Clean Water Council Budget and Outcomes Meeting, September 8, … · 2017. 9. 12. · Budget and Outcomes Committee (BOC) Meeting Agenda Clean Water Council (Council) Friday, September

Budget and Outcomes Committee (BOC) Meeting Agenda Clean Water Council (Council)

Friday, September 8, 2017 9:30 a.m. – 2:00 p.m.

MPCA Conference Room 100 520 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul, MN

2017-2018 BOC Members: John Barten, Sharon Doucette (BOC Vice Chair), Warren Formo, Bob Hoefert, Frank Jewell, Holly Kovarik, Todd Renville (BOC Chair), Pat Shea 9:30 Regular Business

· Approve agenda and past meeting notes · Chair and Staff update

9:35 Potential Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) Program Consolidation – Doug

Thomas, BWSR How would BWSR propose to consolidate some of their programs so there are not so many line items that receive Clean Water Fund dollars?

10:30 Draft 10-Year Funding Goals for the Clean Water Fund – review comments received 11:30 Lunch 12:00 Supplemental budget (FY19 CWF recommendations) 1:30 New Business

· Future 2017 Meeting Dates – October 6, November 3, and December 1. · Future Topics - Water Quality Fees (date TBD) · Future meetings with the Governor’s Water Advisor (Anna Henderson) · Update from Policy Committee – John Barten

2:00 Adjourn More information about the Council’s Budget and Outcomes Committee can be found at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/tchyee5.

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/tchyee5

Budget and Outcomes Committee (BOC) Meeting Summary Clean Water Council (Council)

July 7, 2017, 9:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Committee Members present: John Barten, Sharon Doucette, Warren Formo, Bob Hoefert, Frank Jewell, Holly Kovarik, Todd Renville, and Pat Shea Members absent: To watch the WebEx video recording of this meeting, please go to https://www.pca.state.mn.us/clean-water-council/policy-ad-hoc-committee, or contact Brianna Frisch. Regular Business

Motions to approve agenda and past meeting minutes, seconded, and carried.

Barb Peichel’s final Council meeting – thank you for all you have done.

Master spreadsheet funding tracking (few Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) items that might be a little off). Previously, Barb did not want to make any (general recommendations) assumptions of those prior to her being in the coordinator position. Some of your new budget ideas may have been provided in the past. Might be a good idea to review and remind yourselves what has been recommended.

Review Process for FY20-21 Budget Recommendations (WebEx 00:04:00)

The chart in the meeting packet that lays out a conceptual plan for moving forward. It is similar to the concept map from last year. The first page is for this year. The pink line and items above it are current (BOC). Below the line items, are opportunities for the full Council, but they vote of items as well. There are also opportunities for stakeholder input. Note, at the bottom the BOC is to coordinate with the Interagency Coordination Team (ICT), the governor’s office, and legislators. Whatever comes out in January this next year will have some implications to the next year. There is also a desire for certain committee leadership members to stay more in communication, to get a heads up before items go public.

The second page schedule really aligns with the process from last year. The concept of the 10-year funding goals, we heard from stakeholders is the need to plan out more than two years in advance. Therefore, we have been working on this to help lay out 10-year goals. The meeting today, is to define what this 10-year plan will look like.

One issue we previously ran into meeting with the legislature this year is the importance of meeting with Anna Henderson and the governor’s office. It became clear that we needed to figure out how to connect with staff of the House and Senate. This year, they did not follow what was recommended by the Council. They did not recommend any new programs. For the new programs the Council was recommending, if they were not supported by the governor, then no new programs were passed. They did not carry as much weight (searching for 22 million for the soil and water conservation districts). The other programs funded in the past (i.e., the Red River Valley), which may not be appropriately funded, were supported. We also had no idea why they did what they did, because we did not have these conversations, so this is important moving forward.

The 10-year funding goals (more specific and measureable when appropriate) are to provide something in a funding direction, to give an idea out to stakeholders before you are dealing with actual funds. Your funding recommendations are the numbers. Definitions are on the last page of the handout.

I wanted to look at the Clean Water Council statute. I wanted to ask everyone at the table, what do you think our job is? Do you think it is to make recommendations as to how to expend the money? Is that what we are supposed to do?

I think that is what our job is, and I think the taxpayers think it is our job.

I think it is a trick question.

I think it looks like an obvious thing – making recommendations on how to spend the money. However, it is not our job to make budget recommendations. I have been told by a legislature that we should make general recommendations about how the money should be spent.

On the one hand, I disagree with that, but on the other hand, we could meet only a few times a year.

This is the reason why we have had so much tension with the ICT over the last few years. They want us to make general recommendations, and then they could make recommendations that are more specific. This

https://www.pca.state.mn.us/clean-water-council/policy-ad-hoc-committee

https://www.pca.state.mn.us/clean-water-council/policy-ad-hoc-committee

mailto:[email protected]

tension is part of what has caused the problems we had last year – intense with the legislators. The reason for that, as far as I can tell, is partly this.

The legislative charge is on the first page on the report: “You are required to submit a biennial report to the Legislature by December1 of each even-numbered year on: the activities for which money has been or will be spent for the current biennium; the activities for which money is recommended to be spent in the next biennium; the impact on economic development of the implementation of efforts to protect and restore groundwater and the impaired waters program; an evaluation of the progress made in implementing the CWLA (Clean Water Legacy Act) and the provisions of Article XI, Section 15, of the Minnesota Constitution relating to clean water; the need for funding of future implementation; and recommendations for the sources of funding. The report also fulfills the CWLA requirement for the Council to recommend to the Governor and the Legislature the manner in which money from the Clean Water Fund should be appropriated for the purposes state in Article XI, Section 15, of the Minnesota Constitution and Minn. Stat. § 114D.50.”

It says yes you have to do budget recommendations, it does not say you have to do line by line item recommendations. Previously, a few Council members went to the Legacy and Environment Committees at the Legislature to check about the Council’s role because it is something a little higher level and detailed. At that time, they asked the legislators what they wanted and every person’s response was that they appreciated the more details. Now, this is constantly changing because there are new chairs and legislature members, so it is confusing to legislatures because the bill has multiple recommendations (Council and the Governor’s) versus the Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Fund (LSOHF), whom has only one bill to review.

Todd and Sharon heard this as well when they met with Senator Ruud. She was a little confused; the governor’s recommendations carried weight and she was honoring his decisions.

I think it is worth having a discussion about it (i.e., yearly, or biennially). I think the level of details are about right. I think maybe we need to meet more with the legislative staff to help them understand. They are getting recommendations from many different places because that is their job. If they take ours, it is great, if they do not, it is all right too. I think Torkelson has done a great job with this.

We are working on a meeting with the governor’s chief of staff and possibly the governor. The staff previously seemed very upset with us, so we are working towards having a better relationship. The governor’s recommendations did not include anything the agencies did not recommend. Any new stuff was not included. It would be useful to make that argument, in a positive conversation. There may be some pushback, but perhaps this is something to consider.

The more broad the recommendations, the less you see happening that you want to happen. The agencies think certain programs are valuable. I would advocate we keep going with this process.

Have we been doing this process since the Council began, or did we deviate to a more specific approach?

Reviewing the spreadsheet, at the beginning on the first biennium, there was only about 12 things you made recommendations on. Now, it is over 60 programs that receive Clean Water Funds (CWFs). Also note, the ICT was not around when you were first started. There were many subcommittees to meet with agency staff (i.e., monitoring committees), to help figure out what was going to happen with this. There has been a lot of change, and more independence. The CWLA was changed (used to be really focused on impaired waters to help clean those up). Now, there is more language about drinking water. The interesting thing is that the Council predates the constitutional money by about 2 years. In the beginning, there were no legislators on the Council. Therefore, overall there have been many changes.

I think this is going to be my third time doing this budget cycle. In this subcommittee, we have become more independent and the budget becomes more our own. Previously, we were pretty much going with the agency recommendations. The second time, we made our own recommendations versus what the agencies provided to us. The third time, I thought we were even more independent.

The level of expertise and the amount of time and effort into the BOC as well as agency staff would be a waste of the resources if we were not specific. It is very eye opening on the process. Politics change, but to have a nonpartisan group make recommendations is important.

Being new, as a private citizen, people have an expectation that we are providing recommendations from experts in this area. We are advisory. Whether they take the recommendations or not, we need to do a good job making these recommendations. I think the citizens would want us to provide a higher level.

You join the Council because you think you can help and represent your community and group. Once we make the recommendations, we want to promote them, but I do not feel horrible if these do not pass. I know we are the only people taking input from stakeholders on this. Our recommendations are done based on the agencies, and the feedback. This last time, the Conservation Reserve and Enhancement Program (CREP) created the most tension. We heard almost universally from our stakeholders, that funding should come from a different source – which was really listening to people. I think we will need more conversations going forward to make this work. I like the 10-year piece of this, and knowing the actual financial decision follow.

We will not know what the political landscape or the state agencies will be like in the future. If there are any cuts in general funds spending, we will not know until later.

The county officials believe we should be fighting hard for this money coming back to their neighborhoods.

Motion to approve the schedule, with subject to change, as well as move forward to bring this approval to the full Council. Motion seconded, and approved. It will be in the meeting packet for the July 17 for voting as well (or endorsement).

Review/Revise FY20-21 Guiding Principles and Funding Priorities (WebEx 00:40:00)

These are the same for FY18-19, but we have changed them for FY20-21 to go over today.

Sharon and Todd talked about the last two cycles, the BOC have spent a lot of time working on this document, and so looking at the individual bullet items they did not see any changes. We did not reserve a lot of time on the agenda to go over this, but if someone feels strongly we can take some time. I would like a motion to approve, seconded but with some discussion.

Discussion: I think there is some language that should be added to support the policy initiatives. Should it be in this funding priorities document or in the funding goals?

It is in the funding goals. Should it be in both?

Are the goals meant to be more measureable? Answer: Yes, we are looking to help measure our progress.

I would suggest a priority to support those policy recommendations. Response: I would agree, it helped in the last budget cycle. Barb adds bullet item: “Integrate the Council’s Policy Recommendations into the Council’s Budget Recommendations where applicable.”

The line at the top “Clean Water Fund dollars should be considered one-time funding”, I do not think that language of is right because some programs need multiple years to accomplish the work. Response: Clean Water Fund dollars should be considered one time funding, but they can be given each year, just considered one biennium at a time.

I agree that some programs are ongoing, but I think part of the reason for the one time funding is in there, is to help explain that groups will not expect money. We cannot assume the legislation will agree in the future. It is a biennial decision. We need to do it every two years.

I will offer what was said about both amendments, the highlighted changes, and seconded. Motion carries.

This document will also need to go to the full Council to vote on at the July 17 meeting. Develop Draft 10-Year Funding Goals for the Clean Water Fund (WebEx 00:50:00)

Barb Peichel summarized the last 5 years of the stakeholder comments on the budget process. Also, a few other reports (i.e., the Clean Water Fund Performance Report, the Nonpoint Priority Plan, The Local Government Roundtable, etc.). There were requests for long-term plans. Todd and Sharon did not want a list this long, but for discussion purposes, we kept the items on the list at this time.

The intent is to facilitate discussion. As the BOC, do you think this is a good approach? In addition, when Sharon and Todd went through it, they talked about the percentages to see if they were accurate.

Review page 9 on the Council report (to review the numbers for the rest of the 10-year funding goals for the BOC).

Item #1: “Increase CWF dollars for implementation activities by 20-30% while decreasing CWF dollars for planning, technical assistance, monitoring, mapping, and data analysis.”

Does that impact the state’s ability to meet the 10-year monitoring requirement, if we do this are we anticipating there is going to have to be some general fund increases to meet that (for the MPCA), which is a legislative directive. I think it is a good idea, but if it happens, are we connected to a different legislative directive? Answer: I think the agencies expectation of completing one cycle, the costs would decrease now that the programs are in place, so the money can go back in implementation.

We are still in the first 10-year cycle, and costs are still going to be higher until later.

We did hear that from Gaylen Reetz (past MPCA representative) previously, and I believe he said it was going to extend another two year (behind the last budgeting cycle).

There may be some adjustments from the legislature, and we might need to make accommodations because of that. I think we are okay with the goal, but we might not meet it because of the legislative mandate.

Reviewing this, the one thing for Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs), in order to implement activities, we need the boots on the ground and to me it includes planning and technical assistance tied to it. There was a time that they did not have enough of this work to accomplish it. Now, they can get the kind of funding they need to get the implementation going.

In the implementation category that we are talking about specifically, we are not suggesting that BWSR change their grants, this is more for the programs that we lump into these categories for state recommendations (pages 14 and 15 of the report).

If you look at Appendix A. Essentially, adding money to 14 and taking away 15 and 16.

All agree.

Item #2: “Recommend 20-30% of CWF dollars annually for surface and drinking water protection and restoration grants for local governments to implement actions identified in comprehensive watershed management plans (One Watershed One Plan or Metro Watershed Plans).”

With the struggles with the legislature regarding surface and drinking water protection, this is an important issue for the state so we should highlight it.

We discussed that this was important because the Local Government Water Roundtable’s idea of the recommendation for the future: 60% of the CWFs should go to the One Watershed One Plan (1W1P).

What was the percentage that went this year to drinking water? You recommended 29.5 million and it was 19.5 million.

Barb took out “…surface and drinking water” because it was a little confusing; rather have the focus on the grants instead.

All agreed to change. Now reads, “Recommend 20-30% of CWF dollars annually for protection and restoration grants for local governments to implement actions identified in comprehensive watershed management plans (One Watershed One Plans or Metro Watershed Plans).”

Item #3: “Recommend at least 20% of CWF dollars should be spent annually to protect drinking water sources.”

Does “annually” need to be in there? Answer: Yes, at least 5% should be spent to protect drinking water. In the last recommendation, it was at 17%. In some of these, Representative Wagenius weighted heavily in our minds.

All agree.

Item #4: “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.”

If we commit money to the 1W1P, as well as projects that protect high-quality waters, do we know if that will happen for sure?

BWSRs plan is to have the whole state covered with an approved 1W1P by 2025. Right now, they have 5 approved; another 5 or 6 started, and approved another 6 at the June meeting. These are distributed across the state. About 5-7 new planning areas will be funded, with the hope that by 2025 they will be complete. This goes towards the discussion on the roundtable, that implementation should be looked at it as a non-competitive allocation to use that money accruing to their priorities. Therefore, it takes out the competitive grants.

Able to accomplish enough for both #2 and #4. It is redundant to have it at the same time. I think we should have it in their plan. Some waters are not going to be a priority for the larger scale, but might be overlooked due to the needs of the nearby waters. In the long-term, we know it is cheaper to protect than to repair.

I think we might want to remove #4. Protection needs to be a high priority, but this should happen within the 1W1P.

Between #4 and #6. If we focus on impairments, I would say to the locals to do a plan for your watershed. We are asking the local groups and the staff to create a plan.

Protection and restoration grants are identified in item #2. I do not want to lock us into something that is unworkable in the future. I trust the locals.

It is a more difficult political battle as it is easier to allocate funding to problems.

That commitment is important. If you look at #4 and #5 – there are large homes being built on the lakes, and that helps build more taxes. It is good for the state if the leverage of the state goes to have higher match dollars in that area and the locals can get committed. I also think it is policy discussion. Everyone has to help in this area.

The language is all right for everyone. All agree.

Item #5: “Require that implementation dollars require a 25-50% match unless low income needs criteria are met.”

In some small communities, they just do not have the resources to complete a funding match.

It was required that implementation programs that require a 5% (the more you have to invest in your own money the more you are committed). I thought (the local government white paper) the 5% was a low number.

Does this need to be in there? The county or city in question needs to complete extra paperwork to be eligible for it, so it will be identified already.

They are already doing 25% on some programs. Do you want it more generalized or more specific? Answer: some of this is in reaction to the White Bear Lake and the low percentage. If someone is going to come in asking for some funding, we want them to have some skin in the game.

There needs to be a mix of funding, and we do not know the mix yet. We know there will need to be additional funding to get to where we need to be for clean water.

If you look at number 14, it pushes that leverage. There needs to be more investment.

It would be nice to pick a number: you could say at least a 25% match.

Adjusted to read, “Require that implementation dollars require at least a 25% match unless low income needs criteria are met.”

Item #6: “Double the current CWF investment for actions that address landscape drivers to protect and restore waters.”

What about landscape drivers? Answer: There were many comments, so that was the wordage to be broad. These things are going to change what is happening on the landscape (i.e. Drainage stuff).

There were many comments about the landscape conversion issues. We were trying to include that broad range in one bullet.

Do we know what is being investing in that now? I think it depends what we put in that category.

It depends on the programs in that category.

I would rather see “increase” instead of “double”. Perhaps a description of landscape drivers.

We wanted it to be measureable. We wanted to have something to start the conversation. (Barb changed “double” to “increase” and added “(perennial crops, climate change, drainage, and land conversion/development)”).

Adjusted to read, “Increase the current CWF investment for actions that address landscape drivers (e.g. perennial crops, climate change, drainage, land conversion/development) to protect and restore waters.”

Item #7: “Target CWF dollars to clean up 25% of impaired waterbodies (Governor’s 25 by 25).”

They were trying to come up with a number for restoration of impaired water bodies, so they added the 25% as a nod to the governor’s goal (25% by 25).

Something might come from these town halls. The reason the water was a part of the CWFs, so impaired waters are a big part of the legacy work. It was hard to come up with a percentage that was doable in ten years, so it should be part of the plan. It is a stretch goal.

The agency realistic driver’s goal is 7-8% but the Council’s goal says 25%. They agreed to add a line under the italicized description at the documents beginning “It is also anticipated that the Governor’s will release 25% by 2025 water initiatives in early 2018.”

Do we lose some specific amounts going toward restoration, if there is one going towards protection?

A lot of the initiative and the governor’s intent is not towards impaired waters or even protection. It is as general and vague as it can be, purposefully so it drives more local involvement and local commitment. What can individuals do to help expedite the improvement? It probably leans more towards 1W1P, where it is very locally driven. Not necessarily tied to an improvement, but more a community identifying their priorities for a 25% reduction. The language at the front of your document may be a way to acknowledge it to help that indicative while still achieving that effort.

Given this description, should we just get rid of it?

All agreed to strike the item #7 and leave the description.

Item #8: “Reduce drinking water contaminants in groundwater and surface water by 20%.”

I would suggest striking this as well because it is unachievable.

I think this it is covered in #3, so #8 might not be necessary (funding perspective versus the results, but it show a commitment to ground water).

The roadmap picked two specific (nitrates and arsenic) items because there were too many. However, we care about the contaminants because it is drinking water.

If we are going to increase or dedicate something, you need to add contaminants into #3. *Barb added “from contamination” at the end of #3.

MDH: The one you just took out, it was not more of a budget focused. I think the MHD would be okay about taking this off the list, but potentially adding a clause. I do not know if you would need to call arsenic and nitrates in #3, because you are protecting drinking water, you assume it includes contaminates.

By doing these things, now we have become more specific and are now talking about quantity.

I would suggest strike #8 and leave #3 as it was.

All agreed to strike #8 and leave #3 as it was.

Item #9: “Recommend at least 2% of CWF dollars are used to support new, innovative approaches for clean water.”

The 2% seems about the right amount.

There are other programs that will come out of this. One of the challenges, for the legislature, the money doesn’t change as much, so it is more about what not to do again this year. Perhaps, reviewing the older programs to see if their needs are fit. The 2% is only about 4 million. I think it should be at least 5%.

Moving forward, there are some planning and mapping programs that will not be needed, and we need the innovation.

All agree to have the 2% changed to 5%.

Item #10: “Recommend at least 2% of CWF dollars are used for efforts to fund water education and outreach staff at the local level around the state and training in community engagement.”

This came out of some of the groundwater reports from the Freshwater Society. The Council made specific recommendations for these types of programs for CWFs. They were looking for local, civic engagement. Previously, it was a clear target for the legislature to look for money, so the agencies would include community involvement in all the programs (some agencies do it better than others do). Whether it is a separate line item or not.

Does this make it easier for the legislature to shift money around? The problem is it is hard to draw straight lines connecting certain things to education. You can educate people, but it does not mean they will change (i.e., people and smoking – they know it is bad, but they are not going to stop). I am not opposed to education, but I am a little hesitant to include this item.

Are you thinking of striking this completely? If it is in the effort to do an implementation (i.e., public grants) you can do education and outreach for the city projects. There are ways to do this.

All agree to strike this item.

Item #11: “Using results from the Return on Investment Study, focus funding on the most cost-effective programs and projects that provide clean, sustainable water and ecosystem services.”

The schedule for the Return on Investment (ROI) study. The idea was the University of Minnesota (UMN) would start with surveying people (i.e., clean water survey for public), and then see the monetary ROI – these will be hard to measure. Then, create a decision making tool to help direct the Council (it would provide the benefits from the programs). Then, use this tool can be used by the legislature as well, to help make funding recommendations. Ideally, it would be about a one-year project. However, in the bill, it will be about a two-year project. It might help with the FY20-21 if it is ready. There should be some findings from this study at that time.

We have invested in this study, and I think we should follow through and include this in the goals. It is somewhat trackable and measurable.

All agree to keep it with no changes.

Item #12: “Integrate the Council’s Policy Recommendations into the Council’s Budget Recommendations where applicable.”

This was in your other funding priorities, so it could be taken out here.

All agree to strike it.

Item #13: “Expand efforts to fund permanent conservation projects that provide multiple benefits for water and habitat particularly where projects can leverage both CWF and Outdoor Heritage Fund dollars.”

This came from the stakeholder comments. At the last meeting, you had Doug Thomas from BWSR come in and speak about how they are doing this when they award project money. The idea is how to leverage. There are programs that receive money from multiple projects (i.e., easement programs). The amount of coverage of the funding is often from the different programs. Council leadership did meet with someone from the LSOHF in 2015 to help collaborate and coordinate, but this does not happen very often.

Having this item on the goals will help drive some effort to track this collaboration. There are some activities going on the landscape, but we are not aware of everything, so having this as a goal will help drive some accountability. It would be nice to say CWFs does help provide habitat as well – connecting with this group. Also using funding sources more seamlessly.

There is something about the one that is approachable and likeable, but I am not sure how to facilitate this as a goal.

There is no control over some of this.

Could we highlight items, and then decide to discuss these with the LSOHF people to help get feedback from them? Therefore, we can collaborate. This would be an active task.

All agree to the change, adjusted to read “Identify funding recommendations that would fund permanent conservation projects that provide multiple benefits for water and habitat and discuss these items with the Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council particularly where projects can leverage both CWF and Outdoor Heritage Fund dollars.

Item #14: “Increase the number of programs that leverage other funding sources to match CWF dollars by 10%.”

Where are we at now, if it says 10%?

You were criticized in the 2014 report by a stakeholder group about the amount of funding sources. I do not think the 2016 revealed anything better.

We had the two-pagers to help. The BOC was supposed to define leverage for the agencies, to know if they are leveraging accurately. As well as what could be counted as leveraging. It became complicated.

While writing grants you learn what you have to know in order to write them. I was hard pressed to know if we were actually leveraging. It was more about that money being available. There are clear examples. For me, I think it is useful, but this might push us to the conversation level about leveraging funds. This might push us right back into this conversation. Therefore, I do not think we should include it.

If people are using other programs, it can be leveraging.

So we could be getting into some trouble.

Outside the increase of the 10%, we already have this as a funding priority; it is something we need to be keeping in mind when we make budget choices.

I say we strike it.


Item #15: “Expand the number of entities eligible to receive CWF dollars.”

The more entities we have, the more programs, right?

I can use the word “projects” in #15, which might be helpful.

The purpose of #15 is to help dedicate a certain amount of funding to non-government entities. The CWFs are often closed off to everyone except the agencies. Some would argue this opens up to more controversy.

The idea was to take the small programs that the LSOHF does and replicate that to these funds. This helps with those hunting and fishing groups, non-profit groups, etc.

It was a way to say that we value the projects that get money directly funded into them from the legislature, but that it is not fair for other projects.

It seems like the only projects from those groups that get funding at the legislature are the ones that have the high-paying lobbyists. All three of the major ones have people who have great power behind the scenes at the legislature.

Adds “for projects through a competitive funding process”

I think it was to reconfigure BWSR’s Community Partners Program to make entities more eligible, but there is no funding because the program was nixed.

All agree to the change, adjusted to read, “Expand the number of entities eligible to receive CWF dollars for projects through a competitive funding process.”

Item #16: “Reduce the number of programs that receive CWF dollars by 10-20% to reduce administrative costs.”

We have heard this before about the number of programs, we recommend, and every cycle it expands.

A few stakeholder groups would love to move into this direction. You are hearing this from multiple stakeholders that they are asking you to be more focused. In a sense, have less categories.

At times, it appeared that the agencies would continue to request funding for these to keep the institute involved in these areas. This is sort of driving this decision-making in this area. We want to reduce the number of programs down to about 40 in the next 10 years.

Alternatively, taking a different route, for example, BWSR has seven different grant programs, does BWSR need to keep these all separate, or it is possible to bundle these to decrease administrative costs down. Then, have the cost benefits of consolidating the costs.

We talked with Doug Thomas about this as a potential feature. He will be at the September meeting. They are willing to talk about a proposal.

New members are often overwhelmed by the number of programs, which also makes it harder for you to do your jobs because you have so many things to look at.

The administrative costs decrease to allow for more implementation. At the same time, from the departments, they will tell you they cannot do implement without the administrative costs. Perhaps, reducing the number of programs will help make their work better. If you still have the same amount of work, it would seem likely you would still have the same amount of administrative costs.

With every business, doing administrative tasks, even if you include them under an umbrella they will do the same amount of work. The only way you can decrease production is to have this go away (FT#’s are easy to raise them and hard to lower).

What if 16 was more about reducing the number of programs than reduce administrative costs? There is some benefit to having less programs. The important part is to stop after the 10-20%.

Took out the “to reduce administrative costs”.

All agree to the change, adjusted to read, “Reduce the number of programs that receive CWF dollars by 10-20%.”

Item #17: “Reduce CWF dollars for programs that are most likely to receive funding from other funding sources.”

This is more about permit fees discussion. One of MDAs programs generates feedback. Some of the environmental groups have said the fees should be increased to help fund certain programs. This is often hard to do. Stakeholders have said for example, the money from pesticide monitoring should not come from CWFs. Stormwater is another item.

One of the things that we talked about, this is something on the MPCAs radar, which has a public comment period open regarding their permits and how to increase the permit fees to help fund the program. I think they said the permit fees only cover about 17% of the cost of running the program.

From the agricultural side, this comes up a lot regarding pesticides and fertilizer. There is some confusion about the fees that are already there outside of CWF, that help pay. I would be fine with eliminating those programs that are funded with CWFs. The old programs were adequate, but regarding 2016, if the MDA were here, there would be a whole wing of people that would not be needed if that were cut out.

They are saying with CWF dollars, they have supplemented the existing pesticide monitoring, so that they can now monitor all the things that were not monitored before.

So do we have a good handle on the programs that are supplemented by CWFs?

From the last BOC meeting, I was supposed to find out which programs have fees (in the agencies). It was hard to tell if you wanted to go into that more or not.

I think you could pick out which agency do have fees.

I think that getting into the details of this could be extremely messy.

We would need more information to understand it better. We already have language about leveraging (in priorities), and I am not sure if having it here in the goals is a good idea. I would get rid of it.


Agreed to take this to the full Council July 17 meeting as an information item, to vote at the full September Council meeting. As this will take more time (at least 30 minutes). Then, they have time to think about it as well.

Some of the agencies will want certain words in there. This will be in information item for September. Send comments to Celine by August 16. I do not think you will need to meeting in August.

Motion, seconded, motion carries. New Business (WebEx 02:49:00)

Future Meeting Dates - August 4, 2017 and September 1, 2017 (staff recommend rescheduling to September 8, 2017)

Cancelled 8/4/17 meeting and changed 9/1 to be 9/8 instead.

Discuss FY19 Clean Water Fund Recommendations

You already made recommendations for this FY18-19. However, in the Omnibus Tax Bill this year says if there is more money forecasted by MMB, up to 22 million can be paid back to CWFs. This would be effective for FY19, if the forecast is positive (find out in November/December at earliest). Therefore, this would be a good discussion for the September meeting, prioritizing where this could be allocated. There is a letter from Governor Dayton, and on the backside, you can see that out of the 22 million dollars to be paid back, he would like to see 17 million to go to CREP. Note, when it is additional funds, sometimes the Council has been allowed to weigh in, and sometimes they are not allowed. It is up to the BOC.

It is important to do it, especially for some programs we feel strongly about. Looking at the spreadsheet, it should be a priority.

They do need to be specific, otherwise the funding might get lost at the legislature.

I suggest this is a September discussion.

Future Topics - Potential Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) Program Consolidation (September 8, 2017) and Water Quality Fees (date TBD)

Future meetings with the Governor’s Water Advisor

The general idea is that the Council wanted to have more communication with the Policy and BOC and Council chairs and vice chairs to have more communication with Anna Henderson (especially with the 25% by 2025) because that will impact your recommendations. I thought at least a few of you from the 6 could connect with her to update her on what is going on. Possibly, after BOC meetings, because Todd, Sharon, John, and Frank will already be in the cities. Then, Victoria and Pam, who live nearby in the cities, if they are able to attend. Perhaps from 3-4 on the first Friday of the month? I am trying to schedule all of you, which is hard work because you are busy people.

I would say it is a good strategy to implement to meet with her regularly to help her know what is happening and understands the Council’s process. We want to be trying to connect.

Update from Policy Committee by John Barten

The Policy Committee have been looking to and have settled on 4: chloride, nitrates, pharmaceuticals, and nutrients. We will have some speakers come in on the chloride issue. We want to focus on other topics, but prioritizing these four at this time.

In addition, we discussed the line 3 pipeline, which is being terminated in Lake Superior (280 miles left to rot). I was brought up to the Policy meeting, but we decided not to address it. They will leave the existing pipeline (with plugs every 6 miles). To me it is still a huge issue of just leaving these pipelines in the ground when you place a new one in. This does not seem like good policy to me. The Draft EAW comments are due July 10, and the decisions will be made next year. Search online for Enbridge Line 3.

As your chair of the full Council, I ask that we do not take that on because of the controversy. There are many problems with this area. There are many people looking at it and has a major impact. I think we should look at things we can affect. I would also suggest staying away from copper-nickel mining.

For the four Policy topics, chloride can have fund money and a policy recommendation for chloride and water reuse. The Friends of the Mississippi River (FMR) recommends doing a management plan, which could be CWFs. For nutrients, we do not know where it is going because it is broad.

Joint meeting with the ICT? Start by sitting down with them.

The roles should be defined prior to the meeting, and the schedule a meeting.

Perhaps you might also want to also talk about the funding goals and guidelines with the legislative chairs and the governor’s office (bring it to them as an information item) before you talk to the ICT. Perhaps to get

some input. Alternatively, to start some discussion versus just keeping in the loop. If things needs to be set up, they need to be set up soon if you are going to be doing this in September.

The 10-year plan.

BWSR: We are going through a process over the next several months to have a strategy for December. Part of that is working with the local government roundtable recommendation of a complete shift of the funds being a direct allocation to the 1W1P.

Trying to set meeting up with ICT, Anna, and people in the legislature to run by what we are thinking ahead of time is a good idea. It does not hurt. We might not agree, but at least have the conversation.

Perhaps, since you will not have a meeting in August, perhaps meet with the legacy chairs (perhaps not the environmental chairs because that will be even more meetings). You could have ICT invited to the 9/8 and provide time on the agenda (they also sit on the Council). The PFA from the ICT is the only one not on the full Council. All the agencies will have time to send in their written comments before the September meeting. If the ICT wants to have a coordinated response, it could be in the September BOC meeting, so it will need to be during the staff transition. I would recommend you meet with at least the Legacy Committee Chairs (Senator Ruud and Representative Gunther), their staff, and the committee staff (two meetings).

Motion to adjourn, seconded, motion carries (WebEx 03:13:01).

1

DRAFT 7/7/17 DRAFT 10-Year Funding Goals for the Clean Water Fund (CWF) Developed by the Budget and Outcomes Committee (BOC) for the Clean Water Council (Council) Draft ideas were developed through a review of past stakeholder and agency input to the Council on CWF expenditures, the CWF Performance Report (2016), Nonpoint Priority Funding Plan (2016), Local Government Water Roundtable: Funding Workgroup Policy Paper (2016), and Minnesota’s Clean Water Roadmap (2014). It is also anticipated that the Governor will release 25% by 2025 water initiatives in early 2018.

1. Increase CWF dollars for implementation activities by 20-30% while decreasing CWF dollars for planning, technical assistance, monitoring, mapping, and data analysis.

2. Recommend 20-30% of CWF dollars annually for protection and restoration grants for local governments to implement actions identified in comprehensive watershed management plans (One Watershed One Plans or Metro Watershed Plans).

3. Recommend at least 20% of CWF dollars should be spent annually to protect drinking water

sources.

4. 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.

5. Require that implementation dollars require at least a 25% match unless low income needs

criteria are met.

6. Increase the current CWF investment for actions that address landscape drivers (e.g. perennial crops, climate change, drainage, and land conversion/development) to protect and restore waters.

7. Recommend at least 5% of CWF dollars are used to support new, innovative approaches for clean

water.

8. Using results from the Return on Investment Study, focus funding on the most cost-effective programs and projects that provide clean, sustainable water and ecosystem services.

9. Identify funding recommendations that would fund permanent conservation projects that provide

multiple benefits for water and habitat and discuss these items with the Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council particularly where projects can leverage both CWF and Outdoor Heritage Fund dollars.

10. Expand the number of entities eligible to receive CWF dollars for projects through a competitive

funding process.

11. Reduce the number of programs that receive CWF dollars by 10-20%.

1

Adopted at the 7/17/2017 Clean Water Council meeting

Budget and Outcomes Committee – Clean Water Council Schedule for developing FY19 and FY20-21 Clean Water Fund Recommendations

July – December 2017

Notes: BOC will be in contact with the Governor’s Office, Legislators and staff, and the Clean Water Interagency Coordination Team (ICT) throughout this process. Note the Governor’s 25% by 2025 Water Goals will likely be released in early 2018. Diamond shapes indicate Clean Water Council decision items. Stakeholder input on FY20-21 Clean Water Funds includes soliciting new program ideas. Note that Minnesota Management and Budget (MMB) releases their forecast for Clean Water Fund dollars in February-March and November-December each year.

July - August 2017 10-Year Draft Funding

Goals (BOC)

July - August 2017

Council and Stakeholder

Input

September - October 2017 10-Year Draft Funding Direction

& FY19 Funding Recommendations (BOC)

September - October 2017 Council and Stakeholder

Input

November - December 2017

Council & Stakeholder Input

November - December 2017 Start FY20-21 Funding

Recommendation Process (BOC)

Final 10-Year Funding

Goals

September 2017

October - November 2017

Final 10-Year Funding Direction & FY19

Funding Recs

2

January 2018 – May 2019

July - August 2018 Council and

Stakeholder Input

January - June 2018 Review FY20-21

Funding Proposals (BOC)

July - August 2018 Draft FY20-21 Funding

Recommendations (BOC)

January - June 2018 FY20-21 Funding

Proposal Presentations to

Council

Final FY20-21 Funding Recs

September 2018

September - October 2018 Draft FY20-21

Legislative Report (BOC)

Final Legislative

Report

December 1, 2018

December 2018 – May 2019

Council shares Legislative Report at

meetings and hearings

3

Definitions: BOC - Budget and Outcomes Committee, a subcommittee of the Clean Water Council Funding – refers to funds available from the Clean Water Fund Funding Goals – targets for the Clean Water Fund in the next 10 years. Usually these goals are more measurable than funding priorities. Funding Direction – general funding direction (e.g. increase, decrease, no funding compared with FY18-19 funding levels) Funding Priorities – List of significant ideas that serve as overarching guidance for developing biennial budget recommendations. Funding Recommendations – actual funding amounts (e.g. $20M) for each program proposal Legislative Report – biennial report to the Legislature and Governor which includes Clean Water Fund recommendations due on Dec. 1 Stakeholder – any citizen or group that would like to comment on draft funding documents developed by the Clean Water Council and their subcommittees Recs - Recommendations

1

Approved at the 7/17/2017 Clean Water Council meeting

Clean Water Council’s Guiding Principles and Funding Priorities for FY20-21 Clean Water Funds

Minnesota State Constitution, Article XI, Sec. 15 The Clean Water Fund may be spent only to protect, enhance, and restore water quality in lakes, rivers, and streams and to protect groundwater from degradation, and at least five percent of the clean water fund must be spent only to protect drinking water sources. The dedicated money under this section must supplement traditional sources of funding for these purposes and may not be used as a substitute. Guiding Principles

· Improve and protect water quality and preserve water quantity in accordance with

state and federal laws, without substituting for traditional sources of funding.

· Balance short-term progress with the long-term achievement of clean and sustainable water with a bias towards on-the-ground projects that have measurable outcomes.

· Promote programs that demonstrate significant new progress towards clean and sustainable water resources.

· Promote actions that protect groundwater quantity and quality particularly in

vulnerable drinking water areas. · Consider whether funded programs and projects are cost effective, provide the

greatest return on investment for ecosystem services, and how they fit into the entire need to reach clean and sustainable water.

· Encourage activities that change individual and institutional behaviors on the

landscape scale to accelerate water quality and quantity outcomes.

· Support programs where agencies innovatively share results to accelerate the adoption of successful projects.

· Promote agency coordination to efficiently utilize Clean Water Fund dollars.

· Keep water where it falls by promoting water storage, retention, and infiltration

where appropriate.

2

Funding Priorities FY20-21 Clean Water Funds will be prioritized for programs that: · Integrate the Council’s Policy Recommendations into the Council’s Budget

Recommendations where applicable.

· Address point and nonpoint pollution source issues. · Measure outcomes. · Restore impaired waters and protect high quality waters. · Leverage other available funds. · Implement activities from completed Watershed Restoration and Protection

Strategy (WRAPS), Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Implementation Plans, Comprehensive Local Water Management Plans, or Groundwater Plans.

· Target implementation activities through surface water and groundwater

monitoring.

· Implement the State’s Watershed Approach where deliverables contribute new, significant information to help achieve water quality and quantity goals.

· Strengthen local capacity to support nonpoint source implementation activities.

· Provide new enforcement of existing regulations that would achieve measurable

water quality and quantity outcomes.

· In order to comply with state water quality requirements, accelerate drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure improvements that rank high on Project Priority Lists for the Drinking Water or Clean Water Revolving Loan Funds.

· Have statewide benefits and applications.

· Prioritize projects on private lands where low income is a barrier for

implementation.

Minnesota Clean Water Fund Agency Budgeting Principles – March 2016 The following are principles developed by the state agencies that use Clean Water Funds (CWF), MPCA, MDA, MDNR, MDH, BWSR, PFA and the Metropolitan Council, to guide development of CWF budget recommendations. These principles were developed to ensure that funding recommendations are in accordance with requirements of the Minnesota Constitution and Minnesota Statute 114D.50.

1. Long Term Approach – The purpose of the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Constitutional Amendment, Clean Water Fund, is to provide a long term, predictable funding source to achieve clean water for Minnesota. In response, the agencies have developed a comprehensive suite of programs to address the major water resource issues in the state. This systematic and programmatic approach is intended to maximize the effectiveness of the CWF by taking a long-term view of funding needs rather than jumping from “hot topic” to “hot topic.” Therefore, the agencies will approach biennial budgets that build off the prior biennium rather than creating a new budget recommendation from scratch. This approach will allow flexibility as needs shift and new issues emerge, but it also provides consistency over time.

2. Supplement – The Constitution mandates that Legacy funds supplement traditional sources of funding. To this end, the agencies’ CWF budget recommendations will expand, and sustain the expansion of existing programs that monitor and assess the status of our water resources, research trends or new technologies, and implement clean water solutions. Budget recommendations also reflect new programs that accelerate the protection and restoration of water resources.

3. Agency Collaboration – The CWF agencies will coordinate the development of budget proposals and implementation of programs with each other.

4. Promote Innovation and Leverage of Other Funds– Within the long-term approach, the CWF offers an opportunity for innovation in approaches that should be pursued as opportunities arise. In addition, the CWF will not meet all the State’s funding needs, and other opportunities for funding and leveraging other funds should be pursued when appropriate.

5. Informed by Outcomes – Outcome based performance measures will be tracked and will be used to inform budget recommendations.

6. Coordination with the Clean Water Council – The agencies will coordinate the development of budget recommendations with the Clean Water Council to the extent possible.

STATE OF MINNESOTA

Office of Governor Mark Dayton 130 State Capitol+ 75 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard + Saint Paul, MN 55155

The Honorable Kurt Daudt Speaker of the House State Office Building, Room 463

May 30, 2017.

100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155

Dear Speaker Daudt:

Please be advised I have received, approved, signed, and deposited in the Office of the Secretary of State Chapter 91, House File 707, a bill funding provisions for the Outdoor Heritage Fund, Clean Water Fund, Parks and Trails Fund, and the Arts and Cultural Heritage Fund.

I am pleased that an agreement was reached on this bill, since there were policy provisions in the original bill proposed by the Legislature that I found objectionable. I am also glad the Lessard-Sams Citizen Council's recommendations were restored. Thank you for your commitment to the many sportsmen and women, outdoor recreation enthusiasts, hunters, anglers, and everyone else committed to the enhancement of our state's priceless outdoor heritage.

This bill leaves future work for the Legislature to address stable funding for Soil Water and Conservation Districts (SWCDs) and to fully fund the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). SWCDs rooted in our local communities supp01i landowners work to protect our soil and the quality of our water. They deserve and require certainty to retain staff and provide consistent services. While the Clean Water Fund meets immediate needs for SWCD funding, a long term solution is needed. The CREP program will support landowners' implementation of buffers and wellhead protection to protect our lakes, rivers, and drinking water. The tradeoff to reduce my request for CREP funding in order to fund SWCDs through the Clean Water Fund was disappointing. I was very pleased to set up the possibility of a payback in the event of a positive forecast in November.

Voice: (651) 201-3400 or (800) 657-3717 Website: http://�overnor.state.mn.us

Fax: (651) 797-1850 MN Relay (800) 627-3529 An Equal Opportunity Employer

Printed on recycled paper containing 15% post consumer material and state government printed

The Honorable Kurt Daudt . May 30, 2017 Page 2

With this, I expect that the Clean Water Fund payback of $22 million will restore the remainder of my 2017 recommendations including $17.25 million to CREP. Additionally, in 2018 I will be submitting a bonding request that will assure that CREP is fully funded. It is my hope that we will invest funds in CREP to leverage the maximum federal funding to support Minnesota farmers.

Jrr MarkD�o'-f-Governor

cc: Senator Michelle L. Fischbach, President of the Senate Senator Paul E. Gazelka, Senate Majority Leader Senator Thomas M. Bakk, Senate Minority Leader Senator Can-ie Ruud, Minnesota Senate

\

Representative Melissa Hortman, House Minority Leader Representative Bob Gunther, House of Representatives The Honorable Steve Simon, Secretary of State Mr. Cal R. Ludeman, Secretary of the Senate Mr. Patrick Murphy, Chief Clerk of the House of Representatives Mr. Paul Marinac, Revisor of Statutes

6/30/17

Excerpt of 2017 Minnesota Session Laws – Chapter 1 (HF1 – Omnibus Tax Bill) https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?year=2017&type=1&doctype=Chapter&id=1

ARTICLE 11 - MISCELLANEOUS

Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2016, section 16A.152, subdivision 2, is amended to read:

Subd. 2. Additional revenues; priority.

(a) If on the basis of a forecast of general fund revenues and expenditures, the commissioner of

management and budget determines that there will be a positive unrestricted budgetary general fund

balance at the close of the biennium, the commissioner of management and budget must allocate

money to the following accounts and purposes in priority order:

(1) the cash flow account established in subdivision 1 until that account reaches $350,000,000;

(2) the budget reserve account established in subdivision 1a until that account reaches

$1,596,522,000;

(3) the amount necessary to increase the aid payment schedule for school district aids and

credits payments in section 127A.45 to not more than 90 percent rounded to the nearest tenth

of a percent without exceeding the amount available and with any remaining funds deposited in

the budget reserve; and

(4) the amount necessary to restore all or a portion of the net aid reductions under section

127A.441 and to reduce the property tax revenue recognition shift under section 123B.75,

subdivision 5, by the same amount.; and

(5) the clean water fund established in section 114D.50 until $22,000,000 has been transferred

into the fund.

(b) The amounts necessary to meet the requirements of this section are appropriated from the general

fund within two weeks after the forecast is released or, in the case of transfers under paragraph (a),

clauses (3) and (4), as necessary to meet the appropriations schedules otherwise established in statute.

(c) The commissioner of management and budget shall certify the total dollar amount of the reductions

under paragraph (a), clauses (3) and (4), to the commissioner of education. The commissioner of

education shall increase the aid payment percentage and reduce the property tax shift percentage by

these amounts and apply those reductions to the current fiscal year and thereafter.

(d) Paragraph (a), clause (5), expires after the entire amount of the transfer has been made.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?year=2017&type=1&doctype=Chapter&id=1

Comparison of Clean Water Council recommendations with Final Clean Water Fund Appropriations (5/30/17)

Page 1

Activity Number Agency Program Name Program Description (text mostly provided by state agencies in 2016 - note

appropriation language in legislative bills is a different)

FY16-17 CWF Appropriations

FY18-19 CWC Recommendations

(9/19/16)

FY18-19 Governor Recommendations

(1/24/17)t

Council's Budget Committee Revised FY18-19 CWF Recs

(3/10/17) based on new MMB forecast

FY18-19 Final Clean Water Fund

Appropriations (5/30/17) 2017 MN Session Laws

Chapter 91 (HF707)

39 BWSRAccelerated Implementation

Enhance the capacity of local governments to accelerate implementation. Activities include: 1) increase in technical assistance through regional technical service areas, 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.

11,500,000 12,000,000 8,000,000 8,000,000 7,600,000

77 BWSRBuffer and Soil Erosion Law Implementation

Provides grants for purposes of supporting local governments in their implementation of the statewide buffer and excessive soil erosion laws.

5,000,000 6,800,000 6,800,000 6,800,000 5,000,000

402 BWSRBuffers - Cost-Sharing Contracts

For Soil and Water Conservation Districts for cost-sharing contracts with landowners or authorized agents to implement riparian buffers or alternative practices on public waters or public ditches consistent with Minnesota Statutes, section 103F.48. Of this amount, up to $2,500,000 may be targeted outside the 54-county Conservation Reserve Enhancement Area.

5,000,000

44 BWSRCommunity Partners Clean Water Program

Increase citizen and non-governmental organization participation in implementing water quality projects and programs to increase long-term sustainability of water resources. This effort and resources of active and engaged community groups, such as, lake associations, non-profits, and conservation groups, is supported through this program. This effort is delivered through local collaboration using a “small grants partners” program.

1,500,000 0 0 0 0

41 BWSRConservation 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 storage and treatment within public drainage systems by providing funding under the provisions of 103E.015.

1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000

78 BWSRConservation 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.

18,000,000 3,000,000 18,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000

79 BWSRCritical 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.

2,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000

90 BWSRGrants to Soil and Water Conservation Districts

For payments to soil and water conservation districts for the purposes of Minn. Stat. §§ 103C.321 and 103C.331.

22,000,000 0 0 0 22,000,000


Page 2





(9/19/16)


(1/24/17)t





Chapter 91 (HF707)

38 BWSRGrants to Watersheds with Multiyear Plans (Targeted Watershed Program)

Focuses on local units of government organized for comprehensive watershed management plan implementation of identified priority water resources where the amount of change necessary to improve water quality is known, the actions needed to achieve results are identified, and those actions are capable of achieving measurable outcomes.

9,750,000 0 11,000,000 0 0

40 BWSRMeasures, Results and Accountability

This fund is to provide state oversight and accountability for grants to local governments, 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.

1,900,000 1,900,000 1,900,000 1,900,000 1,900,000

310 BWSROne Watershed One Plan Implementation

A performance-based pilot grants program for local government units to implement projects that protect and restore surface water quality, 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 frameworks or groundwater plans.

12,000,000 0 11,000,000 9,750,000

45 BWSROne Watershed One Plan Planning (Water Management Transition)

Accelerate implementation of the State’s Watershed Approach through the statewide development of watershed-based local water planning (Minn. Stat. § 103B.801) that is synchronized with Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (WRAPS) and Groundwater Restoration and Protection Strategies (GRAPS).

4,200,000 4,200,000 4,200,000 4,200,000 3,990,000

42 BWSRRiparian Buffer-Permanent Conservation Easements

Purchase and restore permanent conservation easements on riparian buffers adjacent to lakes, rivers, streams, and tributaries. 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.

9,750,000 12,000,000 12,000,000 12,000,000 9,750,000

37 BWSR

Surface and Drinking Water Protection and Restoration Grants (Projects and Practices)

Grants to protect and restore surface water and drinking water; to keep water on the land; to protect, enhance, and restore water quality in lakes, rivers, and streams; and to protect groundwater and drinking water.

20,375,000 29,500,000 24,500,000 29,500,000 19,500,000

20 BWSRTargeted Wellhead/Drinking Water Protection

For permanent conservation easements on wellhead protection areas under Minn. Stat. § 103F.515, subd. 2d to permanently protect groundwater supply sources in wellhead protection areas.

3,500,000 3,500,000 3,500,000 3,500,000 3,500,000

43 BWSR Technical EvaluationFor a technical evaluation panel to conduct 10 restoration evaluations under Minn. Stat. § 114D.50, subd. 6.

168,000 168,000 168,000 168,000 168,000


Page 3





(9/19/16)


(1/24/17)t





Chapter 91 (HF707)

80 BWSRTillage and Erosion Transects

Program to systematically collect data and produce statistically valid estimates of the rate of soil erosion and tracking the adoption of high residue cropping systems in those 67 counties with greater than 30% land in agricultural row crop production.

1,000,000 850,000 850,000 850,000 850,000

301 BWSRWater Legacy Grants Program

Provides 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.

2,000,000 0 2,000,000 0

57 DNR Applied Research and ToolsMaintain 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.

1,350,000 1,350,000 1,700,000 1,350,000 1,350,000

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

0 2,000,000 0 2,000,000 0

18 DNRAquifer 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.

2,750,000 3,400,000 3,750,000 3,400,000 2,750,000

76A DNR Buffer Map MaintenanceUpdate and maintain maps of public waters and ditch systems that require permanent vegetation buffers.

650,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000

76B DNRColor 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.

650,000 0 0 0

59 DNR County Geologic AtlasesWork with the Minnesota Geological Survey to accelerate completion or updates to County Geologic Atlases that provide critical groundwater and geology information to local governments.

500,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000

7 DNRFish Contamination Assessment

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

270,000 270,000 270,000 270,000 270,000

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

0 2,000,000 0 1,500,000 0

6 DNR Lake IBI assessment Support MPCA’s lake water quality assessments by providing data and interpretation about fish and plant populations.

2,600,000 2,600,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000


Page 4





(9/19/16)


(1/24/17)t





Chapter 91 (HF707)

34 DNRNonpoint 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.

2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 1,900,000

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.

4,000,000 4,000,000 3,900,000 3,900,000 3,900,000

10 DNRWatershed Restoration and Protection Strategies

Work with state and local partners to provide expertise, data, analysis, and support for watershed studies and the development of watershed restoration and protection strategies.

3,880,000 3,970,000 3,970,000 3,970,000 3,772,000

63 LCCLegislative Coordinating Commission Website

Basic maintenance and general upgrades to the Legacy Website and underlying database.

0 15,000 0 15,000 15,000

55 MDAAcademic 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.

1,575,000 1,575,000 1,325,000 1,325,000 1,325,000

31 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.

150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000

81 MDAForever Green Agriculture Initiative

Develops new perennial and cover cropping systems specific to Minnesota that will protect and restore the state's surface and groundwater resources while increasing efficiency, profitability, and productivity of Minnesota farmers.

1,000,000 2,000,000 900,000 1,850,000 1,500,000

17 MDAIrrigation 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.

220,000 220,000 220,000 220,000 220,000

33 MDAMN Agricultural Water Quality Certification Program

The MAWQCP is a first of its kind partnership between federal and state government and private industry. The voluntary program targets water quality protection and enhancement on a field by field, whole farm basis. Through its innovative and nationally recognized process of comprehensively identifying and mitigating agricultural risks to water quality, the MAWQCP delivers on-farm protection and restoration of Minnesota’s water resources.

5,000,000 5,000,000 5,500,000 5,000,000 5,000,000

4 MDAMonitoring for Pesticides in Surface Water and Groundwater

Ongoing operation and maintenance of state-of-the-art laboratory instruments which provides increased capability and greater capacity for pesticide monitoring.

700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000


Page 5





(9/19/16)


(1/24/17)t





Chapter 91 (HF707)

15 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, demonstration, and adoption; Extension staffing; local advisory teams; and technical support.

5,171,000 4,171,000 4,171,000 4,171,000 4,171,000

307 MDAPesticide 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.

see notes 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000

56 MDAResearch 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.

100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000

32 MDA Technical Assistance

Technical assistance helps ensure accurate scientific information is available and used to address water quality concerns from agricultural practices. Funding is used to evaluate the effectiveness of conservation practices, support on-farm demonstrations, and enhance outreach and education to the agricultural community and local government partners.

2,250,000 2,250,000 2,400,000 2,250,000 2,250,000

75 MDAVegetative 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.

0 250,000 150,000 150,000 150,000

23 MDHDrinking Water Contaminants of Emerging Concern Program

Build new productive partnerships through education and outreach grants. Grants oriented towards actions to reduce contamination, including work on behavior change, will be preferred.

2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000

305 MDH Drinking Water Protection

For 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. Lead can impair child cognitive development among other effects.

0 300,000 0 300,000 300,000

74 MDHGroundwater 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 that dovetail with WRAPS or 1W1P efforts.

250,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000


Page 6





(9/19/16)


(1/24/17)t





Chapter 91 (HF707)

27 MDHGroundwater Virus Monitoring Plan

Based on the results of previous virus monitoring, determine pathogen transport pathways from contaminant sources such as buried sewers, leaky septic systems, surface water bodies, or animal feedlots to well intakes. Develop new wellhead protection measures or well construction measures as needed.

350,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000

28 MDHPrivate Well Water Supply Protection

Evaluate the occurrence and distribution of other contaminants in private wells. Develop additional education, outreach and interventions to protect private well owners.

650,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000

24 MDH Source Water Protection

Continue source water 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.

3,800,000 5,595,000 5,555,000 5,595,000 5,494,000

26 MDH Well Sealing Cost Share Continue addressing the need for sealing for both private and public wells. 225,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000

21Met Council

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.

1,950,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 1,900,000

72Met Council

Water Demand Reduction Grant Program Pilot

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

500,000 500,000 870,000 500,000 0

52 MPCA

Accelerated Implementation of Municipal Stormwater (MS4) Permit Requirements

Accelerated MS4 permit implementation activities through technical assistance and guidance.

550,000 557,000 557,000 557,000 450,000

62 MPCA Clean Water Council Budget The MPCA expects to continue to support the administrative activities of the Clean Water Council according to Minn. Stat. § 114D.30.

100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000

1 MPCA

Continue river and lake monitoring & assessment efforts to meet the 10-year cycle and determine pollutant loads

The first statewide 10-year cycle of monitoring and assessment will be completed in the winter of 2019. The design for the second cycle of IWM will also be piloted, and full implementation begun. The second cycle will include a focus on identifying any changes that have occurred at the major watershed level since the first cycle, and supporting state and local monitoring needs that are specific to each watershed. Continue to operate the statewide Watershed Pollutant Load Monitoring Network in cooperation with DNR, LGUs and USGS.

16,550,000 16,550,000 16,550,000 16,550,000 16,300,000


Page 7





(9/19/16)


(1/24/17)t





Chapter 91 (HF707)

12 MPCAEnhanced County Inspections/SSTS Corrective Actions

Complete update of LGU SSTS ordinances, continue to manage grants and reporting, policy and rule development as appropriate, inspections and enforcement, training, and unsewered area projects.

7,245,000 7,245,000 7,800,000 7,245,000 6,870,000

29 MPCAGreat Lakes Restoration Project

Implementation of the St. Louis River Remedial Action Plan. Major actions include addressing contaminated sediments at remaining sites and restoring approximately 1,700 acres of habitat. Implementation of the Plan will remove 8 remaining impairments by 2020 and formal delisting of the St. Louis River Area of Concern by 2025.

1,500,000 1,500,000 1,675,000 1,500,000 1,500,000

11 MPCA Groundwater Assessment

Groundwater monitoring and assessment to continue to track contaminant trends in an early warning well network, assess downward migration of key contaminants into drinking water aquifers, investigate potential new sources of contamination to the state’s groundwater, better understand the interaction between ground and surface waters in specific areas, inform restoration and protection strategies, and advance and evaluate effectiveness of groundwater protection BMPs.

2,363,000 2,363,000 2,363,000 2,363,000 2,363,000

92 MPCANational Park Water Quality Protection Program

The comprehensive plan identified over $40 million in projects over the planned project area. The FY18-19 budget request is $2,200,000 and will be distributed by the Voyageur’s National Park Clean Water Joint Powers Board for the planning, design, permitting, and construction of the Ash River, Island View, and Crane Lake projects.

2,000,000 2,000,000 0 2,000,000 2,000,000

202 MPCARiverwatch Activities in the Red River Watershed

The Red River Basin River Watch monitoring and education program (River Watch) engages K-12 students and citizens throughout the Red River Basin and will expand to the Lake of the Woods, Mississippi, and Lake Superior River Basins to deliver field-based applied watershed science and research activities in their local watersheds.

200,000 0 0 0 250,000

64 MPCASt. Croix River Monitoring and Phosphorus Reduction

The St. Croix River Association intends to continue working towards increasing and leveraging funding for local partners to implement phosphorus reduction activities based on needs outlined in the Lake St. Croix TMDL.

0 0 0 0 400,000

47 MPCAWastewater/Stormwater (NPDES) TMDL Implementation

Continue to enhance the implementation of the NPDES Wastewater program, including permitting, grant and loan administration, effluent limit determination, compliance and enforcement, training and certification, EAW review, and data analysis activities. This is in addition to baseline permit program work, responding to increased work resulting from CWF activities like TMDLs and WRAPS and permit requirements they call for.

1,800,000 1,800,000 1,957,000 1,800,000 1,800,000


Page 8





(9/19/16)


(1/24/17)t





Chapter 91 (HF707)

50 MPCAWatershed Research and Database Development

Development of MPCA data systems to support data management and access related to monitoring, assessment, WRAPS development, local water planning, and reporting on implementation activities.

2,155,000 2,310,000 2,310,000 2,000,000 1,000,000

9 MPCA

Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (includes TMDL development)

Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (WRAPS) reports, including TMDLs, are developed with local partners to determine pollution reduction and waterbody protection and restoration goals, milestones, strategies, and measures. WRAPS inform and help focus state and local government planning, funding, and implementation efforts.

20,290,000 20,290,000 20,463,000 20,049,000 19,047,000

48 PFAPoint Source Implementation Grants

The 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.

18,000,000 18,000,000 17,000,000 17,000,000 15,750,000

49 PFASmall Community Wastewater Treatment Program

The Small Community Wastewater Treatment Program provides grants and loans to assist small communities with technical assistance and construction funding to replace non-complying septic systems with community subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS).

500,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000

312 UMNClean 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.

265,000 0 265,000 265,000

61 UMN County Geologic Atlases The goal is to provide geologic atlases for every county in the state. 250,000 0 250,000 250,000

82 UMNStormwater BMP Performance Evaluation and Technology Transfer

Continued stormwater research funding is needed to address a backlog of research needs. The research strategy/roadmap process supported by FY 16-17 funding will identify research priority needs and provide a process for continually updating priorities in the future. Research will lead to actionable results, tools, and guidelines for agencies and municipalities to manage stormwater, including the 30,000 retention ponds in the state. A practitioner advisory group will guide selection of priority research projects. Activities to disseminate research results, initiated with FY 16-17 funding, will also continue.

550,000 1,500,000 0 1,500,000 1,500,000

230,187,000 220,514,000 214,124,000 211,613,000 211,870,000

Documents

Clean Water Council Budget and Outcomes Meeting, September 8, … · 2017. 9. 12. · Budget and Outcomes Committee (BOC) Meeting Agenda Clean Water Council (Council) Friday, September