Legislative Water Commission

1. Legislative Water Commission June 10, 2019 Co-chairs: Senator Bill Weber * Representative Peter Fischer LWC_Directors_Report_06102019_revision2.pptx

2. Introductions

3. Agenda: Legislative Water Commission • Approval of Minutes- April 1 • Status of the LWC: Chairs • Session Summary, Water Legislation- 2019 • LWC Priorities issues for 2020 • HF 2902: Combines CWC & LWC • Trends in General Fund Spending • 404 Wetland Permit Assumption • Water-quality standards revision • Consolidated Water Agency • Summer Field Tour • Adjourn

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

5. Agenda Item 2 Session Summary: 2019 Session • Water-related legislation

6. Session Highlights LWC summary

7. 2019 LWC Recommendations(Bill Recommendation and Status) • Inflow and Infiltration-- Wastewater • Healthy Soil/Healthy Water • Water Infrastructure • Peer review of wastewater standards • Reduce excess chloride • Continuation of the LWC • Keeping Water on the Land • Data, information, Education and Public Awareness • Preserving and protecting our lakes • Expanded source water programs • Increase drinking water protection Fee • Statewide Water Policy • Educational Curriculum- Water- K-12 • Update and modifies Clean Water Act Provision

8. Agenda Item 3 Priorities for 2020

9. 2020 Legislative Priorities • Can we improve water-quality standard revision process? • Is our water-management structure efficient compared to other states? • One-Water Agency? • Agency effectiveness changes, other than a major reorganization? • HF 2902: Combining the CWC and the LWC • Have general fund expenditures for the environment eroded? • How can we better measure effectiveness of dedicated fund programs? • How do environmental and water programs compare to other states? • Benefits and consequences around 404 wetlands permit assumptions? • Can there be better coordination among LWC, CWC, LSOHC ,LCCMR • Are we effectively conducting water planning for future needs? • Minnesota’s most important water priorities? • Can we prioritize conservation practices for the greatest benefits. • How do we balance the value of protection versus restoration efforts  • Others?

10. Agenda Item 5 HF 2901: Combines CWC and the LWC

11. Status of General Fund Spending--Summary • General fund spending for conservation has declined • Even with dedicated funds, conservation spending has decreased • Considering dedicated funding--MN is a leader • Long-term continuation of dedicated funds is critical • Understanding and communicating outcomes is critical • Water outcomes are difficult to communicate • Where would we be without CWFs?

12. Conservation Spending from the General Fund • Decreased for 20 years • Currently, at less that 1 % of general fund

13. “ Conservation Spending” from the General Fund: 1991-2018 (Conservation Minnesota) .

14. Conservation Spending with Dedicated Funds • Dedicated funds= Legacy and Trust Funds plus fees • Has also decreased over 20 years • Currently at about 2% of state budget

15. “ Conservation Spending” General Fund and Dedications Funds: 1991-2018 (Conservation Minnesota)

16. Conservation Spending Compare to Other States? • General fund spending for conservation: among the lowest, compared to other states

17. 5 • Where does MN Stand? Conservation Spending- General Fund: as a percentage of general funding (Environmental Council of States)

18. Minnesota Relies on Dedicated Conservation Dollars • MN conservation funding is primarily for dedicated funding and from fees

19. Conservation Spending: Sources Other than from the General Fund: Fees and Dedicated Funds • (Environmental Council of States)

20. Conservation Spending compared to Neighbor States • Comparison is problematic • There are several sources of information • They tell differing stories • To truly understand, we would have to dive deeply

21. Conservation Spending in the Midwest (2) • Several and conflicting sources of information • Per-capita spending is among the lowest in the Midwest (Council of State Governments)

22. Conservation Spending Per Capita Ballopedia

23. Conservation Spending in the Midwest (2) • More recent (mixed sources) tell a different story • This is likely more realistic • Includes all dedicated funds

24. Total Conservation Spending: 2013-17

25. Conservation Spending in the Midwest (3) The per-capita spending tells the same story

26. Conservation Spending Per Capita

27. Sources of Conservation Spending (4) Minnesota: • Relies more on dedicated funds • Less on Federal Funds

28. Where do “Conservation Dollars” Come From?

29. Bottom line: Conservation Funding in MN • General fund spending has declined • Including dedicated funds, conservation spending still has decreased • However, including the dedicated funds, MN is a leader, as least in the Midwest

30. Bottom line(2): Conservation Funding • Conservation crisis without dedicated funds • Understanding and communicating outcomes is essential for continued citizen support • This needs to be a priority • Action: Report back on status of outcomes

31. CWA: Wetland Permit Assumption • BWSR would assume COE permit responsibilities (Section 404) • Could save time and money • May simplify permit process • Staffing and costs need evaluation prior to implementation • EQB – planning fuds • Action: Report back to you on next steps

32. Simplify the Water Quality Standard Revision Process • Issue arose around specific conductance standard • Revision process is cumbersome and long • Need to identify roadblocks • Process may be able to be made more efficient • Staffing may be inadequate • Input from agencies is a first step in improvement • Report back efficiency changes--agency input

33. SF 2102: Dept. of Water Resources • Minnesota’s governance is complex • Bill combines agency responsibilities • Abolishes some agencies

34. SF 2102 (2): Department of Water Resources • This has been studied • Possible efficiencies and benefits to citizens • Could be unintended consequences • Many law and rule changes would be needed • Reports offer thoughtful recommendations • Topics needs discussion and planning over the interim

35. Suggestions: Dept. of Water Resources MPCA and UM have led evaluations: • Reported to Legislature: • Did not recommend major organizational change: • Create interagency water-management “system”– improve lateral coordination • Use resources more efficiently • Improved customer service (regional interagency customer advocate?)

36. SF2102 (3): Dept. of Water Resources • Some recommendations are implemented • Super agency: • Might be more efficient • Could create a simplified permit processes– regional permit advocates? • Might reduce organizational silos

37. SF2102: Dept. of Water Resources • However, many laws, rules would need revision • In some agencies, water is a component of larger mission, eg. Health and Agriculture • Some agencies are constrained by delegated federal authority– complicated and potential loss of federal funds? • WI DNR is an example– regional silos • Action: Detailed discussion on advantages and unintended consequences with agency input

38. Closing Thoughts • Continue to focus on 2020 priorities and specific actions for legislation • Evaluate other priorities • Proposed field CWC • Next meeting?

39. Thanks!