If you're a member, you've already received the MN Journal by mail or email, but you can also read it here.

The idea is for an independent state entity responsible for receiving, managing, and reporting on water quality data state-wide; either housed within an existing state organization or as a new entity.

Arguments for the need include: Systematic reporting could help us make the most out of the limited resources available to do things like monitor water quality, and could help us avoid overlap and keep track of what is falling through the cracks in our fragmented water government system.

• This entity would receive water quality data from a wide range of sources -- state agencies, watershed districts, the Metropolitan Council, citizen volunteers, and others. This entity would not necessarily be directly responsible for testing or monitoring.


• This entity would develop and enforce data standards and quality controls. Data not meeting these standards would not be accepted.


• This entity would be responsible for generating a broad range of reports on water quality (and perhaps quantity as well). Those reports would be coordinated, in consistent formats, and made available to everyone. The reporting functions would include Web 2.0 capacities -- linkage to live databases, programming and data manipulation functions available to end-users, and others. The reports would address snapshots in time and long-term water quality trends. The reporting would address all waters -- lakes, streams, wetlands, drinking water, groundwater, etc.


• Because data management and reporting are the sole functions of this entity, these functions would be given a very high priority. The reports from this entity would be perceived as independent and impartial. Reporting on good news and bad news would be at the same levels of priority and timeliness. These aspects of this new entity would increase the perceived reliability of reporting and influence the behavior of all the agencies and organizations involved in water quality in positive ways, without sweeping restructuring of these agencies and responsibilities.


• The timing for the creation of this new entity seems appropriate. We will have a large new funding stream due to last year's passage of the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment. This merits a new approach to data management, reporting, and accountability.


• Managing all the data within a single entity would promote cross-program and cross-project analysis and reporting. This entity would be responsible for reporting on the relative effectiveness of all programs and projects. It should also be able to identify duplication, overlap, and opportunities for increased effectiveness through cooperation and information sharing.

• The formation of this new entity might be viewed as a threat by the agencies and organizations currently responsible for water quality (and perhaps quantity). This could be overcome by linking the formation of this entity to having the Amendment funding move through the existing agencies -- the Legislature could say that the funds will be moved through the state agencies only if there is agreement that the reporting and data management will be handled by this new, independent entity.


• Creating a genuinely independent state entity is not an easy task. This entity would have to work with and still be independent of the Governor, the Legislature, and the state agencies.


• This entity would need to have significant technical capacity, both in staff and data management. This would be expensive.

At least one paper posted on the site is really relevant to our work on water policy. (Thanks to committee member Danielle Waldschmidt for passing it along.)

Dann Siems, a staff member at the Beltrami Soil and Water Conservation District, based in Bemidji, posted 10 ideas for simplifying natural resource management in Minnesota.

He points out the great opportunity we have right now to make some big changes to improve the way we manage natural resources, not only because of the fiscal crisis but because of the passage of the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment last fall. The Amendment will bring new money to manage water and other natural resources.

The Amendment's coincidence with an overall state budget crisis makes it tempting to shift general fund dollars away from natural resources and toward other worthy but financially strapped programs. It is critically important that we resist this trap and use Amendment dollars to ring about strategic changes rather than merely buffering business as usual.

He then goes on to give 10 specific recommendations of how to do this, with some interesting ideas for consideration.

The paper is available at http://www.beltramiswcd.org/siems/Crisis.pdf.

Dealing with nonpoint source pollution is the basis of what they and other watershed districts are doing, and is the heart of their overall plan, Kevin said. The district monitors water quality in lakes and Nine Mile Creek, identifies pollutant sources including sediment, phosphorus, and chlorides, and addresses storm water discharges, etc.

About their regulatory role: Nine Mile and other watershed districts require permits on development projects. A city can opt to take on permitting themselves, but they must adopt the Watershed District's rules and incorporate them into the city's ordinances, and the district can ask to review a project if it has a concern. The regulatory role varies amongst watershed districts. He said some watershed districts completely turn over permitting authority to the cities in their district. Other watershed districts ask cities to submit development project plans for review and comment, relying on the cities to manage the permitting and expecting cities to cooperate in following the district's recommendations.

Kevin said this approach has had mixed results depending on the city. Without a regulatory program, watershed districts have little enforcement power and the cities do not have to follow the watershed district's comments and recommendations. For example, a city can insist on using the piping and ponding approach to stormwater management despite having very sandy soils, where a watershed district may be advocating infiltration. They city may consider the watershed district's comments, but can still proceed with the pipe and pond approach.

I asked him how they can be assured of future maintenance of completed projects: Where Nine Mile has built a stormwater treatment facility (storm pond, infiltration basin, etc.), they work with their respective cities and turn the maintenance over to the city and cost-share future maintenance. On private developments that include a retention pond, rain garden or other facility, Nine Mile's permit requires that a maintenance declaration be filed with Hennepin County and appear on the property's title. That requires an actual maintenance schedule outlining the process and requiring an annual inspection. If the maintenance is not done, the district or the city can do the maintenance and back-charge the cost to the owner. This permit requirement began under new rules adopted by the district last March.

The District also has a non-regulatory role, such as its ongoing education program. They advocate projects that citizens can take responsibility for, such as rain gardens and infiltrations on site. They conduct an annual tour of projects the district has built or funded. Nine Mile has an active Citizens Advisory Committee that, among other things, plans their summer citizen education series, including the tour.

Note: I apologize for leaving this off initially -- the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District includes most of the cities of Hopkins, Minnetonka, Edina, Eden Prairie, Bloomington and Richfield. -- Annie, 2/2/09

There was plenty more to talk about when the meeting ended, so I caught up with Bruce to ask a few more questions:

Q: In the case of the Chain of Lakes clean up, the responsibilities of all the parties involved were pretty clear, because they were spelled out by agreements signed by each group (including the cities, the Park Board, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, the MN Pollution Control Agency, etc.). Was it difficult to come to agreement on who would be responsible for what? How did you do it?

Bruce Wilson: The Minneapolis Chain of Lakes Clean Water Partnership is an example of how different groups came together to solve problems. I believe the basic formula was: (1) acknowledgment of problems; (2) acknowledgment that many hands (and funding sources) will make lighter work; and (3) local leadership and commitment to solve the problems. Inherent in the agreement was to define realistic expectations over short (~5 years) and long terms (~5-20 years) and then focus on priorities starting at the top of the list. (Rehabilitation efforts usually take years, as it takes time to define causes and solutions, design fixes, construct, and allow the water body to respond.)

Key Leader -- Jeff Lee of the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board was the extraordinary staff-leader who was the core of the project. A citizen advisory committee was established and received intensive training while their Clean Water Partnership monitoring was underway. The citizen advisory panel crafted management goals that were submitted to the cities and watershed district. Funding of various goal work components (sediment basins, etc.) were discussed by the Mayor of Minneapolis with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, the Minneapolis Park Board Director and Minneapolis Public Works, and agreement reached.

I think the collective synergy of galvanized electorate, superb leadership (from Jeff Lee of MPRB, Mayor Sayles Belton, Hennepin County, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District managers), flexible grant resources, and technical support all contributed significantly to their successes.

Q: In the Crow River clean up, did you work out contracts similar to the Chain of Lakes? If not, how did the parties (as well as citizens) know what their job was and what to expect from others?

BW: Remember I mentioned the importance of "ramping up" of citizen and local decision makers' awareness of problems and their management options. In this case, there was a two year ramping up phase of working with citizen groups who, like the Minneapolis Chain Project, were very concerned about degradation of the Crow River system. The MPCA assisted in establishing river monitoring network and helped citizens and the counties in developing management options. (This was before much of the impairment listing/TMDL process currently in place.)

After preliminary assessments confirmed widespread and substantial degradation of the River's health, the watershed counties formed a joint powers organization (JPO). the JPO then applied and received a MPCA Clean Water Partnership grant diagnostic study with utilized 30 stream monitoring locations. That monitoring along with the more detailed TMDL modeling effort now being completed, allowing targeting of various phosphorus and sediment loading sources.

Q: When we're talking about pollution prevention rather than cleanup, would you say it's less clear who is responsible for what? If so, do you have suggestions to make it clearer?

BW: I believe there are two issues in this question: responsibilities and available funds. There is also the phrase "if it isn't broke, don't fix it" that describes a commonly heard theme.

Protection efforts, while extremely cost-effective, may not rise to priority status to some overstretched municipal and county budgets. Many counties prepare water management plans to address protection, but funding is a universal problem. Watershed districts, in contrast, generally focus on water quality and quantity issues and have taxing authority.

Secondly, there continues to be the need for institutional recognition of the potential effects of urban runoff on very sensitive waters, particularly of the Northern Lakes and Forests and Central Hardwood Forests ecoregions (NE and Central MN). Hence the need for development commissions to fully detail new development infrastructure costs and benefits by including long term operation and maintenance costs for municipal public works departments, for example. Adoption of low-impact design and conservation design ordinances will be most important in this regard by reducing runoff volumes and impervious cover.

Q: In your experience, how much of nonpoint source pollution clean us is due to actually reducing pollution versus trapping pollutants before they enter water bodies?

BW: In reality, you are describing three of the 8 management approached which I am simplifying:

1. education/information (preventing pollution);
2. source controls (a variety of onsite agriculture and urban practices); and
3. treating runoff waters (e.g. agricultural and urban stormwater treatment systems

I am convinced that effectively marketed information and education can make huge changes in behavior that in turn result in substantially reduced pollutant loading (measurable changes of 5% to 50%). For example, we rarely hear of waste oil being dumped into storm sewers. Farming practices have changed dramatically over time. We are selling a product -- clean water -- and will need long-term reinforcing marketing efforts to maintain behavior changes.

Common watershed management goals focus on series of reductions, for example reducing 25% phosphorus loads over ten years. To accomplish these goals, we rely upon a series of "base hits" mirroring the 8 Common Watershed Approaches in my presentation. Pollution prevention could be an important part of the 25% reduction goal over a ten typical year effort.

Sometimes education efforts get overwhelmed by other forces and regulation may be needed -- for example the limitation of phosphorus in household detergents that was advanced in the 1980's or the more recent restrictions in urban fertilizer phosphorus content. (A study in Minnesota showed that the fertilizer phosphorus limitation was likely reducing total phosphorus loading by 12-15%.)

Impervious cover, ~2/3 for car habitat, is really our main urban problem generating source. To the degree we can prevent or reduce impervious cover and/or connected impervious cover in urban areas (as in low-impact and conservation designs), the greater our protection potential. Adoption of low-impact design and conservation design ordinances will be most important in this regard by reducing runoff volumes and impervious cover in new and retrofitting of old urban areas.

Q: What elements of successful cleanups do you think could be replicated broadly, without the large price tags that were required for the complete projects?

BW:

• Watershed planning, land conservation (maybe via trust funds, easements, set asides, tax forfeit lands), watershed stewardship (information and education), better land use designs and erosion and sediment control of developing and established urban areas.
• Rehabilitation projects requiring multiple Best Management Practices are going to be expensive, hence the emphasis on avoiding via protection.

Q: At the end of your presentation to the committee, you started to tell us your "wish list" for policy change related to nonpoint source pollution. Unfortunately, we ran out of time before you could finish. I'm interested to hear the rest of your answer.

BW:

• Increased education and information efforts and continued UM certification training of watershed managers and professionals.
• Support incorporation of specialties needed to rehabilitate our water resources, in a similar fashion as human medicine has specialties.
• Re-examination of institutional aspects to more fully integrate watershed management across political boundaries. New technologies should be harnessed for city and watershed planning (GIS-based and computer enhanced images, for example).
• Use of targeted professional marketing approaches for clean water as "products."

You can view the notes from this meeting online, and the Power Points will soon be available here. For now, I'll just highlight one point that stood out to me.

Much of what Bruce told the committee focused on the importance of collaboration. To successfully reduce pollution in a water body requires cooperation between many different groups with many different perspectives -- not just the various state and local government units involved, but also residents, citizen groups, nonprofits, businesses, etc. The strong interests involved makes it difficult. A neutral, trained facilitator is essential, he said. But the need to bring in a facilitator also shows just how much we care about water here, and the strength of democracy on this issue.

Bruce told us that it is challenging to get various groups to work together and takes years of building relationships, but in the end it is worth it. With the data and a good understanding of the situation in the Chain of Lakes, for example, citizens came forward with goals that were more ambitious than those presented by the Pollution Control Agency. This can not only make clean-up projects more effective and less expensive at the outset, but can help to sustain the projects after they are built.

Bruce has volunteered to answer additional questions that we didn't have time for. If you have more questions you'd like to run by him (even if you weren't at the meeting), please post them here and I will pass them along to him.

As in past meetings, it was also great to hear from others who attended this meeting. I want to thank everyone who has been following this study and encourage all of you to continue giving us your input.

• Shingle Creek Watershed TMDL on chloride (road salt)
• Look at "types" of nonpoint source pollution -- agricultural runoff, urban runoff, shoreland development, wetland loss, septic systems, and/or forestry, etc.
• Look at a particular program of a state agency or other government body

At the encouragement of committee members, I'm putting this idea out on the blog to get feedback on the best way to do it.

Committee members and others who have been involved in this study: What are your thoughts the best area(s) of focus?

Citizens League-ers with experience on other study committees: What words of wisdom would you impart on how to best take advantage of working groups like these (and what should be we sure to avoid)?

Bailoutsleuth.com is good source of information on the specific measures as the bail out proceeds. They have filed a Freedom of Information Act request over bailout contracts with redacted portions. For more details:

http://bailoutsleuth.com/

Let's use this space to collect thoughts on this while they're still fresh. Feel free to post your brainstorms without worrying too much about repeating what has already been said, or if the principles are on the right scope, etc. I will do my best to pull it all together and bring back an attempt at a summary.

To get it started, I want to pull out the principles from the October 20th post and comments:

• Transparency -- clearly defined principles and/or goals behind government actions and decisions. Clear roles for citizens. Clear where responsibilities lie.
• Outcomes-based
• Accountability -- among other things, this requires that the responsibility given to a government body is matched by their authority
• Comprehensive -- water management integrates quality/quantity, incorporates multiple and sometimes competing interests
• Adequate funding
• citizen input mechanisms exist and are utilized
• watershed-based science used to inform watershed-level policy
• watershed policy and projects get applied by watershed and other types of governments, organizations, and citizens
• decades long trend information is accessible by many (it takes time for things to show up in water column)
• recognize one size will not fit all at the local level (local resource and tax bases vary significantly)
• gov't boards or executives ought to articulate measurable short- and long-term goals for their organization
• (missing a concise principle related to how we get more systematic interaction between organizations -- it's episodic now)
• Public trust - obligation to protect water for other people and for future generations

This project was one of two pilot action groups that we organized in 2007-2008 with the goal of giving young members an opportunity to build their civic organizing skills by leading a meaningful project of their own design. We learned a lot in this first round, and a group of members are meeting now to plan another round of action groups that will start in early 2009.

The Citizens League approaches these conversations with particular goals in mind. As the process continues, we will ask all participants to:

• Contribute to problem definitions and solutions according to the current realities of policy questions around poverty. It is our goal to involve a broad range of individuals, groups and institutions that are affected by poverty.
• Share and learn from one another and be open to exploring the implications of various courses of action through a transparent process that expects all participants to engage in decision-making.
• Identify actionable next steps, where all participants connect their self-interest with the common interest to evaluate outcomes and determine ways to work together.
• Strive to make progress on the next steps by encouraging all participants to advance and sustain recommendations in the institutions where they spend their time and have the authority and influence to act.

The Citizens League sent emails to a list of about 900 to invite them to be a part of the conversations. About 40 people were able to attend and participate, although many more either signed up to attend or indicated interest in the conversation. Nearly 70 people took the online survey that was part of the invitation. On our website and at the meetings, we asked people to comment on what they thought were some of the misconceptions about poverty and why we hadn't been able to "solve" poverty in Minnesota. The breadth of the discussions was startling and the following excerpts represent some of the most compelling thoughts that emerged.

Click here to read the details from the three conversations.

WHAT NEXT?

The Citizens League is organizing a second round of conversations that will explore this ground further with a greater diversity of perspectives to find the areas where we can be most effective. To see the list of those who participated in the conversations click here. ]]> http://citizensleague.org/blogs/policy/archives/2008/10/23/what-we-heard-in-the-initial-p-1.php http://citizensleague.org/blogs/policy/archives/2008/10/23/what-we-heard-in-the-initial-p-1.php Poverty Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:14:24 -0600 At last Thursday's Water Policy Study Committee meeting, the committee began to brainstorm a vision for water in Minnesota and the principles that should direct water management. Using the vision as our future state and the principles as a guide of how to get there, the committee plans to develop recommendations that can improve our water management system.

I want to use this blog to put down what I'm seeing as some of the conclusions the committee is coming to -- both its findings and the results of the brainstorm on vision and principles. The committee has NOT agreed on these -- it's just a starting point based on the meeting on the 16th -- and I would really appreciate feedback. Also, please take a look through the complete list of ideas from our brainstorm and help pull out what I'm missing.

• The water governance system is fragmented. The system has been developed piecemeal, without an overarching picture of how all the pieces fit together. The system is not organized by an overall set of goals nor through good coordination among executive agencies, resulting in multiple and often unclear lines of responsibility and unclear and at times overlapping authority. However, there are benefits to this system at well. Competing agencies can act as advocates for their areas of responsibility, balancing the various interests at play. Bottom line: there's no evidence that drastically overhauling the system to make it more streamlined would lead to better results.
• There seems to be general agreement that the most effective way to manage water is on a watershed basis. Political units are restricted to their borders, which do not usually fall along watershed lines -- a downstream county, for example, has little control over what is happening upstream. Watershed-based management, on the other hand, can help deal with upstream/downstream conflicts. Watershed units can also engage people meaningfully, because they can (and should) work on a local level.
• The state does not have good data on outcomes, such as water quality or groundwater supply, so it can be difficult to tell when practices and policies are working.
• Evaluations of Minnesota's water management system are most often focused on the executive agencies involved. We should also consider how the Legislature is organized to deal with these issues and what effects that has on statutes and budgets, as well as the roles of businesses, nonprofits, communities, and citizens.
• Governance is generally program-oriented. Most funding goes toward specific programs, and most inter-agency coordination is done on a program basis.

• Clean, plentiful waters, both for human use (drinking water, recreation, business and industry) and wildlife
• Equity of access -- including affordability of drinking/tap water and access to lakes and rivers
• Clarity -- clearly defined goals guide governmental decisions, and the role of citizens in water management is clear
• Water management is a shared responsibility -- upstream users take into account those downstream, and we manage water for future generations
• Knowledge of the resource -- we understand the problems that need to be dealt with, and we know the quantity of water available in the state
• Governance is efficient and cost-effective

Jack Ray put together a nice vision statement at the meeting: "Water is life. Earth is our home because it is the blue planet, the water planet. Access to adequate clean water in our homes and in our lakes, streams and groundwater is a fundamental human right. Water is not merely a commodity. Private transactions in water must never violate the highest public trust, the public stewardship of our collective treasure, our state's water resources."

• Transparency -- clearly define principles and/or goals behind government actions and decisions. Clear roles for citizens. Clear where responsibilities lie.
• Outcomes-based
• Accountability -- this requires that the responsibility given to a government body is matched by their authority
• Comprehensive -- water management integrates quality/quantity, incorporates multiple and sometimes competing interests

• Water has value -- we shouldn't treat it as if it were free
• Hydrologic basis for water governance -- I'd like to explore more what this means
• Policy decisions based on data where possible (and water viewed as a finite resource). Precautionary principle where we don't have enough information.
• Incentives as well as regulation

One of the areas of tension that stands out so far is: to what degree should priorities be developed by citizens and on a local level vs. the need for a statewide water plan?

I also want to draw attention to Larry Baker's comment following the meeting on the 16th, with some ideas of how to move forward. It probably should be attached to this post, but I didn't get it up quickly enough.

In the research we've done and presentations the committee has heard, it has become clear that the system by which water is governed in Minnesota is far from ideal. From an outside perspective, at least, it is difficult to differentiate the purviews of the many agencies involved in managing various aspects of water policy, and it can be just as difficult to see where the rest of us fit into this system.

Through the rest of the study, the committee will look at particular problems (e.g. nonpoint source pollution, questions of supply and future sustainability) as case studies. The committee agreed it won't make recommendations to improve any of these particular issues, but to use them as a way to illuminate problems with governance.

With this focus in mind, we've got our work cut out for us. Over the next couple of meetings, the committee will be developing a list of questions to be answered through this study. Using that list, we'll design a survey to take to government officials, employees of agencies and nonprofits, and citizens to help determine where the gaps in water governance are and how they can be resolved. Acknowledging that this is an issue that has been taken on before by other groups, the committee will also be reviewing the many reports that have already been published on the topic of Minnesota's water governance structure.

The discussion was going strong when the last committee meeting ended, so I'm looking forward to hearing from members with more ideas. It would also be great to hear from the rest of you -- I know that the committee would really appreciate hearing from those of you with thoughts or any experiences in this area.

From the presentations, we heard quite a number of important issues that the committee could address (for more on those questions, see the earlier blog posts and comments). The task for the committee now is to figure out in which area the Citizens League and this committee can be the most effective.

At the meeting on Sept. 4, we came up with potential policy questions in the categories of water quality, water supply, governance, citizen engagement, and economic incentives. We discussed these issues further on the 18th, and came to three potential topics: governance issues (including citizen engagement and governing "tools"); water supply and sustainability; and a third topic that combines issues of supply, quality.

To determine the best direction for the committee, we will look at each of these topics in the context of the Citizens League's criteria for selecting study topics. For the next meeting, a few members have volunteered to answer the following questions with respect to the 3 proposals (these questions are asked of anyone submitting a study topic for consideration):

1. Describe our project idea, including clearly defining the problems and special policy questions to be addressed.
2. Why is this problem important?
3. How could the Citizens League make a unique impact?
4. What are the prospects that the project would yield recommendations that oculd be implemented and have a major impact on the problem?
5. Explain how this problem can be addressed by data, research, and reason. Identify probable sources for data and research.
6. Explain how this problem can be framed without partisan bias.

Several members and other folks who have attended these meetings have come to me with ideas and concerns about the process of focusing the committee's charge, and members have suggested it would be good if the whole group -- as well as our readers -- could see these comments.

So please share your thoughts!

I never intended to move back to Minnesota after graduate school, but when I saw the job posting at the Citizens League I knew I needed to be here (luckily for me, Sean agreed!). Working at the Citizens League has been a blessing and a privilege, and it is with not just a little regret that I am saying goodbye. It is rare to find work that is as important, as fulfilling and as fun. I am grateful for all the opportunities the Citizens League has afforded me.

More than the work itself, however, I will miss the people who make the Citizens League what it is: the most talented and generous colleagues one could ever ask for, our thoughtful and committed members and our remarkable partners. You have all spoiled me rotten. How can future jobs ever measure up?

My next step is an exciting one. At the end of September, I am headed off to Pennsylvania to spend a year at Pendle Hill, a Quaker center for spiritual growth, study and service. It is a new direction for me, but I don't think I'll be away - from Minnesota, or from policy - for long.

A final bit of business: My departure is not the result of the Citizens League's current financial challenges (see Sean's blog for more information about our finances). I applied to Pendle Hill some months ago and made the decision to leave before the problems with our finances came to light. While the Citizens League is not immediately hiring a replacement for my position, the projects that I have managed will continue and will be transferred to current members of the Citizens League staff.

• Bob DeBoer is taking over the Poverty Policy Project and the Minnesota Journal. He can be reached at bdeboer [at] citizensleague dot org or 651-293-0575 ext. 13.
• Annie Levenson-Falk is taking over the Immigration and Higher Education Study Committee. She can be reached at alevensonfalk [at] citizensleague dot org or 651-293-0575 ext. 16.
• Catherine Wood is taking over Policy and a Pint. She can be reached at cwood [at] citizensleague dot org or 651-293-0575 ext. 10. You can also contact Catherine if you have questions about anything else that I would usually manage -- she'll direct you to the right person.

I wish you all the best as you continue to "do the common good" here in Minnesota. Good luck and have fun!