Local Government Roundtable Advisory Committee Policy Topics
Local Government Roundtable Goal
To provide consensus recommendations to our members and state policy makers on water management delivery in Minnesota to be more efficient and effective in accordance with the economic realities of our state and nation and the accompanying pressures on state and local resources.
Local Government Roundtable Advisory Committee
The Local Government Roundtable Advisory committee (RAC) will have three policy sub-committees to address policy items identified by the Local Government Roundtable (LGR). The policy groups will provide written recommendations to the LGR by January 10, 2011. The following is general information related to the three topics:
Watershed and Basin Water Management. (SWCD Chair)
Background/Context: Over the last several years, state agencies have been moving to implement programs on a watershed basis. At the same time, Rep. Morrie Lanning (Moorhead) has introduced bills that address watershed and basin management for local government. Although the proposed legislation had not passed, the house leadership during a committee hearing in 2010 did request local government to report back to inform the legislature on how SWCDs, WDs, and counties will work on a watershed basis. Each organization has had policy discussions independently related to the Rep. Lanning’s proposals. The legislature also adopted policy language stating “The legislature finds that it is in the public interest to manage groundwater and surface water resources from the perspective of aquifers, watersheds, and river basins to achieve protection, preservation, enhancement, and restoration of the state's valuable groundwater and surface water resources.” The LGR is requesting a collective discussion on watershed and basin management. Items for consideration: What is the difference between watershed management and basin management?; How do we as LGUs currently work on a watershed and/or basin level?; Is there a better way? Why or why not? Is there a local governance structure that is best for water management planning and/or implementation (e.g. at what level; county, regional, minor/major watershed or basin?); If basin or regional efforts are needed who is responsible for funding the effort (state, local property tax, combination, other)?
Comprehensive Water Planning & Management -- structure and process. (WD Chair)
Background/Context: In the early 1980’s the legislature created the Metro Surface Water Management Act, the County Water Management Act (CWMA) and the Groundwater Protection act. These laws created a process that requires adoption and implementation of local water management plans based on local priorities. The Comprehensive Local Water Management Act (Minnesota Statutes sections 103B.301 to 103B.355) allows BWSR to provide financial assistance to counties through the Natural Resources Block Grant to implement county comprehensive water plans. In 2006, the Clean Water Legacy Act was passed and allocated first-year funding to accelerate TMDL development and restoration activities throughout the state. With the increased acceleration of listing impaired waters, TMDL requirements, etc., do the provisions of the Federal Clean Water Act, the Comprehensive Local Water Management Act and the Metro Surface Water Management Act create competing and/or complimentary planning processes? How does MPCA’s watershed approach (10-year rotation for addressing waters of the state) differ from the five and ten year local water management planning requirements? Is there a better way to address TMDL and Comprehensive Water Management Planning efforts and create efficiencies? Why or why not? How do WD, SWCD and county planning efforts complement each other and increase efficiencies? The CLWM act has a unique state/local funding mechanism. The policy committee may want to review in light of the state budget deficit.
State Funding Process for Local Water Plan Implementation. (County Chair)
Over the last several years, the state has faced unprecedented budget deficits. To address the deficits, state funding to LGUs’ base programs have been cut. At the same time, with the passage of the constitutional amendment funding there has been an increase to competitive grants that is based on short term (two years) funding cycles. At times the competitive process may have merit but may also add considerable costs for both the state and LGU’s in the continually preparation of grants, review of grants, duplication of grant programs, etc. The state legislature requires SWCDs, WD and Counties to implement local water management planning efforts and identify resource needs for ten years. Rarely are the local plans assessed on a larger watershed basis to determine watershed priorities and/or utilized to set statewide funding priorities. The LGR is requesting the advisory committee to provide a funding process based on priorities that SWCDs, WDs and counties have already identified in their local planning process as opposed to a continuous competitive process that may not address longer term sustainability for local water management and implementation.
Local Government Roundtable Goal
To provide consensus recommendations to our members and state policy makers on water management delivery in Minnesota to be more efficient and effective in accordance with the economic realities of our state and nation and the accompanying pressures on state and local resources.
Local Government Roundtable Advisory Committee
The Local Government Roundtable Advisory committee (RAC) will have three policy sub-committees to address policy items identified by the Local Government Roundtable (LGR). The policy groups will provide written recommendations to the LGR by January 10, 2011. The following is general information related to the three topics:
Watershed and Basin Water Management. (SWCD Chair)
Background/Context: Over the last several years, state agencies have been moving to implement programs on a watershed basis. At the same time, Rep. Morrie Lanning (Moorhead) has introduced bills that address watershed and basin management for local government. Although the proposed legislation had not passed, the house leadership during a committee hearing in 2010 did request local government to report back to inform the legislature on how SWCDs, WDs, and counties will work on a watershed basis. Each organization has had policy discussions independently related to the Rep. Lanning’s proposals. The legislature also adopted policy language stating “The legislature finds that it is in the public interest to manage groundwater and surface water resources from the perspective of aquifers, watersheds, and river basins to achieve protection, preservation, enhancement, and restoration of the state's valuable groundwater and surface water resources.” The LGR is requesting a collective discussion on watershed and basin management. Items for consideration: What is the difference between watershed management and basin management?; How do we as LGUs currently work on a watershed and/or basin level?; Is there a better way? Why or why not? Is there a local governance structure that is best for water management planning and/or implementation (e.g. at what level; county, regional, minor/major watershed or basin?); If basin or regional efforts are needed who is responsible for funding the effort (state, local property tax, combination, other)?
Comprehensive Water Planning & Management -- structure and process. (WD Chair)
Background/Context: In the early 1980’s the legislature created the Metro Surface Water Management Act, the County Water Management Act (CWMA) and the Groundwater Protection act. These laws created a process that requires adoption and implementation of local water management plans based on local priorities. The Comprehensive Local Water Management Act (Minnesota Statutes sections 103B.301 to 103B.355) allows BWSR to provide financial assistance to counties through the Natural Resources Block Grant to implement county comprehensive water plans. In 2006, the Clean Water Legacy Act was passed and allocated first-year funding to accelerate TMDL development and restoration activities throughout the state. With the increased acceleration of listing impaired waters, TMDL requirements, etc., do the provisions of the Federal Clean Water Act, the Comprehensive Local Water Management Act and the Metro Surface Water Management Act create competing and/or complimentary planning processes? How does MPCA’s watershed approach (10-year rotation for addressing waters of the state) differ from the five and ten year local water management planning requirements? Is there a better way to address TMDL and Comprehensive Water Management Planning efforts and create efficiencies? Why or why not? How do WD, SWCD and county planning efforts complement each other and increase efficiencies? The CLWM act has a unique state/local funding mechanism. The policy committee may want to review in light of the state budget deficit.
State Funding Process for Local Water Plan Implementation. (County Chair)
Over the last several years, the state has faced unprecedented budget deficits. To address the deficits, state funding to LGUs’ base programs have been cut. At the same time, with the passage of the constitutional amendment funding there has been an increase to competitive grants that is based on short term (two years) funding cycles. At times the competitive process may have merit but may also add considerable costs for both the state and LGU’s in the continually preparation of grants, review of grants, duplication of grant programs, etc. The state legislature requires SWCDs, WD and Counties to implement local water management planning efforts and identify resource needs for ten years. Rarely are the local plans assessed on a larger watershed basis to determine watershed priorities and/or utilized to set statewide funding priorities. The LGR is requesting the advisory committee to provide a funding process based on priorities that SWCDs, WDs and counties have already identified in their local planning process as opposed to a continuous competitive process that may not address longer term sustainability for local water management and implementation.
