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

Friday September 7, 2018 9:30 a.m. to 2:15 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 · Approve August 03, 2018 meeting minutes · Chair and Staff update

9:40 Updated/New Programs

· Irrigation Scheduling Software – Bruce Montgomery, MDA · Robust Drinking Water protection program – Chris Elvrum and Tannie Eshenaur, MDH · Updated Water Reuse program – Anita Anderson, MDH · Enhanced Cover Crop Adoption Program – Doug Thomas, BWSR · Carp Control at Watershed Level to reduce impairments – Dr. P. Bajer, University of

Minnesota · Public Information Campaign – Frank Jewell, CWC

11:00 Stakeholder letters regarding the BOC’s draft FY20-21 CWF Recommendations - Todd Renville and Sharon Doucette

11:30 Lunch 12:00 Finalize BOC FY20-21 CWF Recommendations – Todd Renville and Sharon Doucette 1:00 Draft Clean Water Fund Framework- Chris Elvrum, MDH/ICT 1:30 Discuss and potentially adopt the draft CWF framework – Todd Renville and Sharon Doucette 2:00 New Business: Future BOC Meeting Dates

October 5, 2018: 9:30 to 2:30 at MPCA Room 100 November 2, 2018: 9:30 to 2:30 at MPCA Room 100 December 7, 2018: 9:30 to 2:30 at MPCA Room 100 CANCELLED January 4, 2019 CANCELLED February 1, 2019 March 1, 2019 April 5, 2019 May 3, 2019 June 7, 2019

2:15 Adjourn

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

August 3, 2017, 9:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.

Committee Members present: John Barten, Sharon Doucette, Warren Formo, Bob Hoefert, Holly Kovarik, Todd Renville, Members absent: Frank Jewell and Pat Shea

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 · Meeting Agenda:

· Deepa: Addition of Minnesota Agricultural Diversification Steering Council project by the University ofMinnesota (UMN), as well as an updated Water Reuse program (page 5.15) by Minnesota Department ofHealth (MDH).

· Approved with additions· July 13, 2018 meeting summary approved· Chair and Staff update

· Interagency Coordination Team (ICT) and Council process: We received a summary document of all theproposed programs to be funded this biennium, under the goals. The agencies are taking this informationback to their commissioners before releasing it. We hope they will make this available by August 20 (fullCouncil meeting).

· At this time, we plan to have stakeholder comments open after this meeting, which will be collected andreviewed at the September meeting.

· Additions to the meeting packet today include two sets of stakeholder comments. One from the Coalition ofGreater Minnesota Cities. Freshwater Society also has comments (by specific program and in general). Thespreadsheet will be updated after this meeting with the updated changes to the recommendations.

Red River Basin River Watch (page 7.27, spreadsheet item #11) (WebEx 00:06:30) Questions: · How do you plan to expand this beyond the Red River Basin? Answer: In the expansion plan we have developed, we

are focusing on the River of Dreams program for fourth and fifth grade students. We would expand to eight othermajor watersheds. We would begin with developing the materials (i.e., maps, virtual tours, classroom activities),which are tailored to those watershed basins. We would expand the model out from the Red River Basin, workingwith local partners to enhance the watershed education. Within the first year (FY20), we would reach four-hundredstudents in those eight watershed basins, and then the next year (FY21) we would expand to reach another fifteenhundred.

· Have you reached out to the other watersheds to assess their interest? Answer: With the River of Dreams, we havenot done that outreach yet. With the River Watch Program, we currently host data from the St. Louis watchprogram. We have also worked with a group in the Minnesota River Watershed. In addition, we just expanded in toNorth Dakota. We will not be able to meet the need of the teachers who want to be a part of this program. It is apopular program. The way the kids interact with the canoes and online; it has become a popular program and thedemand is very high. If we expand, we will reach out to the school districts, and if they agree, we set it up. After thefirst time, they usually want to do this program every year.

· This fits within the Governor’s 25 by 25 focus on education. It is outside the normal route (goes through a stateagency). I recommend that we highlight this program, and return to it at the end of today. If we have adequatefunds, we move forward to accept this.

· Do the funds go directly to the program? Answer: The funds goes through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency(MPCA). Comment by Glenn Skuta: The allocation of those funds have passed through the MPCA since the fundshave been provided. The concern we have, is that sometimes the funds come out of the allocation for the MPCA.We place our budget for the work we need to do, and if these funds come out of it, it reduces our budget and weare left with a hole for those funds. We support and like the work the Red River Watch is doing, and have noproblem having the funds to pass through the MPCA, but we are concerned that it will reduce our funds.

· If this were a statewide program, I would feel better about allocating funds. Is there a way to make a requirement for it to be more of a statewide? Response: The cleanest way, is to have it be identified in the appropriate language. Comment: That is our goal to spread and enhance this across the state. Comment: There are many educational programs, locally and for fairness, there are other entities that are doing educational programs as well. I do not know how you make that fair.

· This group has been very successful at the Legislature. Whether we approve it or not, we can make our stand. Everyone is in agreement that the program is sound. I like the idea of making it a statewide program, which addresses the fairness issue.

· It has been a good program, and it has been funded. It has a track record. I agree, if we are expecting that it will be supported, I think it should be included within it. Do we know where the funds came from this last session? If we support it in the end, then we have made a decision about where the funds are coming from ourselves, versus leaving that up to the Legislature. · Note, in FY18-19, $250,000 was passed through from the MPCA budget to the Red River Watershed Monitoring

Board. Voyageurs National Park Water Quality Program (page 7.23, spreadsheet item #23) (WebEx 00:23:30) Questions: · Frank Jewell, who is unable to be here today, was supportive of the funding request, and the only program he

mentioned specifically. · Of the total sewage flow of all of the four sites, what is the percentage of it from private properties versus the

tourism? Answer: To quantify it you would need to look at it from the resorts and camping sites. The resorts make up about 70-80% of total flow on the systems we have designed. Each site is unique and the number can fluctuate.

· A majority of it is directly connected to the visitors, which is affecting the national park, so I am supportive of this. · Is this enhanced by any funds from the national park registry? Answer: The national park was prohibited under

national law to spend money outside of the park. All of these areas are outside of the national park area. The Army Corps of Engineers appropriated $4.5 million in section 529. We will go back and ask for more funding. When we get money from other areas (like the CWFs), it helps us leverage more funds.

· Approximately what percentage of dollars are used as grants to help with small community systems versus individual systems? Answer: All but Crane Lake are connecting into a community system. However, Crane Lake is a combination (there is an island so it manages some individual systems). People think their system is fine, but then we find out that it is not after it is inspected.

· What are the residents thinking? Answer: There are a mix. Some people leave in the winter, some stay year round in these remote locations.

· We fund grants to help folks upgrade systems across the state, including the program through the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR). My question is regarding fairness. I am not being critical, but we want to make sure we are on par with this across the state. Is there a low-income requirement, loan, or grant funds? Answer: We are addressing it because we have a wide variety of resources to bear these projects. We have to apply for Public Facilities Authority (PFA) and we have to meet guidelines. The Equivalent Dwelling Unite (EDU) prices are paying a lot compared to the rest of the Metro area. Comment: In the agricultural area, there are higher prices as well.

· Place on the table, to make sure the balance is correct. Agency Budgets: Non-point source implementation: · AgBMP Loan Program – Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) (page 4.7, spreadsheet item #33) (WebEx

00:39:30) Questions: § Is this revolving? Answer: Yes, it is revolving funds. I comes back to the same fund and to the same county so

they can keep using these revolving funds. § Does this help offset the landowner share? Could they borrow some funds? Answer: They could borrow the

percentage (i.e., 25%) but we have often 100% funding for septic systems (might be a small grant funded elsewhere for their project).

§ I recommend this as steady.

§ I look at some of the changes in the agricultural landscape. Often, they need a piece of equipment, in order to do less tilling. Sometimes it is more costly. If these funds were available, it would be a big help. Perhaps, they are not ready for it yet.

§ Do you know what percent of the money being put out right now for septic systems? Answer: This last year it has been about 40%. We do many septic systems.

§ What percent are you doing for those agricultural practices? Answer: About 40% goes to tillage equipment, 40% for agricultural and feedlot practices, the rest is for primarily septic systems. It addresses nonpoint issues.

§ Recommend accept the program amount. · MN Agricultural Water Quality Certification Program – MDA (page 4.1, spreadsheet item #34) (WebEx 00:50:00) § I noticed in the past two biennia there is some funding from the USDA-NRCS at $4.5 million. Do you anticipate

that it will continue? Answer: It is a five-year RCPP grant. They are dollars leveraged for the certification program, to help pay for practices. There is no guarantee it will go past the five years. They go to implementation practices only.

§ The One Watershed One Plan (1W1P) funding could be used to implement some of these practices and certifications. Response: Correct.

§ Accept recommendation. · Technical Assistance Program – MDA (page 4.27, spreadsheet item #35) (WebEx 00:58:00) § You have an additional million, what supports that? Answer: We have about five core programs we are

supporting this (Root River Field to Stream, Discovery Farms Minnesota, there are two drainage projects – in Clay County and Wilken County, and the Nutrient Management Initiative). As we have built these programs and made an initial investment, at various times we had some cost savings. Now, we are at full capacity staff and programs, this funding would help us maintain these programs.

§ Accept recommendation. · Vegetative Cover and Soil Health – MDA (page 4.31, spreadsheet item #36) (WebEx 01:02:00) § How is this different from the Forever Green Implementation? Answer: This was a small investment, for a

feasibility study. The second part of this funding would be used to address concerns from that feasibility study. Our marketing division has some grants available, so we want to leverage those grants with the $50,000 dollars we have in this program saved. We are looking to find if there is a market opportunity that is either a traditional or new market opportunities. For example, for livestock feed or the brewery industry, to help bring this to local areas to grow in vulnerable areas.

§ How is this different from the other program? Answer: This involves that feasibility study. Additionally, this is focused on the traditional or existing foraging crops. The Forever Green Implementation are looking at the new crops. So this one looks at the existing ones that are familiar, encourage growth that is more widespread.

§ We have it as no funding. My issue is the funds are going towards a marketing effort. § Accept as it is, and talk about possibly including these programs together (possibly at the next biennium). They

are complimentary. It is reflective of the need for this area. · St. Louis River Area of Concern/Duluth Harbor Cleanup – MPCA (page 7.15, spreadsheet item #39) (WebEx 01:16:30) § We heard from an individual doing habitat restoration, is that program still ongoing for them? I think it was one

of the tribes working with a wild rice project. Answer: There are two components to the wild rice story. We have a remedial action plan that has specific tasks and projects to be implemented to meet the targets, in order to be delisted. There is a lot of work happening in these estuaries that is not one of our 68 approved management actions. One restoration task is restoring 275 acres of wild rice habitat, and that is ongoing (takes multiple years). There are many other wild rice projects following in other parts of the estuary.

§ Accept recommendation. Agency Budgets: Point source implementation · NPDES Wastewater/Stormwater TMDL Implementation Program – MPCA (page 7.11, spreadsheet #42) (WebEx

01:25:00) § Regarding the wastewater, should this be funded with user fees? How much of the budget would be for the

wastewater permit fees provide in a given year? What is the realistic potential of what can be sustained right now? Assuming Legislative approval, could that be increased? Answer: We are currently looking at evaluating and changing the user fees to better reflect the work and funding we need. I do not know the numbers on an

annual basis (I can provide this to you), and we are working towards that. There is an advisory committee looking into the user fees to increase them.

§ Accept recommendation. · Accelerated Implementation of MS4 Permit Requirements – MPCA (page 7.1, spreadsheet item #38) (WebEx

01:35:30) · No questions · Accept recommendation.

· Point Source Implementation Grant (PSIG) Program- PFA (page 8.1, spreadsheet item #43) (WebEx 01:38:30) · No questions · Accept recommendation.

· Small Community Wastewater Treatment Program – PFA (page 8.3, spreadsheet item #44) (WebEx 01:40:30) · Does this leverage additional funds? Response: I think it is a revolving fund. · Accept recommendation.

New Programs (WebEx 01:41:30) § Chloride Reduction Program – MPCA (Page 10.1, spreadsheet #41) (WebEx 01:44:00) § Do you go to other agencies, or the Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Fund (LSOHF) to match or get more funds?

Answer: This has only used the section 319 grants in the past. In the wastewater side, it is more of an emerging issue. Comment: The rural areas, if there are no upgrades, they drain right into the rivers and lakes, and this has to influence the fish habitat. I think the LSOHF would be interested as well. Response: We will look into that.

§ I think this aligns perfectly with the Chloride Policy the Council adopted. I am supportive and it goes a long way towards reducing chloride. Personally, I have seen reduced chloride by taking steps myself (replaced water softener to more efficient one). I think it is a great program and over time will be impacting.

§ This is a start to get going. § Is this an official ICT request? Answer: Correct. § We have had staff go through this, it is a fantastic program, and it has shown a reduction in road salt. Comment:

Reducing the cost of winter road maintenance and chloride in the environment is a win-win. § Accept recommendation.

§ Forever Green Implementation – MDA (Page 10.3, spreadsheet #40) (WebEx 01:52:00) § This aligns with one of the Council’s policies as well. A program like this would help the crops in the areas with

wellhead sensitivity area. This would help and they are necessary. § Accept recommendation.

§ Support for a Minnesota Agricultural Diversification Steering Council and Network (WebEx 01:55:00) § Forever Green Initiative (handout) § Forever Green Initiative, Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA), industry, agencies, non-profit groups

presented at February, April, June, Clean Water Council Policy Committee Meetings. § Forever Green, MDA, and BWSR developed a draft policy statement for a market-driven approach to clean

water by increasing continuous productive vegetative cover in Minnesota agriculture, with funding implications.

§ The program proposal developed: support for a Minnesota Agricultural Diversification Steering Council and Network § Our goal today is to share and discuss the program proposal.

§ Draft Policy Statement: Take coordinated action to help achieve clean water by market-driven strategies that increase continuous productive vegetative cover across Minnesota’s agricultural regions. § Continuous living cover crops are key (intermediate wheat grass like Kernza, pennycress, winter barley,

alfalfa, hazelnuts) § Continuous Living Cover Crop Pipeline Status

§ Multiple crops in early stage commercialization § Emerging markets and supply chains § Need to expand markets and supply chains to drive further commercialization

§ Industry shared perspective: The industry is very interested in continuous living cover crops, are willing to be proactive and assume some risk, want to share the risk, interested in public-private partnership, and there is a need to address current challenges.

§ 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 § Accelerate development of market driven strategies § Make connections between groups working on different aspects of Forever Green crops § Increase efficiency and leverage resources § Enhanced coordination will help address the “chicken and egg” problem of expanding both demand

(markets) and the supply (supply-chains). § Agricultural Diversification Network

§ To accelerate the development and commercialization of new corps (e.g., perennial and winter-annual crops) that enhance continuous productive vegetative cover.

§ Establish and sustain key working relationships between public, private, and non-profit sectors to accelerate market-driven strategies that will advance Minnesota’s agricultural and water-based economies.

§ Key activities: co-develop perennial and winter-annual crops and cropping systems, supply chains that deliver crops to market and profitable end-use markets. By research, pilot policies, programs, and implementation projects. Collaborations among public, private, and non-profit sectors.

· By: research, pilot policies, programs, implementation projects · How: collaborations among public, private, and non-profit sectors

§ Create and Facilitate a Steering Council · Secure resources for all aspects of crop development and commercialization · Coordinate public and private investments to operate the Network · Advocate for supportive public policy · Link Minnesota’s efforts to other regional, national, and international scales

§ Potential Membership: · Public agencies that address agriculture, health, environment, and economic development · Private-sector firms involved in food, agriculture, bioeconomy, and water economy sectors · Non-profits groups · Research Institutions

§ Funding needed to support 1.5 full-time employee coordination positions: dedicated staff capacity to expand and sustain connections between various partners and aspects of crop development, market development, and commercialization.

· 1.5 full-time employees housed at the University of Minnesota · $300,000 over two year period (salaries and other expenses) · Funding passed through MDA to UMN

Questions: § The Policy Committee has been looking at this in the last six months. We have heard from these different

groups. We have the research piece. From the Policy Committee’s perspective, we were looking for how to move this forward. We have heard, in order to move closer to water quality we want, we need to diversify our cropping system and have soil covered for longer during the year. This Network helps coordinate this work. The funds have not been used like this before, but we need to step up, as a missing policy piece to get this work going. At least in the short term to get this off the ground and moving, to help get the vegetative cover on the landscape. I support this for those reasons.

§ If these Forever Green programs were all together, it would be almost $4 million. Instead of separating them out and letting the Legislature move funds, why not you place it, all in one package? I do not know how difficult it would be for these programs. This might be beneficial for getting the Forever Green agenda complete. Response: We could try to figure something out at the next appropriation. Comment: At a minimum, we could include those two Forever Green Implementation pieces, in separate line items. There does not need to be four separate funds in the budget. Response: The original Forever Green is the research item. You can probably combine all three into only one and keep the research item separate.

§ I think it makes sense to roll it into the Forever Green Implementation, and some fund used to support diversification network. Alternatively, create that Forever Green umbrella. These fit well together because it is passed through to the UMN. If you bundle them (research, implementation, and network). They are more

related, and this would help to reduce confusion. This is a systems approach to move it onto the landscape. On first impression, I am supportive on that.

§ They will work to reorganize the package on Forever Green. Those three lumped together. They would like to receive an ICT approval.

§ Water Reuse (page 5.15, not on spreadsheet) (WebEx 02:17:00) § Program description has been updated in the Council binders. § The first recommendation in the report is to create an expanded workgroup with practitioners, advisors, and

stakeholders to continue development of standards and programs. § This was brought forward at the Environmental Quality Board as well. We have not heard anything from them

at this time. § The funding was passed to other agencies to support their participation in the development of the reuse

report, to the UMN for risk assessment data collection and used for facilitation services. § This program needs to continue, just not under the MDH, although they are happy to manage pass through

funds to whatever group is willing to work on this project. § We have some concerns; we are in the process of completing a white paper regarding water quality standards.

The results will be public health advice. There needs to be a group working on the water reuse in the state. We need a body of people who are engaged in this, as well as promoting water reuse.

Questions: § What is going to be in the whitepaper? Answer: Our water quality guidance. This would not be based on

schedules but based on credits. That has been used more successfully in other states. § Could you explain to me the structure? There is a need for the program to continue, but there is not structure

set up. Answer: Correct, it has to be shared by all the agencies, with their different roles and responsibilities. We would have a contractor: have a Request for Proposals (RFP), and invite people to compete to administer the process. A non-governmental organization could apply to do this. A few examples would be Freshwater Society, or Environmental Initiative. The last funding we received in FY16-17 ($350,000) was passed through (research at UMN or other water projects). Our situation right now has changed, and we are no longer able to work with this.

§ Did it come through the ICT? Answer: It came through the ICT, and at the time, they were making their decisions with the budget and we still had the opportunity to go in front of the Environmental Quality Board. Therefore, we did not make it to that ICT budget.

§ I was involved with the process of the report, and can speak for the local agencies that the funds did not go where we wanted it to go. Our voices were not heard. Knowing that the white paper is going to come out and it is going to look like the recommendations from the Reuse Report. Having it from the MDH will be enough to have the cities stop using these work systems.

§ What were the main concerns? Answer: Bacteria and virus. The treatment is UV and microfiltration. Between the cost of filtration as well as the replacement – including figuring out how to place these systems outside. It completely changes the cost depending on where they are placed (and who can manage running them). We do not have enough data with viruses and bacteria in water reuse. Response: The best approach for water reuse is to be conservative. There is a need for more data. There is a lack of understanding of what is in the water that is being turned into an aerosol mist and sprinkled on a field. We are presently basing the recommendations on work complete around the world. We would like it if we had more data on use in Minnesota. We do want to have water reuse, but it is important to move forward safety.

§ Would this board facilitate research, or would it be more like an outreach? Answer: This would not be a board, but would be more like a work group. It would have a combination of people on it from different areas. There could be more research to better tailor the advice. In addition, outreach and education would be included to help move this forward.

§ I think water reuse is tricky. § I am looking at the number of activities they have to work with. Where can we place more implementation on

the ground? This could be a really big item for funding to get it going more. § On the other hand, if we could shift some of the irrigation from groundwater to stormwater, this would be a

win-win. From that perspective, I would like to see some way we could proceed from that. Then the water for lawns is not a once use water. Comment: The MDH are not looking to be in the business of water reuse. We are more from a public health protection side.

§ Do you see this as a long-term program? What happens after the next few biennia? Answer: I am hoping there will be a way out of this workgroup; I hope it can sustain itself without the CWFs. We need to define the roles and establish more items, more research to target our guidance. I do not see it as a long-term effort from the MDH; someone has to run with this for now.

§ It is something we need to keep working on, and the MDH has stepped up to help in this area. § Part of me disagrees, but more importantly, the whitepaper is coming out. We need to answer the public

health risk. There is research we need to have done. If this group gets this research done, then we can take those next steps. It makes a lot of sense for conservation as well.

§ How will this funding be used? Answer: Pass through for facilitation. They will talk about how it is used. It might be able to do a few small projects.

§ Where would the additional funding come? Answer: Some could be the UMN in the stormwater research group. I am not sure about the other possibilities. Part of it is putting together a list of what is needed.

§ I think if there were room in the budget, I would support it. § Come back to this for a final decision.

BOC Budget Deliberations (WebEx 02:38:00) § We would like to have a complete budget at the end of this meeting. I would suggest we make our way through

the list of the items we wanted to follow up on. At this point, we are not sure what the ICT wants while we go through this list. Some of the programs we wanted to see an increase in funding. All of us are aware that there is a strong push to have the same budget this year (between the ICT and CWC). That is the goal we are striving towards. We do not have to be at that level today, but we need to be there by November.

§ Shannon Lotthammer, MPCA, on the ICT: We want to be respectful of your process. I am here as a resource if you have any questions.

§ County Geologic Atlases, Department of Natural Resources (DNR) (spreadsheet #57) (WebEx 02:40:30):

· Jason Moeckel (DNR) via WebEx: The Legislature cut the funding from the Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR) in the last few hours of the 2018 session. The LCCMR asked us to resubmit the proposal this summer. They are recommending funding for the next Legislative session. We have figured out a way to maintain the program to the end of the fiscal year (June 2019). This funding through LCCMR is not as stable as we would like, so we are aiming for stability. We do not know what the Legislature will do this next session with these funds. I think you can lower the number for now, but I do not want to encourage an amount. Perhaps back to the amount it was recommended a few months ago ($300,000). Perhaps there is a way to say you support the LCCMRs proposal, instead of out of CWFs.

· Could you speak to whether the UMN was a part of that recommendation as well, in their portion of the atlas program? Answer: I do not know the exact dollar amount, but I believe it was less than what they were requesting. I will search through my emails and see if I can come up with some specifics.

· If he is saying to go to $300,000 on line #57, I think these are extremely important and I would like to see them funded. I am fine if the Council supports them in this way, to get the work done.

· So this moves from $1.8 million to $300,000. Answer: Correct. · I found an email regarding the UMNs portion. They recommended at about half of the funding. They

would need to recommend and authorize that amount each year. You will have to choose here. · I think the idea was to try to accelerate these. · If we leave it as is, at least $300,000 will be presented in the budget. I will be interested to hear what

comes out of the stakeholder comments. · Are we able to mark it somehow, that we could change it? Deepa marked item.

§ Aquifer Monitoring for Water Supply Planning, DNR (spreadsheet #1) (WebEx 02:51:30):

· The proposed budget is $4,050,000. We asked you about your capacity if we wanted to allocate more funds. Would you be able to talk to us about this again? Answer: We use our own drill rigs for many of the wells. This funding helps cover costs of the materials (i.e., pipe, staff time). However, some of the wells need to be deeper. If we had more funds, we could use the drills more. We have regular contracts with other drillers (we can only go down about 100 feet with our drills). Therefore, these funds help with drilling as well, if we need to hire an outside company to drill the deeper holes. Many of the wells in the

Metro area are deeper, bedrock, aquifers. They are more expensive and are contracted out to the other drillers. We could add more wells each year with more funding. Our well costs vary, but an average each year for the last several years, is about $10,000. This last week we ran the numbers to maintain the wells, it was averaged about $1,100 each year for ongoing maintenance. These network costs are going to increase with the more we drill. We need about 500 wells more. A network of about 1,000 wells (current) will have these ongoing maintenance costs (roughly $1.5 million dollars). One way to think about it is possibly a one-time appropriation until spent (just about out of previous appropriations of such funds). If there is some one-time money available, you could consider a one-time payment to help cover these costs. Then, we could continue to use that and plan out for the next few years. It is one way to consider a way to get more wells installed quickly.

· Looking at the notes, the current request would be enough to do 50 more wells (in the notes). Answer: I do not think that is correct. Our goal is to do about 50 a year. The funding recommended right now would only produce about 20-25. When I presented last time, as agencies and ICT we are cognizant of all of the program costs, so we were reluctant to ask for more funds because we do not know what funding will be provided to other funds. I am trying to provide you the information to help you make your decisions.

· We have met or exceeded the 50 wells a year for the last nine years. We will not be able to sustain that moving forward.

· Therefore, that would probably need to be doubled to hit the 50. There would need to be about another 30 wells at $10,000 each. That would need to be about $4,650,000.

· Accept recommendation.

§ Stream Flow Monitoring, DNR (spreadsheet # 5) (WebEx 03:05:00) · We highlighted this one because we wanted to keep it at a steady funding level, and this

recommendation was an increase in funds. · I think it was a concern from some of the stakeholders. · We were comfortable with the ICTs proposal. We have additional funds, and if it goes towards

implementation, I think the stakeholders would not be too upset. I think it would be better to allocate those additional funds than let the Legislature decide.

· Leave it at $4.4 million, which would be an increase, but held steady at the recommendation of the ICT. · Accept recommendation.

§ Monitoring for Pesticides in Surface Water and Groundwater, MDA (spreadsheet #6) (WebEx 03:08:00): · We highlighted it for potential decrease. · I would recommend not decreasing it, because there may be some Legislative push back if we do

decrease it. · Accept recommendation.

§ Pesticide Testing of Private Wells, MDA (spreadsheet #7) (WebEx 03:09:00): · We highlighted this for a potential decrease as well. · Where does the township testing program get their funding from? Answer: It comes from the CWFs. It

would be under the Nitrate in Groundwater program (item # 47). It includes many different activities, within that is the Township Testing Program.

· Keep as proposed. Accept recommendation. § Red River Watch (Red River Watershed Board), MPCA (spreadsheet # 11) (WebEx 03:12:00):

· I am trying to be pragmatic about this allocation. Philosophically there is no disagreement that this is a good program. It does come out of CWFs. They have come to us and presented as we have asked them to do for funding.

· They did try to expand the program statewide. I still struggle with this. Either we plan for the funds now, or we scramble the last minute to figure out where the money is going to be taken from. I do not want it to be taken from the MPCAs other work.

· I agree. I would suggest we have the recommendation that it would be for a statewide program, including the Red River. Therefore, we can recommend that $500,000 for the state. That helps us stay away from picking one particular watershed to fund education. We want to be fair.

· I am supportive of the work they are doing. They have lobbying power. I understand what we are trying to do by having a discussion and having a little control over where the funding is coming from, and I can appreciate that. However, this does not feel right, as much as I appreciate where they are coming from.

· I think it is a worthwhile program. We have the additional funds, so I would like to see it funded. · We will have to vote on this item:

§ Yes, in favor of funding (amending the language to make it a statewide program): 3 votes § No, no funding: 2 votes § This item is approved recommended funds.

§ Water Management Transition (One Watershed One Plan), Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) (spreadsheet # 17) (WebEx 03:16:30):

· We highlighted it for a potential increase. · We would like to line up with the ICTs recommendations. · Doug Thomas could you share your thoughts if there was an increase in the funds. Doug Thomas, BWSR

response: Our recommendation is to stay at the proposed $4.54 million. This is connected to the local readiness. Some of the counties are in about four local watersheds, and that is a lot of work to do projects in all of them at once. They do not have the capacity yet to work at once on all these 1W1P developments. It is challenging and we are maxed out at our BWSR agency staffing abilities to help map these out for them. At this funding and pace, that provides us with about 14-15 plans done per biennium, which keeps us on the goal that we have to be done by 2025. That is where we are at on that plan. Incrementally we can start to increase.

· The number you are getting in applications, does that work for you? Answer: We just closed requests for proposals. We had nine submit interests, with current staffing levels, we were able to help plan seven of those. Our plan is to carry other the last two and keep this process rolling. It is difficult to predict how many will come in each year. We have the ability to forward spend; we can fund projects using second year funds appropriated.

· Keep the proposed ICT recommendation. § Grants to Watersheds with Multiyear Plans/One Watershed One Plan, BWSR (spreadsheet #18) (WebEx

03:20:30) · The ICTs request to FY20-21 was $25 million, and an additional $4.422 million from FY19 supplemental

budget recommendations, total about $29 million. · Accept recommendations

§ Surface and Drinking Water Protection /Restoration Grants (spreadsheet # 27) (WebEx 03:21:00): · We received a note from the Governor’s Office, which they strongly suggest we have this program split

out into a surface water and a drinking water program. We originally proposed about $5 million minimum.

· Would that be something the agency could complete, as part of this budgeting process? Answer from Doug Thomas (BWSR): We would have to manage two different RFPs (one for surface water and one for drinking water). The only challenge we see is that many projects have multiple benefits (working towards a strategy for surface water, but helps groundwater). It is not a big issue for us to separate. We would manage it. Perhaps a different set of scoring, in order to judge the projects differently. It might be a benefit as well.

· We are not sure on the rationale behind the request. We were not able to meet with Anna Henderson this week, but it was a general request. Comment: We have had discussions with the Governor’s Office and BWSR, some of the groundwater and surface water projects, sometimes do not score as well due to the priorities, targets, and scoring method. A lot of prevention for groundwater and drinking water is hard to measure, when the outcome is to not change (i.e. prevent degradation). Therefore, separation could help drinking water projects get funding.

· My understanding was to see two distinct programs with the funding split up. My concern, is that splitting the funds, then what is the appropriate allocation to each program?

· It would have been nice to have the conversation this morning. I would propose $27 million for surface water and $5 million for drinking water in the separate line item.

· I agree. I think we should split it up.

· Doug Thomas: If the BOC would like, the ICT and the Governor’s Office could have a talk and share a little more to get both perspectives. We would be willing to do that, and if it helps you with your decisions regarding the funding recommendations on whether to consolidate or not. Response: We would like to get the accounting complete if possible today. Comment from Shannon Lotthammer (MPCA): From that standpoint, if that feedback helps you move forward, we would be solid on at least $5 million for the drinking water projects, and $27 million for the other combined surface water projects. Then, we can engage with the Governor’s Office a more sufficient way to process that administratively. Alternatively, process these funds this biennium, and move forward with the anticipated changes in the next biennium.

· Yes, that would work for us. · Accept recommendation.

§ Color Infrared Imagery Analysis, DNR (spreadsheet # 30) (WebEx 03:28:00): · I think counties were what we were talking about with this program. · Yes, I think there was some mention of the counties being upset by this. Some counties do this already. · Jason Moeckel (DNR): We have historically collaborated with the counties. Some maybe were expressing

not wanting the DNR to do the work, but generally speaking, we would like to continue the partnership and cost sharing as much as we can.

· Accept the ICT recommendation. § Aquatic Management Area, DNR (spreadsheet # 31) and Forests for the Future, DNR (spreadsheet # 32) (WebEx

03:30:30): · There is no funding recommended. This was something we recommended last year. This was something

you promoted in the last biennium. We are in a unique position of having additional funds. I would like to see the additional funds moved into the Forests for the Future (item #32), but I would like feedback about this program, if you feel strongly about it for additional funds.

· I agree with adding $1.5 M into Forests for the Future, as we talked about it for the supplemental budget. I like the aquatic management areas. After some thought, maybe it would be better to focus on this, to help get this one funded.

· I would agree. The question would be, we are supplemental only $1 million, because that is what we have after the rest of the recommendations we have added. Would we want to go back up to the $1.5?

· Shannon Lotthammer (MPCA): Regarding the additional funding, the Council is considering. Sometimes as individual agencies, if we do not speak up, it sounds like we are not supportive. I want to make it clear, we want to give you the space to make your decisions as a Council, and it does not mean we are not supportive of a particular item moving forward. I think everyone knows that, but I wanted to say it aloud. We are here to represent our agencies, and our agency proposals, it does not mean we are against other needs that the Council is considering.

· I would propose $1.5 million for the Forests for the Future and nothing for the Aquatic Management Area. Recommendation accepted.

· Note this funding may change depending on the February (2019) forecast. · There are not a lot of implementation programs, in terms of protection. These are the tools at hand.

Please consider what other preventative protections can be used in this area as well. § Nitrate in Groundwater, MDA (spreadsheet # 47) (WebEx 03:38:30):

· In my view, if we have the capacity we should fund it. This is a really important thing to get a handle on. I would support this increase.

· Accept recommendation. § National Park Water Quality Protection Program, MPCA (spreadsheet # 52) (WebEx 03:41:00):

· I struggle with this project. However, I feel like this area is special, similar to the funds for Lake Superior. There are areas of the state that have enough issues and concerns that warrant this kind of funding.

· I have an easier time with these funds. · Accept recommendation.

§ Agricultural Research/Evaluation, MDA (spreadsheet # 58) (WebEx 03:42:30): · We highlighted this one for potentially increasing. Margaret Wagner, would you be able to provide your

side on this program?

· Margaret Wagner (MDA): That recommendation came up at the last BOC meeting. As it relates to increased funding for the Forever Green Initiative, as we looked at increased funding there, it bought us to look at some of the other research priorities. It was brought up, as you consider the other research programs, you also consider this one. That you would think about the other needs in agricultural research of crops. The BOC asked if we have the capacity if given increased funding, and we do have the capacity. We do have proposals that are beyond the available funding, and will benefit from additional funds.

· I would prefer implementation to research. I would recommend keeping this as the ICT recommended at $1.325

· Accept recommendation. § Forever Green Agriculture Initiative UMN/MDA (spreadsheet # 59) (WebEx 03:44:00):

· At the last BOC, we were asked about what the university wants. That is where the increase came from. The UMN has a budget that is larger than the ICTs. The UMN are asking for $4-$5 million dollars for research per biennium.

· Did the supplemental bill by Representative Paul Torkelson include Forever Green Initiative? Response: Yes, I think you are right. I was wondering if we should look at an increase, even if it happens anyway. I do not know if that will be the case, but it seems like there is Legislative support for it.

· I would be more in favor of that if it were connected to the other Forever Green item as well. · An increase to the program as a whole. It could go into line items to help keep track. · Is it traditional research? Answer: For that research, I think it goes beyond traditional research. It is not

just traditional plant breeding, it is also agronomics, as well as some of the economics available. · Would some of those funds be that diversification element? Answer: My understanding is that these

dollars go through the request for proposal process that researchers at the university would get project dollars. They are able to leverage CWF money at almost a two to one.

· Accept recommendation with the agreement to add $500,000 more. § Water Reuse, MDH (WebEx 03:52:00)

· They are asking for $350,000. · I have mixed feelings. · This is going to continue, because it is ongoing. After the whitepaper comes out, it might be worse. The

MDH feels strongly that this needs to be taking care of, although they are unable to do this at this time. We are present to help whomever steps up to take this project on.

· This would be great if the water reuse can be used safely. Information is always good to have, even if the answer is bad. We need to know more, so I support this to help us know more.

· I want to have the research done. I do not want to have the public at a health risk. If this helps get that research done and have definitive answers, which would be good.

· This would help fund some of those studies, but I do not know how fast this funding would provide answers. The MDH can talk and see if we can help direct the kinds of questions that need to be answered through research.

· Does the Council want to include more funding to help in this area of research? If we can come up with a reasonable number for that? Answer: Some additional funding information would be good. It would be helpful. We will leave the recommendation where it is now. Perhaps increase it when making decisions later.

§ We have $4,391,000 leftover at this time. We have two options. We either keep working at this budget, or ask

stakeholders their priorities and suggestions. § I think asking the stakeholders is a good opportunity. § One of the things the Freshwater Society suggested was more funding for the Council. § One of the things we have not done was spent resources highlighting the CWF work broadly. There are

education and outreach as part of some projects, and at the local scale. However, there is no reflection of all the work, or educating the public about the Clean Water Council. One idea is to have the Council step forward to highlight the work and help encourage more support in this area. A small amount of funding could be used, and directed by the Council.

§ They are also talking about independent staff and funding. This has come up in the past. I do not know if it is a statutory item. Response: It is a Legislative condition. Comment: The LCCMR is similar.

§ The Freshwater Society: This is about increasing staff members. We talked about doing a public campaign to talk about the CWFs and where the money is being spent. This is to help demonstrate that success, reveal why it has been a good use of taxpayer dollars. The ICT and CWC are collaborating more, and that is great to hear. This helps with getting the unified budget to move forward, especially with an administration change. This is an opportunity with these additional funds ($70,000). If these funds were coming in, would there be an opportunity to increase them and provide some independent staff positions. This is more than just the public information piece, but it represents and enhances that information exchange.

§ This has come up in the past. The way that the Legislation has established the Council, provide support from the MPCA. Would it still be an MPCA employee, or would it be proposing something outside of this? Answer: We are looking at ways to increase the independence of the Council and strengthen that independence moving forward, similar to the Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Fund (LSOHF) and LCCMR.

§ I know the topic has come up in other avenues as well. There are conversations occurring outside of this BOC meeting. Response: I think it is a great concept. It is hard to focus on it right here and now with the financial recommendations.

§ You could estimate an amount you are proposing. The money would be for a staff person for full time, money for education and outreach. If you are going to need to use other peoples time (i.e., media production), you would need to include that as well. I do not know if this would be subcontracting or something else with MPCA.

§ So, are we suggesting moving the positions outside of the MPCA, or is this in addition to? Answer: The way that we were considering it would be to move it outside of the agency. I want to comment that this is not against the MPCAs great staff. This is not personal. Comment: This has been discussed a lot.

§ I am not sure if we are allowed to do this. There would need to be a change in the statute at the Legislature. However, if the chair has been working on this, I can follow up with him. I recommend we do not do anything today.

§ We are fine leaving the additional $4 million on the table right now. Then, we will see what comes back after the full Council reviews our recommendations. This is the preliminary budget complete for FY20-21.

This updated document needs to be out as quickly as possible. Deepa will try to have it out today (8/3/18). New Business Future BOC Meeting Dates (WebEx 04:10:30)

September 7, 2018: 9:30 to 2:30 at MPCA Room 100 · We will be diving into the report and taking action on the policy piece for the report as well. In addition,

reviewing stakeholder’s comments. October 5, 2018: 9:30 to 2:30 at MPCA Room 100 November 2, 2018: 9:30 to 2:30 at MPCA Room 100

1

September 6, 2018

Irrigation Water Quality Protection

Agency: Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) Category: Groundwater / Drinking water Program Number: Program Contact(s): Bruce Montgomery, 651 201 6178, bruce.montgomery@state.mn.us Person filling out form: Jeff Berg and Margaret Wagner Program Description and Outcomes to Date* Funding supports an Irrigation Specialist at the University of Minnesota Extension to develop guidance and provide education on irrigation and nitrogen best management practices (BMPs). This position provides direct support to irrigators on issues of irrigation scheduling and soil water monitoring and works closely with local and state government partners. FY14-19 Clean Water Funds = $0.660M · The U of M Extension irrigation specialist position has completed approximately 42 presentations,

workshops and other educational events attended by approximately 2300 farmers, crop consultants and co-op dealers; in cooperation with eight local units of government (LGUs). New program materials and BMPs are under development to support accelerated adoption of irrigation BMPs.

· The irrigation specialist position was refilled on July 1, 2018. The irrigation specialist will continue to fulfill a long term need working with farmers, agribusiness and local government on water and nitrogen management activities such as irrigation scheduling and nitrogen best management practices.

FY 20-21 Program Description* Irrigation Water Quality Protection: If improperly managed, nitrogen contributions to groundwater under irrigated agriculture can be significant. Clean Water funding supports an irrigation water quality specialist to develop guidance and provide education on irrigation and nitrogen best management practices. This position is located at the University of Minnesota Extension. This position develops irrigation water quality BMPs and provides supporting education and guidance. A new proposed activity in FY20-21, complementary to the efforts of the irrigation water quality specialist, is funding to support expansion of the Irrigation Management Assistant (IMA) scheduling tool to make it a statewide resource for Minnesota Irrigators. Funding information:

FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 Total

Clean Water Funds $0 $0 $0.220M $0.220M $0.220M $0.660M FTEs (state agency

staff funded by Clean Water Funds)

0 0 0 0 0

Funding and FTE notes: Funding in FY14-19 was passed through to the University of Minnesota Extension. More about this Program: Nitrate losses from nitrogen-demanding row crops (such as corn, potatoes and edible beans) is a major source of nitrate in groundwater, especially in areas with sandy soils. Irrigation, when properly managed, can significantly reduce crop failure due to water stress, increase fertilizer use efficiency, and minimize nitrogen loss. This funding supports a regional irrigation water quality specialist position through a contract with the University of Minnesota Extension. The water quality specialist develops guidance and provides education on

2

irrigation and nitrogen BMPs for Minnesota Irrigators as well as crop consultants, Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) and Natural Resource Conservation Service staff and others. The increased education, training, and direct support is critical as irrigators adopt increasingly advanced technology for crop nitrogen and water management. The Irrigation Management Assistant (IMA) tool is an on-line agricultural irrigation scheduling system that was developed for the Benton County SWCD as one component of a 2015 Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR) project. The tool can run on a smart phone, tablet, or computer, which makes it easy to use. It utilizes GIS technology which most irrigators are comfortable using for other applications. The IMA was developed in consultation with irrigators in the Little Rock Creek area and has been well received in Benton County. Upon successful deployment of the pilot project, the IMA was expanded to cover a five-county area (Becker, Hubbard, Ottertail, Todd and Wadena Counties) starting in 2018. In the first 6 months that this tool has been available in these five counties, over 10,000 acres have signed up! The IMA has great potential to achieve multiple benefits for Minnesota’s environment and agricultural community. Stream and groundwater levels benefit by decreasing groundwater use in situations where using the scheduler leads to reduced pumping, and water use efficiency increases. Runoff and leaching of nutrients to the groundwater is also reduced. Producers obtain better assurance that yields will be maintained by applying the right amount of irrigation at the right time.

Irrigation Management Assistant Project Objectives: 1. Moving from Pilot to Production: Provide software support and expand the service area of IMA to include the remaining high irrigation intensity areas of the state. Development of the tool will continue through 2021 with a focus on making improvements by acquiring better data. All counties participating will receive training and on-going maintenance/service of the tool. 2. Training, Education and Promotion of the IMA: Organize workshops and field days, and publications throughout the state to (1) train and educate producers, agronomists, producer associations, extension educators, and SWCDs, and (2) promote and expand the irrigation scheduling tool through partnerships. 3. Expansion of Evapotranspiration Climate Stations: This proposal includes adding twelve weather stations in areas currently not covered by the MN Ag Weather Network to double the number of stations in the current MN Ag Weather Network.

Funding direction and FTEs for FY20-21: $0.770 M for FY20-21. An itemization of these activities: $270,000 for the irrigation water quality specialist positon and $500,000 for the Irrigation Management Assistant (IMA) scheduling tool. An estimate of cost for the IMA scheduling tool is: Pilot to Production ($255,000), Training and Education ($156,000), and Climate Stations ($89,000). Funding for the irrigation water quality specialist positon will be 100% pass through to the University of Minnesota Extension. Approximately, 80% of funding for the IMA will be pass through to project partners. All staff time at the MDA is considered in-kind and no charges will be assessed. Long-term funding vision (until 2034 and beyond): This information will be developed in coordination with other agencies and University of Minnesota partners. Other funds used to support this program: NA Funding notes: This U of M Extension irrigation specialist position did not exist for a number of years. Clean Water funding created this position as a result of a need identified by irrigators, agricultural industry and government organizations. Since the position was filled using Clean Water funding, the specialist has secured external grant dollars for capacity building among the SWCD and Extension staff that are involved with providing technical assistance to irrigators within the state.

3

Supplement versus substitute: NA If applicable – statutory citation that guides program activities: NA Additional Information: Contact Bruce Montgomery at MDA. Projects funded with Clean Water Funds through MDA can be found at the Minnesota Legacy website at http://www.legacy.leg.mn/ . Additional information about this program can be found on the MDA website. Clean Water Fund pass-through dollars 100% of this Clean Water Funding was passed-through to U of M Extension in FY14-19:

FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 Total

Entities U of M Extension

U of M Extension

U of M Extension

Approximate number of contracts

1 1 1

Robust Drinking Water Protection Initiatives PREPARED AT THE REQUEST OF THE CLEAN WATER COUNCIL Drinking water catastrophes such as in Flint, Charleston, Toledo, and Des Moines are increasingly in the news. We face similar threats to our drinking water in Minnesota. Everyday use of personal care products, prescription medicines, and sweeping changes in land use are outpacing our ability to protect drinking water sources. New knowledge about contaminants alert us that current federal and state regulations are no longer enough to ensure Minnesota’s drinking water will continue to be reliable and safe in the future. A legacy of safe drinking water for future Minnesotans depends on the actions we take now.

At the same time, Minnesota’s approach for water resource management has transitioned to a watershed framework. Local capacity for groundwater protection projects is not as fully developed or supported as it is for surface water activities. In order to address this gap, develop sustainable groundwater/drinking water projects, and better integrate drinking water protection into local planning, MDH proposes the options 1, 2, and 3. Options 4 and 5 are intended to provide increased protection for private and public water supplies. Option 6 includes additional funding for research to support safe water reuse.

Activity Current

Recommendation (000’s)

Suggested Recommendation

(000’s)

Purpose of additional funding

1. Groundwater Restoration and Protection Strategies

$ 800 $ 1,300 Provide grants to SWCDs to support staff to focus on groundwater and drinking water protection implementation.

Further accelerate the development of tools, delivery and assistance for implementation of GRAPS.

2. Accelerated Implementation

$ 11,500 $ 12,300 Add groundwater/drinking water technical specialists to SWCD regional technical service areas.

3. Drinking Water Protection

$ 300 $ 700 Develop a comprehensive statewide drinking water plan for both public and private water supplies based on the recommendations of the current task force.

R O B U S T D R I N K I N G W A T E R P R O T E C T I O N

2

4. Private Well Protection

$ 1,200 $ 2,200 Augment current healthy homes grants to local partners for private well water quality interventions.

5. Drinking Water Contaminants of Emerging Concern

$ 2,200 $ 3,000 Enhanced monitoring and developing interventions for unregulated contaminants in public water supplies

6. Water Reuse $ 350 $ 550 Increase support for research (total of 200K) that will inform health risk management and water quality guidance development

Minnesota Department of Health Environmental Health Division Street address PO Box 64975 St. Paul, MN 55164-0975 651-201-4700 health.drinkingwater@state.mn.us www.health.state.mn.us

09/05/18

1

Water Reuse

Agency: Minnesota Department of Health Category: Research, Evaluation & Tool Development Program Contact(s): Anita Anderson, 218-302-6143, anita.c.anderson@state.mn.us Person filling out form: Anita Anderson, 218-302-6143, anita.c.anderson@state.mn.us Program Description and Outcomes to Date* Minnesota is working to develop practices and policy around water reuse.

· FY16-17: An interagency workgroup conducted a comprehensive study of non-regulatory and regulatory approaches for ensuring safe and sustainable water reuse. The workgroup developed recommendations for state agencies and others to consider as they develop practices and policy for water reuse. The University of Minnesota collected and analyzed field data for use in targeting Minnesota-specific risks.

· FY18-19: A report, including recommendations for next steps was developed and released in March 2018. The report has been shared broadly via GovDelivery and website with more than 100 interested groups, agencies, and stakeholders. The report has also been presented and discussed at several conferences and organizational meetings.

FY 20-21 Program Description* This proposal builds on the multiagency initiative to prepare recommendations to help increase water reuse in Minnesota and on ongoing research efforts related to water reuse. The first recommendation in the interagency report is to create an expanded workgroup with practitioners, advisors and stakeholders to continue development of standards and programs. The second recommendation is to prioritize research needs and integrate ongoing research to address questions about reuse. This proposal would fund the facilitator needed to create and manage the expanded workgroup and begin the highest priority research related to stormwater reuse. The workgroup would prioritize and develop work plans to address all report recommendations. Project implementers and other stakeholders want a clear path forward as soon as possible in order to make water reuse a standard tool in the water management toolbox. The results of this proposal will be a roadmap to address the interagency report’s recommendations, leading to increased safe and sustainable water reuse. Increasing water reuse may help reduce release of contaminants and sediment to surface waters and reduce demand on water resources, improving water resource sustainability. This proposal also includes funding for research projects that will support water quality guidance development. Funding information:

FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 Total

Clean Water Funds $350,000 $350,000

FTEs (state agency staff funded by CWF)

2 2

Funding and FTE notes:

2

Funding was passed to other agencies to support their participation in the development of the reuse report, to the University of Minnesota for risk assessment data collection, and used for facilitation services. More about this Program: The Workgroup developed eight Minnesota-specific recommendations in the report:

a. Create an expanded workgroup with practitioners, advisors and stakeholders to continue development of standards and programs.

b. Prioritize research needs and integrate ongoing research to address questions about reuse. c. Define roles and responsibilities to oversee and monitor water reuse. d. Establish an information and collaboration hub on the web to share information and resources. e. Develop a risk-based management system to determine if regulation or guidance is needed. f. Develop water quality criteria for a variety of reuse systems based on the log reduction target

approach for pathogens to manage human health risks. g. Resolve unique issues related to graywater reuse to determine the feasibility of expanding

graywater reuse. h. Provide education and training to support water reuse.

Research gaps became apparent through the course of this project. Two Minnesota research projects related to water reuse are relevant to future research needs. The first was a project with the U of MN to sample two stormwater reuse systems and analyze for pathogens and to develop Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment (QMRA) methodologies for use in the development of water quality standards for stormwater reuse. The second is a Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources project, which in progress. This project involves sampling water before treatment (i.e., source water), after treatment, and at the point of use (e.g., from the sprinkler head) from approximately 20 stormwater reuse systems. The samples will be analyzed for pathogens in the laboratory. Using the lab data, a risk assessment technique called quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA) to help develop water quality guidance. Funding direction and FTEs for FY20-21 .25 FTE for each year will be used to manage the project. All other dollars will be passed through. Long-term funding vision (until 2034 and beyond): There is a high level of interest in implementing water reuse in Minnesota. In order to ensure water reuse is implemented in a safe and sustainable manner, resources will be necessary to develop and maintain a support system to include recommended best practices, guidance or standards, regulations, oversight monitoring, research and training. Other funds used to support this program:

FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 Total

Other MDH Clean Water Funds (SWP and CEC)

$200,000 $200,000

Funding notes: Research proposals will be developed based on results of studies mentioned above. As part of this program, MDH will coordinate other groups working on stormwater reuse research and technology transfer. These groups include the Minnesota Stormwater Research Council, an organization of stormwater professionals representing Minnesota cities, watershed districts, state agencies, private

3

industry, and not-for-profit organizations. MDH will also coordinate with the University of Minnesota Water Resources Center, which is facilitating the "Stormwater BMP Performance Evaluation and Technology Transfer Program," which is also funded through the Clean Water Land and Legacy Amendment. Knowledge gaps to be addressed through research include:

· Priority 1: It would be beneficial to be able to predict if a reuse source fits into a high or low risk category without doing a lot of sampling on individual sources. A simple model based on things like system design and land use could work for this prediction (using existing beach contamination models could be a good place to start).

· Priority 2: While the data from current study will contribute a lot to the state of the knowledge, the number of samples is small relative to the range of reuse systems and conditions. We can use the data to design a plan for more sampling, to include more frequent, time series sampling on a few systems to better assess variability, and continued sampling of a broad range of systems to verify the model. Sampling will also include control systems as a gauge of risk for current nonpotable water practices.

Supplement versus substitute Currently there are no traditional sources of funding dedicated to water reuse. If applicable – statutory citation that guides program activities: NA Additional Information: Contact Anita Anderson at MDH, see contact information above. See Water Reuse (www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/water/dwp_cwl/reuse/) for more information Clean Water Fund pass-through dollars in the form of grants, loans, or other contracts – (NA or see below):

FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 FY16-17 FY18-19 Total

University of Minnesota

$100,000 $100,000

Bemidji Brainerd Detroit Lakes Duluth Mankato Marshall Rochester St Cloud

403 Fourth Street NW 1601 Minnesota Drive 26624 N. Tower Road 394 S. Lake Avenue 11 Civic Center Plaza 1400 East Lyon Street 3555 9th Street NW 110 Second St. South Suite 200 Brainerd, MN 56401 Detroit Lakes, MN 56501 Suite 403 Suite 300 Marshall, MN 56258 Suite 350 Suite 307 Bemidji, MN 56601 (218) 203-4470 (218) 846-8400 Duluth, MN 55802 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 537-6060 Rochester, MN 55901 Waite Park, MN 56387 (218) 755-2600 (218) 723-4752 (507) 344-2826 (507) 206-2889

Central Office / Metro Office 520 Lafayette Road North Saint Paul, MN 55155 Phone: (651) 296-3767 Fax: (651) 297-5615

www.bwsr.state.mn.us TTY: (800) 627-3529 An equal opportunity employer

TO: Frank Jewel, Chair Clean Water Council Todd Renville, Chair Budget and Outcomes Committee FROM: Doug Thomas, Assistant Director DATE: September 5, 2018 SUBJECT: Enhancing Landowner Adoption of Cover Crops for High Priority Water Resource Protection and Restoration Including Drinking Water and Groundwater Activities through the Clean Water Fund The Council’s budgeting process to date has resulted in approximately $3.9 million that has not been recommended for funding at this time. During the August 20th Clean Water Council meeting Todd Renville, Chair of the Budget and Outcomes Committee (BOC) noted that the BOC was looking for input/ideas from stakeholders and agencies to assist them with making a recommendation to the CWC at its September meeting. I also noted that the conversation amongst the CWC members at the August meeting suggested that activities that promote drinking water/groundwater were a priority. On August 21st and 22nd the Board of Water and Soil Resources was in southwestern Minnesota for a tour of local conservation projects. During the tour a lot of discussion focused on the need for land management practices in the both Drinking Water Supply Management Areas (DWSMAs) and small watersheds (e.g. Ocheda Lake) that are well water sources. In all of the situations cover crops were mentioned as a key practice to reducing nutrients. Please find attached a suggested use of the $3.9 million that the BOC has yet to make a recommendation on. It is premised on; 1) the benefits of cover crops to reduce nutrient loss, 2) supplemental appropriation to a well-established state/local program, 3) contracts with landowners/operators for 3 to 5 years, and 4) a goal of 20,000 acres of cover crops. This scale represents a large acre and participant increase in getting cover crops introduced where there are direct benefits to public water supplies. Additionally the suggested activity is complementary to a recent suggestion made by the MN Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts. Attached: CWF FY20-21 Funding Idea Cc: Deepa deAlwis, CWC Coordinator John Jaschke, Executive Director BWSR Equal Opportunity Employer

CWF FY20-21 Funding Idea for Remaining $4 Million of FY20-21 Clean Water Funds

Soil and Water Conservation District State (SWCD) Cost-Share Cover Crop Demonstration Program

“Cover Crops for Soil Health and Water Quality” – Implement 20,000 acres of cover crops by Minnesota landowners to improve water quality in surface water and groundwater. The program will provide eligible landowners cost-share and technical assistance to plant cover crops. Contracts would range from 3 to 5 years. Cover crops can provide many benefits for soil and water quality and crop production. One of the important benefits of cover crops is their impact on soil nitrogen cycling.

Non-legume cover crops scavenge or “trap” soil nitrate that would otherwise move out of the rootzone into tile drains or groundwater. Even with well-managed corn and soybean production, there is always some leaching of nitrate that originates either from residual fertilizer N or from the natural decomposition of soil organic matter. Cover crops actively take up nitrate during a portion of that fallow season, reducing the losses that occur to tile drains and recycling the nitrogen for later use.

Existing Effective State Program to Deliver On-the-Ground Projects

The State Cost-Share Program, was created in 1977 to provide funds to Soil and Water Conservation Districts to share the cost of systems or practices for erosion control, sedimentation control, or water quality improvements that are designed to protect and improve soil and water resources. Through the State Cost-Share Program, land occupiers can request financial and technical assistance from their local District for the implementation of conservation practices.

Offers Opportunity for Supplemental CWF Investment for Targeted Conservation

BWSR is authorized to develop grant agreements, including requirements and processes for project outcomes reporting, closeouts, fiscal reconciliations, and grant verifications

Funds can be allocated based on minimum criteria, established by BWSR, to districts that have fully complied with all program rules and policies. Examples of targeting:

Extent of high priority water quality problems in the district, as indicated in the district comprehensive and annual plans, county water plan, or comprehensive watershed management plan.

Priorities for Drinking Water Supply Management Areas (DWSMAs), shallow groundwater source water protection, surface waters used for drinking water.

Historic success of the district in applying conservation practices.

Ability of the district to expend the funds in a timely manner.

Quality Projects with Enduring Benefits

Practice Standards. All practices must be consistent with the NRCS Field Office Technical Guide (FOTG) or professionally accepted engineering or ecological practices. Design standards for all practices must include specifications for operation and maintenance for the life of the given practice, including an inspection schedule and procedure.

Additional Benefit of Healthy Soils

Good soil health supports the continued capacity of the soil to function as a vital living ecosystem that sustains plants, animals, and humans.

Benefits include:

– Nutrient cycling – reducing nitrogen leaching to tile lines and shallow groundwater

– Water (infiltration & availability) – increased organic matter and soil aggregate stability stores and treats more water in the landscape.

– Filtering and Buffering

– Physical Stability and Support

– Habitat for Biodiversity

September 6, 2018

Carp management in Metro Lakes

a pre-proposal to the Clean Water Council Matt Kocian, M.S., Rice Creek Watershed District Bill Bartodziej, M.S., Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District Przemyslaw G Bajer, PhD. Carp Solutions LLC. Significance – why fund this program Watersheds in the Metro area are directed to improve the water quality of lakes that are considered “impaired” by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). The management of lakes having elevated total phosphorus (P) involves Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) studies that look for management practices to reduce P inputs from both watershed and in-lake sources. The two most common practices for reducing in-lake P inputs are alum treatments and the reduction of bottom feeding fish, such as the common carp (Cyprinus carpio). This invasive species is known to dominate many lakes in Minnesota, including Metropolitan systems (Bajer et al. 2016). These fish disturb bottom sediments, accelerate nutrient release from sediments into the water and destroy rooted aquatic macrophytes (Vilizzi et al. 2015). Carp can also undermine effectiveness of alum applications (Huser et al. 2016). Fragmentary evidence also suggests that carp management is more cost effective than other management strategies and may increase the overall effectiveness of other nutrient reduction strategies (Bartodziej et al. 2017), including traditional watershed ‘best management practices. This program aims to increase the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of nutrient reduction strategies by developing comprehensive carp management programs and documenting their effectiveness. Objectives This pilot program has three main objectives:

· Develop comprehensive carp management programs by field-testing new management tools in a select number of metro area systems

· Link carp management with lake monitoring programs to better understand changes in nutrient dynamics and ecosystem services that result from carp management

· Develop a roadmap for incorporating carp management programs into broadly-defined nutrient reduction strategies in watersheds

Carp Management Background Traditionally, carp management had a singular approach and mainly focused on using commercial seining to remove aggregations of adult fish under the ice. But over the last decade, a broader management philosophy and new methods are being developed to more efficiently capture adult fish and control recruitment in spawning areas. For instance, low-voltage electric guidance technologies are being developed to guide carp into traps during spawning migrations (Bajer et al. 2018). Species-specific baits are being tested to induce summer aggregations of carp and semi-autonomous traps designed to remove those fish (Bajer et al. 2010). Electronic antennas have been developed to autonomously monitor carp migrations and aggregations (Lechelt et al. 2017). Winter aeration is often used to sustain populations of bluegill sunfish in shallow lakes to control carp eggs and larvae (Bajer et al. 2015). The number of application-ready management methods has increased in recent years. However, substantial financial support and diligent monitoring is needed to determine their effectiveness and how to best apply in comprehensive carp management programs. Major data gaps exist in our understanding of the effect of carp on nutrient dynamics. For example, many experiments show reduced N and P concentrations in lakes where carp were removed and aquatic macrophytes were restored. However, nutrient concentrations are typically measured only during the growing season, while annual nutrient cycles are unknown. Aquatic plants that become abundant in carp-free lakes may reduce nutrient concentrations in the summer, but nutrients are released in fall and winter upon decomposition. Effects of carp removal on denitrification are practically unknown. Removal of P with carp biomass is also poorly documented. Finally, effects of carp management on nutrient export from lakes into other lakes and streams located downstream, and eventually from entire watersheds is unknown. However, modeling suggests that carp management may play an important role in reducing nutrient export from watersheds. Effects of carp removal on biodiversity is also largely also unknown. Approach & Partners This pilot program will be conducted through a partnership between Metro watershed districts, and a University of Minnesota startup company, Carp Solutions, that specializes in innovative carp management methods, and experts that specialize in nutrient dynamics in lakes. We propose to work in watersheds were carp management knowledge and infrastructure are in place. Rice Creek and Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed Districts have robust lake monitoring programs, completed carp population assessments, and own management equipment (e.g. nets, electric barriers, and migrations monitoring systems). Other watershed districts will also be solicited for collaboration where appropriate. By leveraging these existing efforts, the impact of this proposed project will be greatly increased. Carp Solutions is uniquely positioned to lead the carp management effort. With its University of Minnesota roots, the company specializes in science-based management solutions for carp. Some of these new approaches include: 1) use of portable, low-voltage electric guidance systems to guide carp into traps during spawning migrations; 2) use of electronic antennas to monitor migrations and aggregations of carp to inform management, 3) use of semi-autonomous traps to

remove carp that aggregate at sites baited with food, 4) use of telemetry to coordinate carp removal under the ice by commercial fishermen, 5) use of boat electrofishing and mark-recapture analyses to monitor carp abundance. The company has been involved in carp management in over a dozen Metro lakes over the four years of its existence. Data gaps in our understanding of the benefits of carp management on lake ecology and water quality will be filled by employing a robust monitoring program that will parallel carp management efforts in each lake. These data gaps are mainly related to monitoring water quality and nutrient dynamics year-round, and not just in summer months. We will also document the overall increases in biodiversity (this is almost never done except for aquatic plants) and ecosystem services (e.g. nutrient retention). These data gaps will be addresses by collaborating with academic researchers. Experience & Expertise Matt Kocian has led common carp management efforts in Rice Creek Watershed District since 2010. Several small to mid-level carp management efforts were undertaken between 2010 and 2014. Since 2014, the Rice Creek Watershed District has dramatically increased its carp management capacity with the completion of the BWSR Long Lake Targeted Watershed Grant. As part of that grant, the RCWD has collaborated with the U of M and Carp Solutions to monitor carp migration, model carp populations, and test innovative new low-voltage electric guidance systems. Those efforts are leading toward a holistic long-term carp management program. Bill Bartodziej collaborated on carp research and management in urban lake systems since 2008. Research in the Phalen Chain of Lakes helped to shape current carp management techniques in the Metro area. He has experience with managing shallow lakes and storm water ponds that act as prime carp recruitment areas. He led research to determine nutrient dynamics in a shallow lake after carp elimination. He published over 10 peer-reviewed publications on aquatic plant, fish, and lake management efforts. Przemyslaw Bajer conducted research on carp management and ecology since 2006. He published over 20 peer-reviewed publications on the subject. He has also led extensive carp management efforts in over a dozen lakes. He is the founder and owner of Carp Solutions LLC. The company is currently piloting new management tools (including new removal methods) in over a dozen lakes in Minnesota. Funding Level and Duration $ 2 million over 5 years. Extended time frame is needed to conduct lake restorations, which are likely to take more than 2 field seasons and document their effectiveness. Methods

We will select 2 model lake system in the Metro area to develop exemplary IPM strategies in each. In each case, the process will begin by assessing carp abundance and determining drivers of population abundance. This will include implanting representative numbers of carp with radio transmitters and passive integrated transponders to track seasonal migrations of carp and their aggregations. We will also install antennas at migration chokepoints to monitor carp movement to inform the deployment of in-stream removal technologies. Processes that drive carp reproduction will be assessed by surveying entire watersheds for young-of-year carp and examining the age structure of the population. Following the initial population assessment and deployment of key infrastructure (antennas, transmitters, etc.), we will begin management of each population using combinations of approaches deemed to be most appropriate for each watershed pending the initial assessment. Removal of adult carp from lakes will be implemented by targeting naturally-occurring winter aggregations and/or by removing carp that aggregated in the summer over baited sites. For the latter, a newly-develop semi-autonomous trapping system will be used. Spring migrations will be blocked using portable electric guidance systems and the migrating fish will be removed using in-stream traps. Aeration systems will be installed in recruitment hotspots (marshes where YOY are present). Electric deterrence systems might be also used to deter the movement of juveniles from nurseries to lakes. Efficacy of each management tool will be determined. Gaps in our understanding of the effects of carp on nutrient dynamics will be addressed by monitoring N and P dynamics in the water and sediment of lakes before and after restoration. Dissemination Results of this work will be published in international peer-reviewed journals and will be also made available as detailed management reports. References Bajer, P. G., Claus, A. C., Wein, J., & Kukulski, E. (2018). Field test of a low-voltage, portable electric

barrier to guide invasive common carp into a mock trap during seasonal migrations. Bajer, P. G., M. W. Beck, T. K. Cross, J. D. Koch, W. M. Bartodziej, and P. W. Sorensen. 2016.

Biological invasion by a benthivorous fish reduced the cover and species richness of aquatic plants in most lakes of a large North American ecoregion. Global Change Biology 22:3937-3947.

Bajer, P. G., T. K. Cross, J. D. Lechelt, C. J. Chizinski, M. J. Weber, and P. W. Sorensen. 2015. Across-ecoregion analysis suggests a hierarchy of ecological filters that regulate recruitment of a globally invasive fish. Diversity and Distributions 21:500-510.

Bajer, P. G., H. Lim, M. J. Travaline, B. D. Miller, and P. W. Sorensen. 2010. Cognitive aspects of food searching behavior in free-ranging wild Common Carp. Environmental Biology of Fishes 88:295-300.

Bartodziej, W. M., S. L. Blood, and K. Pilgrim. 2017. Aquatic plant harvesting: An economical phosphorus removal tool in an urban shallow lake. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 55:26-34.

Huser, B. J., P. G. Bajer, C. J. Chizinski, and P. W. Sorensen. 2016. Effects of common carp (Cyprinus carpio) on sediment mixing depth and mobile phosphorus mass in the active sediment layer of a shallow lake. Hydrobiologia 763:23-33.

Lechelt, J. D., M. J. Kocian, and P. G. Bajer. 2017. Low downstream dispersal of young-of-year common carp from marshes into lakes in the Upper Mississippi River region and its implications for integrated pest management strategies. Management of Biological Invasions 8:485-495.

Vilizzi, L., A. S. Tarkan, and G. H. Copp. 2015. Experimental Evidence from Causal Criteria Analysis for the Effects of Common Carp Cyprinus carpio on Freshwater Ecosystems: A Global Perspective. Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture 23:253-290.

 

4325 Pheasant Ridge Drive NE #611 | Blaine, MN 55449 | T: 763-398-3070 | F: 763-398-3088 | www.ricecreek.org

BOARD OF MANAGERS

Michael J. Bradley Barbara A. Haake Patricia L.

Preiner Steven P. Wagamon John J. Waller

Ramsey County Ramsey County Anoka County Anoka County Washington County

 

   September 6, 2018 Przemyslaw Bajer, PhD Research Assistant Professor University of Minnesota Dept of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology 1.5 Skok Hall 2003 Upper Buford Circle, St. Paul, MN 55108 Dr. Bajer: The Rice Creek Watershed District supports your proposal to the Clean Water Council for common carp research and management. Should this work be funded, we offer our commitment to assist by providing use of existing field equipment and infrastructure, in-kind field support, and potentially cash-match funding. We will also commit to assisting with reports and journals. Most importantly, we feel confident that your proposed project would synergistically combine with our exiting carp management efforts, thus maximizing the impact to our program and your proposed project. Past population surveys have shown that our Long Lake / Lino Chain of Lakes system is infested with a very large population of common carp. Working with the U of M and Carp Solutions, we have taken major steps toward better understanding the migration patterns and population dynamics of carp in this system. We are now poised to begin a long-term management program. The funding of your proposed project would ensure that this program would achieve its maximum potential. Additionally, the project would provide the “industry-wide” water resources management field with new information on the understanding of carp management on lake nutrient dynamics and ecology. Sincerely,

Matt Kocian Lake and Stream Specialist

September 6, 2018 Przemyslaw G Bajer, PhD Research Assistant Professor University of Minnesota Dept. Fisheries, Wildlife, and Cons. Biology 135 Skok Hall 2003 Upper Buford Circle, St. Paul, MN 55108 Dear Dr. Bajer: The Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District is in full support of collaborating on common carp research funded by the Clean Water Council. We will be committed to working with your team on providing a consistent source of funding for carp management and assisting with the collection of water quality data. This research will provide a substantial contribution to lake and watershed managers. We need to better understand the impacts of carp and how to efficiently manage this species in Minnesota. In addition, products of this effort will contribute to our watershed making informed decisions on where to specifically allocate resources. We will also provide staff time in collaborating on writing peer reviewed journal articles so that a multitude of groups will gain from this effort. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Best regards,

William M. Bartodziej, M.S. Natural Resources Specialist

1

09/06/2018

Clean Water Council’s Public Information Campaign

Agency: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency – pass through Category: Administrative Program Number: Program Contact(s): Frank Jewell Person filling out form: Deepa de Alwis deepa.dealwis@state.mn.us 651 757-2572 Program Description and Outcomes to Date: Not applicable, new program FY 20-21 Program Description: The Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment (Legacy Amendment) to the Minnesota Constitution provided funds for Clean Water Fund, Outdoor Heritage Fund, Parks & Trails Fund and Arts & Cultural Heritage Fund. The outcomes of Clean Water Fund, while impressive, is difficult to describe. This is mainly because improvements usually are not readily visible as a protected habitat or a new or improved parkland or trails. In 2020, the Clean Water Fund would have been in effect for ten years. The Clean Water Council believes that it is a opportune time to tell the Citizens of Minnesota about the progress made towards improving water quality and quantity, and what they can do to ensure that the investment of our funds continue to provide positive dividends over time. More about this Program: The Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires the State environmental agencies with delegated authority to develop Total Maximum Daily Allowance (TMDLs) for host of chemical and physical contaminants in water bodies. The State of Minnesota has adopted the Watersheds as its unit of action for most water protection and restoration activities. https://www.legacy.mn.gov/ The Section 114D.35 Subd.3 Public and Stakeholder Participation; Scientific Review; Education, states:

The Clean Water Council shall develop strategies for informing, educating, and encouraging the participation of citizens, stakeholders, and others regarding the identification of impaired waters, development of TMDL's, development of TMDL implementation plans, implementation of restoration for impaired waters, identification of degraded groundwater, and protection and restoration of groundwater resources. Public agencies shall be responsible for implementing the strategies.

This Public Outreach and Education is designed to:

· Meet CWC’s statutory requirements. · Gauge the Public’s knowledge of Clean Water Council, Clean Water Fund and local projects

funded by CWF. · Engage the Public and encourage their participation in local water planning. · Provide necessary education and outreach to inform Minnesotan’s water choices.

This Public information campaign will be designed to complement and enhance the activities of the State Agencies with respect to public engagement. Funding direction and FTEs for FY20-21: The Clean Water Council, through Minnesota Pollution Control Agency will hire a State approved contractor to provide multi-year, statewide Public information campaign. The Council Coordinator will

2

administer the contract as part of the routine job duties. Estimated cost: $500,000. None of the funding will go to hire new State employees. The CWC Coordinator will be responsible for the hiring a contractor and administering the contract. Long-term funding vision (until 2034 and beyond): This is a one-time funding request. Therefore, there will not be any long-term funding needs. Other funds used to support this program: NA Funding notes: Supplement versus substitute: This is an attempt to let the Minnesotans know how the CWF dollars were spent in the last 8 years and plans for the next biennium. Therefore, there was no State funds to substitute. If applicable – statutory citation that guides program activities: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/114D

 

    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

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

FY 20-21 Clean Water Council Draft Budget Recommendations As of September 05, 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. The absolute total need is unknown, but the DNR has already identified a need for an additional 500 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 Steady

The need to determine the level of contamination in fish popular with Minnesotans will continue for years. This is supplemental to other base funding.

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. The maps show which areas require a buffer and what type. 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

Accept the ICT request

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

Accept the ICT request

FY 20-21 Clean Water Council Draft Budget Recommendations As of September 05, 2018

Page 2 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

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.

AcceptAccept the ICT request

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.

AcceptAccept the ICT request

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.

AcceptAccept the ICT request

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

FY 20-21 Clean Water Council Draft Budget Recommendations As of September 05, 2018

Page 3 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 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 for WRAPS in the short term, but does not expect any additional need in 5 to 10 years.

AcceptAccept the ICT request

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.

AcceptAccept the ICT request

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.

AcceptAccept the ICT request

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.

AcceptAccept the ICT request

Watershed & Groundwater Restoration/Protection Strategies total

$ 30,014 $ 30,388 $ 28,713 $ 26,426

FY 20-21 Clean Water Council Draft Budget Recommendations As of September 05, 2018

Page 4 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

Comprehensive Local Watershed Management

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.

Accept the ICT request

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.

Accept the ICT request

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.

AcceptAccept the ICT request

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.

AcceptAccept the ICT request

FY 20-21 Clean Water Council Draft Budget Recommendations As of September 05, 2018

Page 5 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

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.

AcceptAccept the ICT request

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.

AcceptAccept the ICT request

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.

Accept Accept the ICT request

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.

AcceptAccept the ICT request

FY 20-21 Clean Water Council Draft Budget Recommendations As of September 05, 2018

Page 6 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

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.

AcceptAccept the ICT request

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.

Accept Accept the ICT request

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 in 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

Accept the ICT request

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 FundingWhile important, DNR decided not to ask for funding from CWF for this program.

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

FY 20-21 Clean Water Council Draft Budget Recommendations As of September 05, 2018

Page 7 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

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.

Accept the ICT request

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.

Accept the ICT request

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

Accept the ICT request

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.

Accept the ICT request

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.

AcceptAccept the ICT request

FY 20-21 Clean Water Council Draft Budget Recommendations As of September 05, 2018

Page 8 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

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.

Accept the ICT request

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.

Accept the ICT request

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.

Accept the ICT request

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.

Accept the ICT request

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.

Accept the ICT request

Point source implementation total $ 19,607 $ 19,764 $ 18,250 $ 21,100

FY 20-21 Clean Water Council Draft Budget Recommendations As of September 05, 2018

Page 9 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

Groundwater/Drinking Water Implementation

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

Accept the ICT request

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.

AcceptAccept the ICT request

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.

Accept the ICT request

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.

AcceptAccept the ICT request

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.

AcceptAccept the ICT request

FY 20-21 Clean Water Council Draft Budget Recommendations As of September 05, 2018

Page 10 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

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.

AcceptAccept the ICT request

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.

Accept the ICT request

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 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.

Accept Accept the ICT request

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.

AcceptAccept the ICT request

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.

AcceptAccept the ICT request

FY 20-21 Clean Water Council Draft Budget Recommendations As of September 05, 2018

Page 11 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

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. DNR anticipates not needing CWF support when all of the atlases are complete.

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

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.

Accept the ICT request

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.

AcceptAccept the ICT request

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.

AcceptAccept the ICT request

FY 20-21 Clean Water Council Draft Budget Recommendations As of September 05, 2018

Page 12 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

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

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

Accept the ICT request

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 $ 117 $110 for CWC, $7K for report Not discussed in 2017 Accept Accept CWC request

Public Information Campaign NA NA NA $ 500 Not discussed in 2017

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

Not discussed in 2017 Accept Accept LCC request

$ 211,613 $ 215,554 $ 211,470 $ 259,199

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

$ 3,504 February 2018 CWF forecast - FY20-21 CWF funding requests as of Aug 3, 2018

Total All Recommendations

Clean Water Fund Framework The Clean Water Council collaborated with State Agencies to develop goal and objectives to demonstrate how the activities funded by the CWF are meeting the intent of the Clean Water Land and Legacy Amendment. Existing goals, objective and activities were assembled from documents and past efforts (listed on the back) and further refined and distilled to what is presented below.

Mission

Protect and restore Minnesota’s waters for generations to come.

Goals and Objectives

Goal 1: Surface waters are swimmable and fishable Objective 1.1 Prevent and reduce chemical pollution of waters Objective 1.2 Maintain and improve biological health of waters Objective 1.3 Improve and maintain hydrologic systems Objective 1.4 Achieve the goals of the Statewide Nutrient Reduction Strategy

Goal 2: Groundwater is clean and available Objective 2.1 Improve and protect groundwater quality Objective 2.2 Ensure sustainable long-term trends in aquifer levels Objective 2.3 Avoid adverse impacts to surface water features due to groundwater use

Goal 3: Drinking water is safe for everyone, everywhere in Minnesota Objective 3.1 Protect public water supplies Objective 3.2 Ensure private wells users have safe water

Goal 4: Minnesotans value water and take actions to sustain and protect it Objective 4.1 Ensure local communities have necessary financial and technical resources Objective 4.2 Encourage systems and approaches that support, protect, and improve water Objective 4.3 Provide education and outreach to inform Minnesotans’ water choices Objective 4.4 Encourage citizen and community engagement