community Wastewater Treatment Program – PFA (WebEx 03:45:30) (Handout only, pages 8.3-8.4) Questions: § Is the blockage to moving forward to getting all this done. Is it the funding? What are the needs? Answer: I can

point out one obstacle. Prior to a few years ago, our goal was to have enough money to fund every project. That worked well for a number of years. In the recent years, the Legislature increased the percentage that can be funded by State funds to 80% (from 60%). Now we have a list of projects moving through the pipeline. The projects do not get on the list until the assessments are conducted (by the MPCA). Then there is a permit cycle, where the cities work with an engineer to get closer to the pollutant concentration levels they need to meet. It can take a few years for just one pollutant. Once the projects are ready, we are able to help finance the plans. Currently, we do have enough funds for this group of projects moving forward.

New Programs (WebEx 04:10:00) · Chloride Reduction Program – MPCA (WebEx 04:10:00) (Slides 1-9, pages 10.1-10.2) Questions:

· It is good to see the water-softening portion included. There is a cost to upgrade, or remove water-softening units. Has the MPCA looked at the difference between upgrading units or switching to a centralized water softening system? Answer: We do not want a community to upgrade to high efficiency water softeners, which uses less salt, if it is not going to make enough progress in reducing chloride. Therefore, for the eligible communicates, we would start with those wastewater facilities that have reasonable potential for chloride impairments. Then, looking at how many of those are close enough to the standard, that we think source reduction would get them to be where their permit allows. These small communities need our help to get to their goals. We started a partnership with the Minnesota Water Quality Association, (it is an Industry group, and) most of the water softening companies are part of this group. We are hoping that this partnership will help as well (potential discounts to those really small, struggling towns).

· The Water Resource Center (with the UMN) just published a report, which identified four factors (road salt, water softener, agriculture fertilizer and manure). So, what is being done with the last two items? Answer: That is a great question. The MPCA is on that technical advisory board, so I have been to all the meetings and reviewed this report. They did a great job. I think this is the first time anyone has attempted to do a statewide chloride analysis. The data has some missing information, which were not available for them. The important part is that we knew that water softening and road salt are big sources of chloride, which we need to take action. We were aware that fertilizer and manure were potential issues when we previously did our research (Twin Cities Chloride Plan). We did not focus on the two items, because chloride pollution is most acute in the Twin Cities metro area and fertilizer & manure are not significant concerns in the Metro area. It is possible that chloride is a water quality problem in rural areas, there is not as much good research in this area. So, we do not know how much chloride is coming from fertilizer. We know it is a potential source, but we are not really seeing it as a water quality impact as of now. We are looking at water softening and road salt because we have seen a direct connection of water quality to these two sources. We are expanding our Metro plan to a statewide plan and are working on this as well. We plan to look into it more in the future. There are other items (i.e., dust suppressants) in rural areas, could also be contributing, but there is not enough good research to indicate this.

· Comment: I took your advice and put in a new water-softening unit back in January. For the last six months, by my own measurements, I am at between 90-95% less salt use. I also talked to the salt applicator at our church, and he just took the online training. Then, they reduced their salt use over 50% for those last few months of winter. I think that smart salt training can be really effective for most people.

· Forever Green Implementation – MDA (WebEx 04:31:30) (Slides 10-16, pages 10.3-10.4) · No questions.

New Business & Debrief from today’s meeting · Next meeting: August 20, 2018 in Lower Level Boardroom Adjournment (WebEx 04:35:01)

August 17, 2018 Clean Water Council Budget and Outcomes Committee Dear members of the Clean Water Council Budget and Outcomes Committee: On behalf of the state water agencies I wish to thank you for collaborating with us, the Governor’s Office, local government, and the many stakeholders involved in promoting and achieving Minnesota’s clean water goals as you developed your draft budget recommendations for the FY20‐21 Clean Water Fund (CWF) appropriations. The process you have followed to engage stakeholders and hear from agencies about past accomplishments and ongoing needs has been transparent and collaborative, and has addressed both longer‐term expectations and more immediate budget recommendations. We appreciate the time you have spent listening to the requests from state agencies and stakeholders and crafting draft recommendations that reflect our shared goal of accelerating implementation while maintaining Minnesota’s ability to prioritize, target, and measure progress towards clean water. We particularly welcome your efforts to encourage dialogue and collaboration with our agencies in the detailed work of budget development. We believe substantial progress has been made toward our mutual goal of establishing a unified approach to agency budget requests and Clean Water Council budget recommendations for the CWF FY20‐21 appropriations. We look forward to further stakeholder input and the full Clean Water Council’s discussion of the draft budget recommendations. If there is anything we can do as individual agencies or collectively to assist in that discussion, please don’t hesitate to let us know. Lastly, as the BOC and full Council considers what to recommend for the remaining funding anticipated to be available for FY20‐21, we suggest that one option is to increase the funding allocated to enhance drinking water protection activities, and/or implementation efforts that address other critical needs. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss this further with the Clean Water Council.

Clean Water Council Budget and Outcomes Committee Page 2 August 17, 2018

Again, thank you for the opportunity to engage with you on the budget recommendation process. Our interactions have been a great example of collaboration, transparency and working towards shared goals. Sincerely,

Shannon Lotthammer Interagency Coordination Team chair, on behalf of: Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Metropolitan Council Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Minnesota Public Facilities Authority (PFA) SL:rm cc: Frank Jewell, Clean Water Council Chair Pamela Blixt, Clean Water Council Vice Chair Deepa deAlwis, MPCA, Clean Water Council Coordinator Chris Elvrum, MDH Jeff Freeman, PFA Barb Naramore, DNR Sam Paske, Met Council Susan Stokes, MDA Doug Thomas, BWSR Celine Lyman, MPCA

PRESIDENT

KURT BECKSTROM

17404 60th Ave

Milaca, MN 56353

(320) 556-3403

VICE PRESIDENT &

METRO AREA 4 DIRECTOR

ROLAND CLEVELAND

PO Box 307

North Branch, MN 55056

(612)-978-3989

SECRETARY-TREASURER &

NW AREA 1 DIRECTOR

PAUL KRABBENHOFT

1119 - 25th Ave S

Moorhead, MN 56560

(701) 799-0369

WC AREA 2 DIRECTOR

MIKE JORGENSON

33626 - 660th Avenue

Clinton, MN 56225

(320) 325-5369

NE AREA 3 DIRECTOR

ROBERT HOEFERT

35445 St. Hwy 47

Isle, MN 56342

(320) 676-3177

SW AREA 5 DIRECTOR

CLARK LINGBEEK

26992 570th Ave

Comfrey, MN 56019

(507) 877-2753

SC AREA 6 DIRECTOR

MARK SCHNOBRICH

24209 Unit Ave

Hutchinson, MN 55350

(320) 587-3760

SE AREA 7 DIRECTOR

BILL THOMPSON

60698 227th Ave

Mantorville, MN 55955

(507) 635-5998

NC AREA 8 DIRECTOR

KEN LAPORTE

4086 112th St SW

Pillager, MN 56473

(218) 746-3927

IMMEDIATE PAST

PRESIDENT

IAN CUNNINGHAM

565 81st Street

Pipestone, MN 56164

(507) 825-2296

STAFF

Executive Director

LEANN BUCK

Assistant Director

SHEILA VANNEY

Office Manager

STEFANIE MARTINEZ

MASWCD Minnesota Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts

255 Kellogg Boulevard East, Suite 101, St. Paul, MN 55101 651-690-9028 www.maswcd.org

August 17, 2018 Frank Jewell Todd Renville Chair Chair Clean Water Council Clean Water Council - Budget and Outcomes Committee Dear Mr. Jewell and Mr. Renville, On behalf of the Minnesota Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts (MASWCD), I am writing to suggest that the Clean Water Council consider recommending $4 million in Clean Water Funds be targeted to SWCDs for water quality improvement cost-share projects. It is our understanding that the recommendations of the Budget and Outcomes Committee have left $4 million currently undirected. We would like to see those funds directed to SWCDs for cost-sharing with landowners on clean water priority projects identified in local water plans. An increasing number of those plans are now able to take into consideration data and science provided by watershed assessments. We are suggesting a supplemental cost-share expenditure as a way to accelerate implementation of on-the-ground projects using this statutory framework to provide both efficiency and effectiveness for SWCDs and landowners. This request supports previous investments Clean Water Council recommendations. As a key stakeholder, we appreciate the opportunity to provide input to the Clean Water Council on the proposed FY2020-21 Clean Water Council budget. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely,

LeAnn Buck Executive Director

1120 28th Avenue N. Suite B Fargo, ND 58102

Phone: 701-388-0861 Web: www.iwinst.org

August 15, 2018 Frank Jewell Clean Water Council Chair Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Dear Mr. Jewell, Recognizing that our actions have consequences is a huge step toward meeting future water quality objectives. An educated and informed citizenry is required to ensure the protection, enhancement and restoration of MN’s impaired waters. A guiding principle for the Clean Water Council is to “...change individual and institutional behaviors on the landscape to accelerate water quality outcomes.” Education is the most effective tool to change attitudes and behaviors. Governor Dayton’s 25 by 25 report identified education as our greatest need and a top priority. As a “headwaters state,” Minnesotans bear a unique responsibility as watershed stewards. It is imperative that our youth develop an understanding of watershed concepts and have the ability to grasp what this responsibility means. River of Dreams (ROD) accomplishes this through a set of classroom and outdoor activities and experiences that are uniquely suited to prepare tomorrow’s watershed stewards. A MN Clean Water Council priority is to fund projects which have “...measurable outcomes and have statewide benefits and applications.” ROD has a measurable impact through pre and post surveys pertaining to watershed terminology and geography which goes beyond anecdotal reactions and behavior change. The Clean Water Council asked the International Water Institute to develop a plan to deliver statewide watershed education programming. We have prepared a ROD expansion plan that will replicate the Red River Basin success in other major basins in MN. The ROD curriculum and web database are already established. The program is scalable and easily transferable once materials and classroom activities are tailored to watersheds in other major basins. Recent launches at Whitewater State Park through the “The River Starts Here” workshop and interest from schools, organizations, and residents in other major basins underscore the popularity and effectiveness of the ROD program. ROD was conceived and developed in Minnesota, it would be a privilege to receive Clean Water Funds for continued Red River Basin programming and expansion to reach more Minnesota youth. Since 2000, the International Water Institute has been delivering education programs in both Minnesota and North Dakota and has demonstrated accounting practices in place to properly track separate projects and fund balances dedicated to MN students. The Clean Water Land and Legacy Amendment logo is prominently displayed at ROD events and on program materials. Where possible, coordination of ROD canoe launches would be coordinated with the Clean Water Council’s Annual Tour or other water-related events in each locale to maximize public exposure.

Board of Directors:

Paul Swenson - Chair

MN Department of Natural Resources (Ret)

Ken Vein – Vice Chair

Altru Health Systems

Pat Fridgen ND State Water Commission

George B. Sinner Cornerstone Bank

Gary Thompson

ND Red River Joint Water Resources District

Genevieve Thompson –

Treasurer/Secretary At-Large

Dr. Gerald Van Amburg Concordia College (Ret.)

Dan Wilkens

Sand Hill Watershed

Dr. Jay Leitch Buffalo-Red Watershed District

Rita Albrecht

MN DNR Regional Director

Mike Ell ND Department of Health

John Finney

Red River Watershed Management Board

Bob Laidler

Ducks Unlimited Canada (Ret.)

Charles Fritz

IWI Executive Director

http://www.iwinst.org/

Red River Basin River Watch FY 20-21 - $250,000 FY20 – 21 - Red River Basin River Watch will continue to engage K-12 students and citizens throughout the Red River Basin in field-based applied watershed science and research activities. • Water Quality Monitoring: Collect and record conditions at local rivers and streams using state-of-the-art scientific

methods and equipment. • Biological Monitoring: Macroinvertebrate monitoring provides additional insights on watershed health. • River Explorers: Guided kayak excursions on local rivers to observe and document watershed conditions. • Ongoing Teacher Training provides access to resources and experts on current watershed issues. • River Watch Forum: Annual opportunity for students to share and learn about emerging watershed issues. • Real-Time Monitoring: Students build, deploy and maintain real-time water quality monitoring stations. Data analyzed

and used to characterize stream water quality. • River of Dreams: Introducing elementary students to watershed science and terminology through geography, reading,

writing, and art.

River of Dreams (ROD) Expansion Outline FY 20-21 - $250,000 FY20 – Engage up to eight major basins within Minnesota. Determine local partner interest and, where possible, enhance existing watershed education programs through ROD pilot program delivery. ● Develop ROD materials (watershed maps, virtual tours, and activities) for 8 major basins: Mississippi, Minnesota, Lake

Superior, Rainy, St. Croix, Des Moines, Cedar, and Missouri (Big and Little Sioux). ● Identify school(s) from each basin to participate in 2020--21. ● Deliver ROD to at least one pilot location within each basin, reaching at least 400 students. ● Begin program evaluation with pilot schools and teachers.

FY21 – Deliver ROD to expanded number of schools. ● Reach 1,500 ROD students through expanded network in each of the 8 major basins. ● Develop basin-wide expansion plan to reach all students within each basin. ● Coordinate with local partners to prepare a joint funding package for FY22-23 to implement the program expansion plan. ● Finalize teacher and student program evaluation and reporting.

Long Term Vision – ROD programming across the entire state reaching every 5th grader and leveraging local partner support and program delivery. Budget:

Personnel $402,721 Supplies $55,279 Mileage $34,516 Meetings/misc. $3,000 Travel - Hotels $3,200 Meeting Supplies $1,284 Total $500,000

We look forward to a working partnership between the International Water Institute and the Clean Water Council to offer watershed education programs in Minnesota. Sincerely, Charles Fritz

IWI Director

August 20, 2018 Clean Water Council Presentation Jen Kader and Steve Woods July CWC Meeting: overview of project purpose, what was discussed, and who was involved August CWC Meeting: detailed recommendations of the group Project attitude Minnesota has a current system, which is better than the old system, and there is money to make headway as we transition to the next system. Let’s re-forge a shared sense of what that might look like. Which direction now? Participants identified three broad strategies they would like the Council and agencies to consider:

1. Update the vision to produce (and document) durable successes 2. Narrow the focus for state investments 3. Adjust staffing and budgeting process

The old vision is largely on its way to being done and the group hopes you forge a concise, updated vision of how the system will work after the bulk of initial monitoring, assessments, and modeling are done. This likely means difficult choices to narrow the focus to investing in projects and programs that produce durable successes. Recommendations 1. Vision

● CWC should articulate the new vision ● Agencies should propose how the state can

improve communication about progress ● Freshwater should convene participants

after completion of Council recommendations

● Council should begin work on a guide for future (after June 2019) funding decisions, including a tabulation of general fund, fees, bonding, and revenue sources and tasks

● Agencies should track and share basin-level strategies and outcomes

2. Investments – needs to develop consensus wording; ind. groups will submit comments for current cycle 3. Process

● Council should budget for an independent lead staff to represent the CWCouncil

● Agencies and CWC should craft background for incoming governor

● Freshwater will convene participant groups after the Governor’s budget is released.

● Note potential budget process changes in preparation for 2020 supplemental budget

The information exchange between the CWC and the ICT is the space where you can most significantly strengthen the recommendations going to the Governor. (See chart on reverse side.)

Next steps Participants doing an additional meeting next month to fine tune a couple areas lacking consensus and familiarize themselves with your draft recommendations Publish a final report. Work before and during session to support Council recommendations.

Forever GreenCombining Forever Green Implementation, Forever Green Research and MN Agricultural Diversification Steering Council & Network as requested by BOC

Margaret WagnerMinnesota Department of Agriculture

Clean Water Council August 20, 2018

Forever Green Initiative

• New perennial and winter annual crops that preserve and enhance water quality

• Development of new supply chains that provide profitable markets for these crops

Multiple crops in the FGI portfolio are now ready for a focused effort to accelerate their commercialization and wide adoption

Forever Green Initiative

• Research

• Implementation

• Program Coordination

Intermediate WheatgrassKernza

Enhancing Clean Water by Increasing Continuous Productive Vegetative Cover in Minnesota Agriculture

Draft Policy statement The Clean Water Council recommends that the State of Minnesota take strategic action to enhance clean water by increasing continuous vegetative cover, with an initial focus on wellhead protection areas, through advancement of new agricultural production systems, markets, and supply chains in Minnesota agriculture:

• Establish a Minnesota Agricultural Diversification Steering Council with agriculture-focused representation from public agencies, the private sector, non-profit organizations, and research institutions, to create and direct a Minnesota Agricultural Diversification Network.

• The purpose of the Minnesota Agricultural Diversification Network is to accelerate the development and commercialization of new crops (e.g., perennial crops and winter-annual crops) that enhance continuous productive vegetative cover, defined as coverage of soil throughout the year, by crops that produce marketable commodities.

Enhancing Clean Water by Increasing Continuous Productive Vegetative Cover in Minnesota Agriculture

The Network and its Steering Council will create and support new working relationships between public, private and non-profit sectors that are critical to timely development of new production systems

Funding needed to support 1.5 FTE coordination positions housed at the University of Minnesota: dedicated staff capacity to expand and sustain connections between various partners and aspects of crop development, market development and commercialization.

• $300,000 over two year period• Funding passed through MDA to U of M

Combined Forever Green Initiative

Combined Forever Green FY20-21

Clean Water Funds

(Total Requested)$3.3M

FTEs

(state staff funded by CWF)0

Dollars Passed Through$3.3M

An approximate itemization of Forever Green activities: $2.5 M for FGI research, $500,000 for FGI implementation, and $300,000 for an Agricultural Diversification Council and Network.

FY 20-21 Clean Water Council Draft Budget Recommendations As of August 16, 2018

Page 1 of 12

# Agency Activity

CWC Budget FY2018-19

revised recs 3/10/17

Governor's Rec

FY2018-19(000s)

Enacted Budget

FY2018-19(000s)

Proposed Budget

FY2020-21(000s)

ICT/Program Proposer NotesBOC funding direction for FY 20-21

BOC Rationale (based on discussions in late 2017)

BOC DiscussionFinal BOC Recommendation

Monitoring, Assessment, and Characterization

1 DNR

Aquifer Monitoring for Water Supply Planning: Collect and analyze critical aquifer level data and groundwater flow dynamics, develop groundwater models and work with stakeholders to address sustainability management and planning through groundwater management areas and other forums.

$ 3,400 $ 3,750 $ 2,750 $ 4,650

FY18-19 enacted reflects a one-time reduction made in 2017 session to address CWF revenue shortfall. FY20-21 proposed amount of $4.05M restores capacity to maintain current system, but would not support any appreciable expansion of monitoring network.

Increase

The DNR has 1070 wells in its statewide network of water level monitoring and would like to have a total of 1,500 (430 more wells). Once the well network is in place, the expenses of maintenance, monitoring and data management should be stable.

Revisit for potential increase.

Added $600,000 more to allow construction of 30 more wells each year. Final amount is $4.65 M

2 DNR

Fish Contamination Assessment: Sample mercury and other contaminants in fish to determine fish consumption advisories, impairment status, and trend markers for those sites.

$ 270 $ 1,700 $ 270 $ 270 SteadyThe need to determine the level of contamination in fish popular with Minnesotans will continue for years.

Accept

3 DNRLake IBI assessment: Support MPCA’s lake water quality assessments with by providing data and interpretation about fish and plant populations.

$ 2,500 $ 2,500 $ 2,500 $ 2,500 Steady

The current level of effort should be maintained until all watersheds have WRAPS or Comprehensive Water Management plans. Once all watersheds are comprehensively sampled, the follow up efforts would mostly to determine the effectiveness of restoration efforts.

Accept

4 DNRBuffer Map Maintenance: Update and maintain maps of public waters and ditch systems that require permanent vegetation buffers.

$ 200 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200 Steady

The DNR plans to update maintain the statewide buffer maps as more of the buffers are installed. This level of funding would be necessary to continue the program.

Accept

5 DNR

Stream flow monitoring: Collect stream flow data, which is used to calculate pollutant loads for MPCA’s water quality assessments. Sample bedload at select stations to analyze sediment transport in streams.

$ 3,900 $ 3,900 $ 3,900 $ 4,400

FY20-21 proposed amount of $4.4M prioritizes maintenance of existing stream gauge network and online data access. Bedload sampling will be significantly reduced at this level of funding.

Steady

This an on-going, long-term program that will be crucial to evaluating the effectiveness of the restoration/protection efforts and changes over time.

Ok with ICT request, but may have to revisit as CWC wanted to keep the funding level steady.

Accept the ICT request

6 MDA

Monitoring for Pesticides in Surface Water and Groundwater: Ongoing monitoring using clean water funded state-of-the-art laboratory instruments which provides increased capability and greater capacity for pesticide monitoring.

$ 700 $ 700 $ 700 $ 700 Steady

This an on-going long term program that will be crucial to evaluating the effectiveness of the restoration/protection efforts and changes over time.

Revisit for potential decrease


7 MDA

Pesticide Testing of Private Wells: Provides funding for free pesticide testing of private wells where nitrate is detected as part of the Township Testing Program. The Township Testing Program provides free nitrate testing to well owners in areas most vulnerable to groundwater contamination.

$ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 Steady

The CWC would like pesticide user fees to pay for the sampling and analysis in the long term. However, the MDA program is considered the most robust in the nation and should continue at the current capacity for the next 5 years. After that we should reduce CWF's contribution.

Revisit for potential decrease



Page 2 of 12

# Agency Activity



Governor's Rec

FY2018-19(000s)

Enacted Budget

FY2018-19(000s)

Proposed Budget

FY2020-21(000s)




8 MDH

Drinking Water Contaminants of Emerging Concern Program: Continue to protect human health by developing guidance and providing consultation on emerging contaminants so that timely and targeted health information is available for decision-making by state programs and the public. Increase outreach and education through grants or contracts that focus on education, prevention, and behavioral action to reduce contamination. Work will include developing partnerships and capacity on laboratory methods, researching and conducting rapid assessments, full chemical reviews, and participating in studies that measure the occurrence of emerging contaminants and provide public health context to the resulting data.

$ 2,200 $ 2,200 $ 2,200 $ 2,200 Steady

The CWC believes there is a need to determine the human health and environmental impacts of chemicals used. However, the manufacturers should bear the responsibility for funding those efforts, as part of their product stewardship responsibility. The CWC's 2018 Waste Pharmaceutical Policy recommends that manufactures bear all product stewardship costs.

AcceptAccept the ICT request

9 MDH

Private Well Water Supply Protection: Expand the evaluation of the occurrence and distribution of contaminants in private wells. Increase education, outreach and interventions to protect private well owners.

$ 800 $ 800 $ 800 $ 1,200 Increase

The 1.1 million Minnesotans who get their drinking water from private wells have little statutory protection. MDH's efforts protected this underserved population is important and should be supported long term.


10 MPCA

River and Lake Monitoring & Assessment: Statewide monitoring and assessment work is on track to meet the 10-year schedule, at a rate of about 10 percent of the watersheds each year. Intensive watershed monitoring includes biological, chemical, and habitat monitoring in watersheds to assess the water conditions. Assessments determine if waters are impaired and serve as a basis for further analysis of watershed problems, protection options, and overall watershed planning efforts. Includes additional funding to include large river mainstem monitoring.

$ 16,550 $ 16,550 $ 16,300 $ 16,200

In FY18/19, we actually received $16.55M for monitoring, but 250k of it was appropriated to the RRWMB (meaning our program received $16.3M). If the Leg plans to pass through 250k to RRWMB again, we would need $16.45M - $16.2M for our monitoring program, and $250k for RRWMB.

Steady

The MPCA will be completing its 10 year cycle of intensive surface water assessment in the next biennium and in the process of evaluating the data needs of the watershed districts based on most current data (from cycle 1). The CWC anticipates less sampling when monitoring for problem areas or evaluating the effectiveness of the restoration projects.


11 MPCA

Groundwater assessment: Monitor and enhance ambient groundwater well network to collect critical water quality data needed for drinking water protection and surface water impact analysis, including modeling to support TMDL stressor identification and contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) in a subset of monitoring wells.

$ 2,363 $ 2,363 $ 2,363 $ 2,363 Steady

The CWC recommendation is keeping with other water monitoring programs. The need to high level of funding is expected to be less in ten years, but will be revisited in the future.


12 MPCA

Red River Watch (Red River Watershed Board): Engages K-12 students & citizens throughout the Red River Basin in field-based applied watershed science, research activities. RRWB wants to expand into or assist with the expansion of River Watch activities to other major river basins in Minnesota to deliver field-based applied watershed science and research activities in their local watersheds.

$ 250 $ 500

This appropriation was legislatively directed and not requested by MPCA. 7/23/18 DSD: based on program description provided, the RRW is requesting $500,000 for FY 20-21. Any funding will be appropriated to the MPCA as pass-through.

No Funding This was not a CWC proposed project.

Vote 3-2: BOC accepted the program with the stipulation that the program be Statewide. No votes because other entities who do similar work do not get funded by CWF.

Accept proposer's request


Page 3 of 12

# Agency Activity



Governor's Rec

FY2018-19(000s)

Enacted Budget

FY2018-19(000s)

Proposed Budget

FY2020-21(000s)




Monitoring, Assessment, and Characterization total $ 34,883 $ 36,663 $ 34,233 $ 37,183

Watershed & Groundwater Restoration/Protection Strategies

13 DNR

Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies: Work with state and local partners to provide expertise, data, analysis, and support for major watershed studies and the development of watershed restoration and protection strategies. Note: may need to change description to better match evolving work.

$ 3,970 $ 3,970 $ 3,772 $ 4,032 Increase

The DNR anticipates increased costs to provide its share of for WRAPS in the short term, but does not expect any additional need in 5 to 10 years.


14 MDH

Groundwater Restoration and Protection Strategies: Scale up the Groundwater Restoration and Protection Strategy development to begin matching local needs regarding data/information delivery, staff capacity, training/education, and strategy development. Continue to coordinate with other state agency efforts and complete projects coordinated with WRAPS or 1W1P efforts.

$ 400 $ 400 $ 400 $ 800 Increase

The MDH needs to do more to support LGU as they draft their Comprehensive Watershed Management Plans. Once the necessary capacity is reached, it has to be maintained over time.


15 MDH

Source Water Protection: Continue sourcewater protection planning and implementation for communities served by groundwater with vulnerable water supplies. Address gaps in source water protection planning and implementation for surface water systems. Increase coordination and integration with comprehensive watershed planning efforts.

$ 5,595 $ 5,555 $ 5,494 $ 5,494 Steady

Protecting the drinking water of 80% of Minnesotans who get their water from community water providers is important and must be supported long-term.


16 MPCA

Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (includes TMDL development): In 2008, the MPCA launched a watershed approach to systematically and comprehensively conduct the state’s water-quality monitoring, and restoration and protection planning needs on a 10-year cycle. Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (WRAPs), including TMDLs, are developed with local partners to set strategies for impaired waters and unimpaired waters by setting reduction and protection goals, milestones and measures to guide state and local government implementation efforts.

$ 20,049 $ 20,463 $ 19,047 $ 16,100

This is $3M less than the current biennium, and the current biennium is $1M less than last biennium, and this would be the lowest biennial amount of money for this program since the advent of the CWF. It is a 20% reduction from the historical biennial high point for this program. So, we are controlling our costs as we crest the lifecycle of this program and start down to a lower maintenance mode for the program.

Steady

The MPCA has completed about 40% of WRAPS and expect to have all of them completed and put on Public Notice by 2023. Therefore, the Agency will need steady funding though 2023. The MPCA and CWC expects the funding need to be less after 2023 as they will be updating existing WRAPS and TMDLs.


Watershed & Groundwater Restoration/Protection Strategies total

$ 9,965 $ 9,925 $ 9,666 $ 26,426

Comprehensive Local Watershed Management


Page 4 of 12

# Agency Activity



Governor's Rec

FY2018-19(000s)

Enacted Budget

FY2018-19(000s)

Proposed Budget

FY2020-21(000s)




17 BWSR

Water Management Transition (One Watershed One Plan): Accelerate implementation of the State's Watershed Approach through the statewide development of watershed-based local water planning that is synchronized with Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (WRAPS) and Groundwater Restoration and Protection Strategies (GRAPS) by providing technical assistance, program oversight, and grants to local governments.

$ 4,200 $ 4,200 $ 3,990 $ 4,540 increase

In the next biennium more watersheds will be drafting their comprehensive water management plans and the funding need is expected to be steady at five years and will decline in 10 years as most will have completed this process.

Potentially increase. 8/3 14-15 done in a biennium. Locals may not have the capacity to handle multiple watershed plans at he same time.


Comprehensive Local Watershed Management total $ 4,200 $ 4,200 $ 3,990 $ 4,540

IMPLEMENTATIONNonpoint source implementation

18 BWSR

Grants to Watersheds with Multiyear Plans / One Watershed, One Plan Implementation: A non-competitive, performance based, pilot grants program for local government units to implement projects that protect, enhance, and restore surface water quality in lakes, rivers, and streams, protect groundwater from degradation, and protect drinking water sources. Projects must be identified in a comprehensive watershed plan developed under the One Watershed, One Plan or Metropolitan Surface Water Management framework and groundwater plans.

$ 11,000 $ 11,000 $ 9,750 $ 29,422

Shifts focus of this program to One Watershed, One Plan Implementation. This aligns with CWC recommendations for this program. 7/23/18 DSD update: The total includes $25M ICT request and $4.422 M FY 19, CWC supplemental budget recommendation.

Increase

As watersheds complete their comprehensive watershed plans, the funds to implement them will increase for the next 10 years.


19 BWSR

Accelerated Implementation: Enhance the capacity of local governments to accelerate implementation of projects and activities that supplement or exceed current state standards for protection, enhancement, and restoration of water quality in lakes, rivers, streams, and groundwater. Activities include: 1) increase technical assistance through regional technical service areas (TSAs), 2) technical training and certification, 3) inventories of potential restoration or protection sites, and 4) developing and using analytical targeting tools that fill an identified gap.

$ 8,000 $ 8,000 $ 7,600 $ 11,500 Increase

Need to increase funding to ensure most LGUs who have comprehensive watershed plans and want funding for implementation can get them. Funding need to be steady thru FY 23 and by FY 28, most watersheds should have implemented their plans and need for funding would be less.


20 BWSR

Conservation Drainage Management and Assistance: Implementation of a conservation drainage/multipurpose drainage water management program in consultation with the Drainage Work Group to improve surface water management by providing funding under the provisions of 103E.015.

$ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 3,000 SteadyThere is a continued need to support the local drainage authorities and their ability to improve water quality in their areas.



Page 5 of 12

# Agency Activity



Governor's Rec

FY2018-19(000s)

Enacted Budget

FY2018-19(000s)

Proposed Budget

FY2020-21(000s)




21 BWSR

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP): To purchase and restore permanent conservation easements to treat and store water on the land for water quality improvement purposes and related technical assistance. This work may be done in cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture.

$ 3,000 $ 18,000 $ 3,000 $ 20,000

7/23/18 DSD update: the total includes $5 M ICT request and $ 15 M FY 19 CWC supplemental budget recommendation.

Steady

The CWC believe that the necessary $150 million total State share of CREP can be met with other sources and will revisit this issue if it is not the case.


22 BWSR

Critical Shoreland Protection-Permanent Conservation Easements: To purchase permanent conservation easements to protect lands adjacent to public waters with good water quality but threatened with degradation.

$ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 3,500 Increase

This program protect areas with high water quality, which is one of the 10 goals of CWC (Increase CWF dollars by 10-20% for projects that provide protection for high-quality waters and/or waters at the greatest risk of becoming polluted.) TNC committed to provide $10M.

Accept Accept the ICT request

23 BWSRGrants to Soil and Water Conservation Districts: To supplement, in equal amounts, each Soil and Water Conservation District's general service grant.

$ 22,000 0 No FundingThe CWC did not recommend funding for this program during FY 18-19 and has not plans to do so in the future.

No funding requested by BWSR

24 BWSR

Measures, Results and Accountability: This fund is to provide state oversight and accountability for grants to local government, support program and outcomes reporting, evaluate results and measure the value of conservation program implementation by local governments, including submission to the legislature a report from the board.

$ 1,900 $ 1,900 $ 1,900 $ 2,000 Steady

This is a statutory requirement and the amount of funding required is proportional to the number of grants/contracts BWSR annually manages. The number is expected to decrease in 10 years.


25 BWSR

Shoreland Buffer Compliance Program: Provides program oversight and grants for purposes of supporting local governments in their implementation of the statewide buffer and excessive soil erosion laws.

$ 6,800 $ 6,800 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Steady

The CWC wants to ensure the buffer law is implemented by the LGUs and wants to provide adequate funding. However, the LGUs need a reliable source of funding besides CWF, which will expire in 2034.


26 BWSR

Riparian Buffer-Permanent Conservation Easements: Purchase and restore permanent conservation easements on riparian buffers adjacent to lakes, rivers, streams, and tributaries, to keep water on the land in order to decrease sediment, pollutant, and nutrient transport; reduce hydrologic impacts to surface waters; and increase infiltration for groundwater recharge. This appropriation may be used for restoration of riparian buffers protected by easements purchased with this appropriation and for stream bank restorations when the riparian buffers have been restored.

$ 12,000 $ 12,000 $ 9,750 $ 9,750 Can leverage federal funds via CREP 3 as well as fund priority buffer easements outside the CREP area.

Increase

This program funds purchase of permanent buffers along waterways wider than required by the Buffer law. Wider buffers provide better water quality and better nesting habitat. The CWC wanted to fund the program at $12M range and keep it that level.



Page 6 of 12

# Agency Activity



Governor's Rec

FY2018-19(000s)

Enacted Budget

FY2018-19(000s)

Proposed Budget

FY2020-21(000s)




27 BWSR

Surface and Drinking Water Protection/Restoration Grants: (Projects and Practices) Grant and incentive funding to protect, enhance and restore water quality in lakes, rivers and streams and to protect groundwater and drinking water by implementing priority actions in local water management plans. A subset of this program (Water Legacy Grants Program) can provide competitive grants or contracts of up to $100,000 to governmental, non-governmental, and tribal organizations for implementation projects that protect, enhance, and restore water quality or protect groundwater and drinking water sources from degradation.

$ 29,500 $ 24,500 $ 24,500 $ 33,000

Increase to restore funds that were shifted in FY16-17 to fund SWCD capacity grants. 7/23/18 DSD update: the total includes $28 M ICT request and $ 5 M FY 19, CWC supplemental budget recommendation, specifically for Local drinking water projects.

increase

The demand for these grants are quite high: requests for $22 million for $6 million available in the first round of FY 18. This fits in with CWC's goal of increased drinking water funding. Should be increased across the 10 years.

The BOC wants to make sure sizable portion would go to drinking water (at least $5M). Revisit to potentially include specific language on amount that must be spent on drinking water. Revisit 08/03 update: ICT will talk to Governor's office and get back to CWC about separating Surface and Drinking water projects & creating two programs.

28 BWSR

Community Partners Clean Water Program / Water Legacy Grants Program: Provides competitive grants or contracts of up to $100,000 to local, regional, state, tribal, and national organizations for implementation projects that protect, enhance, and restore water quality, and protect groundwater and drinking water sources from degradation.

$ 2,000 $ 2,000

Modified to allow direct granting/contracting with non governmental organizations which aligns with CWC recommendations.

Steady

Allow non-traditional groups such as Lake Associations and other non-profit organizations to apply for competitive grants. The Clean Water Legacy statute include public education and at the town hall meetings (25% by 2025) education was one of the top items. With non-traditional group participation, would achieve education needs.


29 DNR

Nonpoint source restoration and protection activities: Support local planning and implementation efforts, including: One Watershed, One Plan, systematic conservation planning based on community values, technical assistance with implementation, and targeted forest stewardship for water quality.

$ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 1,900 $ 2,400 Maintain current level of effort (DNR).

Increase

As the Watershed Comprehensive Water Management development efforts increase, the requests for DNR's technical assistance would also increase and would level off over time.


30 DNR

Color Infrared Imagery Analysis: Collect color infrared imagery for determining perennial cover statewide; collecting approximately one-fifth of the state each year would result in an updated data set every five years.

$ 650 Increase

No funding was allocated for this program for the current biennium. The DNR consider this a critical technical need for the LGUs, therefore the increased funding FY20-21 and steady funding thereafter to maintain the 5 year rotation to track the health and the progress of the buffer strips.

Flag for further discussion. Some believe counties can do the work, and don't want DNR do it. 8/3 DNR works with LGUs


31 DNR

Aquatic Management Area: Purchase permanent conservation easements and fee lands adjacent to public waters in order to maintain good water quality and fish habitat for the future.

$ 2,000 $ - No Funding

Many of the programs DNR has high start up costs and information becomes more valuable over time. While important, DNR decided not to ask for funding from CWF for this program.

Revisit. This is a TNC proposal. 8/3 The BOC supports this program may revisit if more $ available.


Page 7 of 12

# Agency Activity



Governor's Rec

FY2018-19(000s)

Enacted Budget

FY2018-19(000s)

Proposed Budget

FY2020-21(000s)




32 DNR

Forests for the Future: Purchase permanent working forest conservation easements in targeted areas to protect the forests and shorelands that supply clean water to lakes, rivers and streams.

$ 1,500 $ 1,500 SteadyPotentially fund (1M in supplemental)/ TNC proposal.

Voted to recommend 1.5 M for this program, the same amount as the last biennium.

33 MDA

AgBMP Loan Program: This program provides revolving low interest loans for eligible activities that reduce or eliminate water pollution. The program is administered by local governments, has very low transaction costs, and repayments fund additional projects.

$ 150 $ 150 $ 150 $ 150 Steady

Program in place for a long time and had helped farmers improve their farming operation. The CWF dollars supplement. The CWF dollars are tracked separately and can only be used to water quality improvement project only. It is not a large amount and should continue.


34 MDA

MN Agricultural Water Quality Certification Program: The MAWQCP is a first of its kind partnership between federal and state government and private industry. This innovative and nationally recognized voluntary program targets water quality protection on a field by field, whole farm basis. It comprehensively identifies and mitigates agricultural risks to water quality and protects and restores Minnesota’s water resources. Increased funding will be used to catch up on backlog and accelerate progress.

$ 5,000 $ 5,500 $ 5,000 $ 6,000 Steady

The program has a robust assessment of BMP and farmers work with local technical experts to get certification. Ag retailers are also starting to work with MDA, which is a positive development.


35 MDA

Technical Assistance: Funding supports on-farm demonstrations and enhances outreach and education to the agricultural community and local government partners. Demonstration projects evaluate the effectiveness of conservation practices and support peer-to peer learning among farmers. Outreach activities directly align with the 25 x 25 Report where education was identified as a top priority. Increased funding also will be used to support farmer-led councils.

$ 2,250 $ 2,400 $ 2,250 $ 3,250 Steady

Support on the ground technical support and demonstration programs to farmers. Much of the work is done on working farms (Demonstration Farms) and farmers are likely to listen to their peers. The projects supported are tailored to the region. The CWC would like to evaluate this program more in the future before continuing funding long-term


36 MDA

Vegetative Cover and Soil Health: Program will focus on identifying and removing obstacles to accessing markets for environmentally protective crops in targeted high risk areas. Efforts will be integrated with other vegetative cover initiatives and implementation activities, and will focus on traditional and cover crop systems.

$ 150 $ 150 $ 150 $ 150 No Funding

The CWC did not see a great need for this funding. If the projects funded by this program is successful, funding would be reconsidered. 08/03: MDA explained that this funding is focused on existing crops (such as alfalfa) and find ways to make them profitable for farmers.


37 MC

Water demand reduction grant program: Provides grants to assist municipalities in metro area with implementation of water demand reduction measures to ensure the reliability and protection of drinking water supplies.

$ 500 $ 870 $ 1,000 100% pass through. Increase for additional activities and more local impact

Steady

The CWC believes reducing water demand is critical to the long term sustainability of the water supply in the Metro Area. Any LGU action to encourage reduced water use should be supported.



Page 8 of 12

# Agency Activity



Governor's Rec

FY2018-19(000s)

Enacted Budget

FY2018-19(000s)

Proposed Budget

FY2020-21(000s)




38 MPCA

Great Lakes restoration project: Great Lakes restoration projects in the St. Louis River area of concern with local and federal partners. Requires at least a 65:35 non-state local match for every CWF dollar.

$ 1,500 $1,675 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 Steady

The CWC wants to fund the sediment clean up and effectiveness monitoring for the next 5+ years. The AOC would be delisted in 2025, therefore, no need for special funds besides routine monitoring.


Nonpoint source implementation total $ 92,750 $ 98,445 $ 97,950 $ 135,772 Point source implementation

39 MPCA

Accelerated Implementation of MS4 Permit Requirements: Additional technical assistance to municipalities experiencing difficulties understanding and implementing the basic requirements of the municipal stormwater program.

$ 557 $ 557 $ 450 $ 450 Shifts MPCA priority from research to outreach and technical assistance for accelerated implementation.

Steady

The MS4 permits are new to the Local Units of Government. Once the LGUs become more comfortable with their permit requirements, need for technical support would be reduced.


40 MPCA

Chloride reduction efforts: Assist communities in reducing salt at the source. These funds will allow the MPCA to administer the Smart Salting Training & Certification program for those who provide snow and ice services in both the public and private sector. Also, to reduce chloride entering our waters through wastewater treatment plants with grants to communities to work with residents and businesses to upgrade softeners to low-salt use systems or to those communities centrally softening their water to ensure complete removal of home water softening units.

$ 600 CWC policy recommendation NewAccept the ICT request

41 MPCA

NPDES wastewater/stormwater TMDL implementation: Integration of watershed approach (WRAPS and TMDLs) with wastewater and stormwater permitting programs (includes Stormwater Manual updates).

$ 1,800 $ 1,957 $ 1,800 $ 1,800 Maintain current level of effort. Steady

This program helps MPCA provide technical assistance to LGUs in compliance with their NPDES permits and work with LGUs during the permit reissue period. The funding should be maintained across the 10 years.


42 PFA

Point Source Implementation Grant (PSIG) Program: Provides grants to help cities upgrade water infrastructure treatment facilities to comply with TMDL wasteload requirements and more stringent water quality-based effluent limits for phosphorus, chlorides, and other pollutants. The PFA administers the program in partnership with the MPCA.

$ 17,000 $ 17,000 $ 15,750 $ 18,000 Governor's bonding proposal for PSIG grants intended to supplement not supplant CWF dollars

Steady

This program receives additional funding from bonding and other resources. The PFA only funds projects that are developed and ready for construction. The current funding level is adequate for the demand.


43 PFA

Small Community Wastewater Treatment Program: Provides grants and loans to assist small unsewered communities with technical assistance and construction funding to replace non-complying septic systems with community subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS). The PFA administers the program in partnership with the MPCA.

$ 250 $ 250 $ 250 $ 250 Steady

In the past this program has received $2.5 to $5.0 million per biennia. The PFA has adequate funds to support the current demand. For now, CWC will the funding recommendation the same as FY 18-19.


Point source implementation total $ 19,050 $ 19,207 $ 17,800 $ 21,100 Groundwater/Drinking Water Implementation


Page 9 of 12

# Agency Activity



Governor's Rec

FY2018-19(000s)

Enacted Budget

FY2018-19(000s)

Proposed Budget

FY2020-21(000s)




44 BWSR

Targeted Wellhead/Drinking Water Protection: For permanent conservation easements on wellhead protection areas under Minnesota Statutes, section 103F.515, subdivision 2, paragraph (d), to permanently protect groundwater supply sources in wellhead protection areas. Priority to be placed on land that is located where the vulnerability of the drinking water supply is designated as high or very high by the commissioner of health, where drinking water protection plans have identified specific activities that will achieve long-term protection, and on lands with expiring Conservation Reserve Program contracts.

$ 3,500 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 $ 4,750

Can be used to leverage federal dollars via CREP 3 agreement as well as fund priority wellhead protection easements outside the CREP area.

Increase

BWSR have had more requests for funding than funds available. Only about 50% of the vulnerable lands are protected now. Therefore, the need to increase funding over the 10 year period.

These funds can be used as State match for Federal CREP if the land in question qualifies for CREP (in one of the approved counties). Revisit


45 MDA

Irrigation Water Quality Protection: Funding supports an irrigation water quality specialist who develops guidance and provides education on irrigation and nitrogen best management practices. This position is located at the University of Minnesota Extension.

$ 220 $ 220 $ 220 $ 270 Steady

Much of MN's irrigated farmland is located in areas with permeable soils which can move contaminants to shallow groundwater. The work of the Irrigation Specialist will continue to be needed and good education tool.


46 MDA

Nitrate in Groundwater: Funding to implement Minnesota’s Nitrogen Fertilizer Management Plan for preventing and responding to nitrate contamination of groundwater from nitrogen fertilizer use. Includes support for: private well testing; BMP promotion and adoption; Extension staffing; local advisory teams; technical support; and demonstration projects such as Rosholt Farm.

$ 4,171 $ 4,171 $ 4,171 $ 5,170 Steady

The hope is that with all the protection activities happening in areas with vulnerable groundwater and Rule making, the need for funding for nitrate monitoring would be reduced in 10 years.

Accept for now, but will revisit if necessary: $1 M more than previous year and BOC wanted to keep the funding steady.


47 MDH

Drinking Water Protection: Develop public health policies and an implementable action plan to address threats to safe drinking water in Minnesota by engaging local and national experts. Conduct an analysis to determine the scope of the lead problem in Minnesota's water and the cost to eliminate lead exposure in drinking water.

$ 300 $ 300 $ 300 CWC budget recommendation Steady

Well thought-out action plans take time to develop and implement. Therefore we should provide steady funding to ensure the success of this program.


48 MDHWell Sealing Cost Share: Continue addressing the need for sealing for both private and public wells.

$ 500 $ 500 $ 500 $ 500 Steady

This is a cost effective program as each unused, abandoned well pose a treat to groundwater by being a direct conduit for contaminants. Therefore, program should be continued long-term.


49 MC

Metropolitan Area Water Supply Sustainability Support: Metropolitan Council will continue implementing projects that address emerging drinking water supply threats, provide cost-effective regional solutions, leverage inter-jurisdictional coordination, support local implementation of water supply reliability projects, and prevent degradation of groundwater resources.

$ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 1,900 $ 2,000 Steady

The Metro Area communities or Met Council has no funding to coordinate long-term sustainability of the drinking water. Therefore, providing funding to ensure the long-term supply of drinking water is critical to the health of the people and the economy.



Page 10 of 12

# Agency Activity



Governor's Rec

FY2018-19(000s)

Enacted Budget

FY2018-19(000s)

Proposed Budget

FY2020-21(000s)




50 MPCA

Enhanced County inspections/SSTS corrective actions: Support technical assistance and County implementation of SSTS program requirements (M.S. 115.55) including issuing permits, conducting inspections, identifying and resolving non-compliant SSTS, and revising and maintaining SSTS ordinances.

$ 7,245 $ 7,800 $ 6,870 $ 7,876 Includes a 25% increase in grants to upgrade SSTS's for low income homeowners

Steady

The funding is for inspections to identify and financial support to bring non-compliant (mostly) individual SSTS in to compliance. The need for this funding is expected to be high for the next five years and the CWC expects a sizable reduction in non-compliant SSTS past year five.

Although different from the funding direction, Accept.


51 MPCA

National Park Water Quality Protection Program: Grant program for sanitary sewer projects that are included in the draft or any updated Voyageurs National Park Clean Water Project Comprehensive Plan to restore the water quality of waters in Voyageurs National Park.

$ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 1,550 No Funding Not a CWC proposed project Ok with 1.55 MAccept proposer's request

Groundwater/Drinking Water Implementation total $ 19,936 $ 18,191 $ 19,461 $ 22,416

Research, Evaluation and Tool Development

52 BWSR

Tillage, Cover Crop, and Erosion Transects: Program to systematically collect data and produce statically valid estimates of the rate of soil erosion and tracking the adoption of high residue cropping systems in the 67 counties with greater than 30% of land in agricultural row crop production.

$ 850 $ 850 $ 850 $ 850 Maintains operational costs. Decrease

Much of the information needed will be gathered by end of FY19, but it is important to provide some funding to update the database and the models developed using the data.


53 BWSRTechnical Evaluation: For a technical evaluation panel to conduct 10 restoration evaluations under Minnesota Statues, section 114D.50, subdivision 6.

$ 168 $ 168 $ 168 $ 168 SteadyIt is a small program and required by Statute, therefore need to keep the funding steady.


54 DNR

Applied research and tools: Maintain and update LiDAR-derived elevation data and tools; develop fine-scale watershed models; assess relationships among disturbance patterns, BMP applications, and water quality in forested watersheds.

$ 1,350 $ 1,700 $ 1,350 $ 1,400 Steady

Highly technical projects like LiDAR derived elevations models, watershed modeling and others are difficult for the local entities to implement because of high start up cost and expertise. This program used by LGUs when making water related decisions, therefore, should be continually funded.


55 DNR

County geologic atlases: Work with the Minnesota Geological Survey to accelerate completion or updates to County Geologic Atlases that provide critical groundwater and geology information to local governments.

$ 250 $ 250 $ 250 $ 300

FY20-21 increase is needed to maintain pace of county geologic atlas work, absent further LCCMR funding. This level of funding would support completion of four new atlases per year, and allow modest acceleration of top priority areas. The atlases are critical to state agencies, LGUs, and other stakeholders.

Steady

In the recent years, CWF provided the smallest portion of the overall funding to this program and anticipates not needing CWF support in the long term.

Little concerned about large increase to DNR. Discuss in Aug. BOC. Can change based on Stakeholder comments. 08/03: The DNR has requested funding from LCCMR for FY20 and if appropriated by the legislature, could work with only $300,000 for the biennium

Reduce the recommendation to $300,000


Page 11 of 12

# Agency Activity



Governor's Rec

FY2018-19(000s)

Enacted Budget

FY2018-19(000s)

Proposed Budget

FY2020-21(000s)




56 MDA

Agricultural Research/Evaluation: Supports research projects to identify processes that affect water quality and evaluate the costs and benefits of specific agricultural practices. BMPs will be developed and evaluated to protect and restore water resources.

$ 1,325 $ 1,325 $ 1,325 $ 1,325 Steady

The program provide quantifiable information about the BMPs and other practices used to improve water quality. Testing new ideas and methods of determining sources of pollution and mitigating pollution had been funded by this program and should continue to be funded.

Accept. potentially increase if funding is available, MDA does not have a problem handling increased funding.


57 MDA

Research Inventory Database: The Minnesota Water Research Digital Library (MNWRL) is a user-friendly, searchable inventory of water research relevant to Minnesota. It provides “one-stop” access to all types of water research, including both peer-reviewed articles and white papers and reports.

$ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 Steady

Keeping abreast with newest research findings and access to research data, scientific papers, reports and white papers is important to find and implement best practices on the ground. But CWC is not sure if this is the role of CWF. Will revisit the issue in the future.


58 MDA

Forever Green Agricultural Initiative: Develops new perennial and winter annual crops that preserve and enhance water quality, and supports the development of new supply chains that provide profitable markets for these crops. Funding will support the Forever Green Initiative in areas related to research, implementation, and partnership development.

$ 1,850 $ 900 $ 1,500 $ 3,300 Increase

In the long term, changing our cropping systems and presence of vegetative cover for much of the year must be part of sustainability of farming. In the recent years this program has attracted much attention. Short term infusion of financial support is needed ensure the long-term profitability.

Further discussion needed. Some additional money can be spend if available.

Add $500,000 more to bring the total to $2.5 M

59 MDH

Groundwater Virus Monitoring Plan: Based on the results of previous virus monitoring, determine pathogen transport pathways from contaminant sources and evaluate human health risks from bacteria and parasites that were also found in addition to viruses. Develop new wellhead protection measures or well construction measures as needed.

$ 200 $ 200 $ 200 $ 500 Steady

The CWC wants MDH to continue the study and incorporate other parameters such as precipitation in its analysis, but does not think of this as an on-going program.


60 MDH

Water Reuse: to create an expanded workgroup with practitioners, advisors and stakeholders to continue development of standards and programs. A facilitator is needed to create and manage this workgroup. The workgroup would then prioritize and develop work plans to begin to address the remaining seven recommendations.

$ 350

08/03: ICT will explore the possibility of funding research to determine the public health impacts of stormwater reuse and means of mitigating any negative effects.

The BOC's acceptance of this proposal is predicated on funding research to protect Public health.

Accept the ICT request with stipulations


Page 12 of 12

# Agency Activity



Governor's Rec

FY2018-19(000s)

Enacted Budget

FY2018-19(000s)

Proposed Budget

FY2020-21(000s)




61U of MN

Stormwater BMP Performance Evaluation & Technology Transfer: This program has begun to address high-need stormwater research and technology transfer, including a systematic assessment of priority needs and initial research on maintenance of stormwater retention ponds. Future work will address the backlog of priorities through competitively reviewed proposals, with selection of projects guided by a committee of stormwater practitioners.

$ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 Steady

There is still much work to be done in the stormwater realm: research, BMP development and long-term efficacy. The CWC believes this program needs steady funding to maintain the momentum in the next decade.

AcceptAccept U of MN request

62U of MN

Clean Water Return on Investment Pilot: To provide guidance documents and tools evaluating the Clean Water Fund’s return on investment (ROI) in water quality improvements and human wellbeing, as well as to assist in future funding decisions.

$ 265 $ 265 $ 343

The program has changed significantly from what was first proposed. The original request was for $50,000. See project description for the new additions. (DSD)

AcceptAccept U of MN request

63U of MN

Geologic Atlas with Dept. of Natural Resources: Provides planning scale comprehensive geologic mapping and associated databases useful for managing water and mineral resources.

$ 250 $ 250 $ 1,000

LCCMR recommended $2.5million for FY 2019, but only $1.24 million was appropriated. Also, BOC recommended increase for FY 20-21 (DSD)

Increase

County geologic atlases are a resource used by both Public and private entities and the CWC would like to accelerate the pace of atlas completion. By 2023, majority of the atlases would be completed and therefore less funding beyond 2023.

Accept. Check if U of M can utilitze the funds if LCCMR gives more money


MPCA

Watershed research and database development: (Watershed Data Integration Project or WDIP) Incrementally connect data management systems that will interface existing systems and provide staff and the public a central location for reporting, analysis, and data management of the watershed data.

$ 2,000 $ 2,310 $ 1,000

First biennium with no request for WDIP/Research (which had been a $2.3M biennial program until the FY18-19 biennium where it is $1M).

N/A

Research, Evaluation and Tool Development total $ 10,108 $ 7,803 $ 8,758 $ 11,136

64 MPCA Clean Water Council budget $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 180 $110 for CWC, $70K for report & public informational campaign

Not discussed in 2017 Accept Accept CWC request

65 LCC Legislative Coordinating Commission $ 15 $ - $ 15 $ 9 LCC requested on $9,000 for the biennium

Not discussed in 2017 Accept Accept LCC request

$ 191,007 $ 194,534 $ 191,973 $ 258,762

$ 262,703 February 2018 CWF forecast - (updated by S.Fahnhorst, EBO at MMB)

$ 3,941 February 2018 CWF forecast - FY20-21 CWF funding requests as of July 5, 2018

Total All Recommendations

Clean Water Fund Recommendations: Fiscal Years 2020-21

(DRAFT)

Budget and Outcomes Committee

14.37%

10.21%

1.75%

4.30%

0.07%

69.29%

FY 20-21 Recommended Allocation by Category

Monitoring, Assessment, & Characterization Watershed & Groundwater Restoration/Protection Strategies

Comprehensive Local Watershed Management Research, Evaluation and Tool Development

Administrative Implementation Total

14.37%

10.21%

1.75%

52.47%

8.15%

8.66%4.30%

0.07%

FY 20-21 Recommended Allocations by Subcategory

Monitoring, Assessment, & Characterization Watershed & Groundwater Restoration/Protection StrategiesComprehensive Local Watershed Management Nonpoint-source ImplementationPoint-source Implementation Groundwater/Drinking Water ImplementationResearch, Evaluation and Tool Development Administrative

50.0%

8.6%0.1%

8.7%

4.4%

1.2%

18.9%

7.1%1.1%

FY 20-21 Recommended CWF Allocation by Agency

BWSR DNR LCC/CWC MDA MDH

Met Council MPCA PFA U of M

80.11%

4.93%

14.97%

FY 20-21 Recommended CWF allocation by Region

Primarily Greater MN Primarily Metro Both

Documents

Clean Water Council Meeting Packet August 20, 2018