Clean Water:

How Will Board of Water and Soil Resources Spend Amendment Dollars?

Topic: Clean Water

The Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) will receive approximately $38 million over the next two years from the Legacy Amendment to improve the state's water quality. We asked John Jaschke, Executive Director of BWSR, to answer a few questions about what the funding will do for Minnesota.

Q: What results does BWSR hope to see in 1, 5, and 10 years in terms of reduced soil erosion and pollution runoff from your Legacy work?

Jaschke: In the first year we will see proven conservation practices installed in the most critical locations as a result of the dedicated funding that has been made available for nonpoint pollution reduction. Initially we will be projecting future results based on the benefits of projects and practices that we’ve seen in the past, and we will be requiring grant recipients to monitor their projects periodically, so that in 5-10 years we will be able to start seeing improvements on specific water bodies. Many local government units already have volunteer citizen water monitoring programs in place, and by collaborating with university and agency researchers, we will enhance and refine best management practices to improve water quality and wildlife habitat.

Q: Much of the work seems to fall into traditional categories — buffers, technical assistance, and so forth. Have these been shown to reduce pollution in Minnesota? Are there any new approaches you’ll be taking?

Jaschke: The U.S. Geological Survey recently completed a study on the effects of conservation programs on three streams in the Minnesota River Basin, and the data showed that riparian buffers in key locations lead to decreases in nitrogen and phosphorous concentrations. (An overview of the report is on the BWSR website, and the actual report is here.)

Many other studies have shown similar outcomes, and we’re confident that these and other practices that control soil erosion will continue to make a noticeable difference in water quality. We’re also working with the University of Minnesota and others to develop more precise tools for targeting projects in the areas where they will provide the greatest benefits.

Q: Since much of BWSR’s work has to do with landowner practices, what do you see as key to reducing polluted runoff from private lands? Education, financial incentives, regulation, or something else?

Jaschke: It’s really a combination of all of those, plus an increased sense of stewardship on the part of all Minnesotans. We all contribute to non-point source pollution, so we all need to understand how our actions affect water quality. It’s also important that conservation programs and services are delivered through a local approach, so that local citizens are involved in setting priorities and getting things done. It’s important to keep in mind that education and regulation are generally tactics for preventing future water pollution, but to actually restore water quality, it takes on-the-ground projects in key areas. With this funding, we’re confident that we can get a lot of projects done that have been proven to be effective in improving water quality and enhancing wildlife habitat.

A breakdown of BWSR funding from the Amendment:

Clean Water Fund    2010        2011    Biennium (Two Year Total)

Buffer easements    $3.25M    $3.25M    $6.5M

Purchase and restore permanent conservation easements on riparian buffers adjacent to public waters, except wetlands. Buffers must be at least 50 ft where possible and no more than 100 ft. May be used for restoration of riparian buffers and stream bank restoration.

Wellhead Protection Conservation Easements    $1.0M    $1.0M    $2.0M

Permanent Conservation Easements on wellhead protection areas under MS 103F.515 Subd 2, paragraph (d). Must be in drinking water supply management areas (DWSMA) designated as high or very high by the Commissioner of Health.

WD/WMO Best Mangement Practices

   $2.8M    $3.124M    $5.924M

Grants to Watershed Districts and Watershed Managment Organizations for: 1) structural or vegetative practices that reduce storm water runoff from developed or disturbed lands or 2) to leverage federal funds for restoration, protection or enhancement of water quality in surface waters and to protect groundwater. Must have longlasting benefit, include local match (which can be staff/admin), and be consistent with TMDL implementation plans or local water management plans. Priority may be given to school projects that demonstrate water retention practices.

Non-point implementation grants    $3.0M    $3.0M    $6.0M

Grants to WDs, WMOs, Counties and SWCDs to keep water on the land and to protect, enhance, and restore water quality in lakes, rivers and streams and to protect groundwater and drinking water. Must have long-lasting benefit, include local match, and be consistent with TMDL implementation plans or local water management plans. Priority may be given to school projects that demonstrate water retention practices.

Anoka Conservation District    $0.4M    $0.6M    $1.0M

For 7-county metropolitan landscape restoration program for water quality and improvement projects.

Feedlot Water Quality Improvement Grants    $2.0M    $2.0M    $4.0M

For feedlots under 300 animal units on riparian land, to include water quality assessment to determine the effectiveness in protecting, enhancing and restoring water quality in lakes, rivers and streams and in protecting groundwater from degradation.

Stream bank, stream channel, and shoreline    $2.33M    $1.83M    $4.16M

• Conservation Drainage $0.33M $0.33M $0.6M
Technical assistance and grants to establish a conservation drainage program in consultation with the Drainage Work Group. Program consists of projects to retrofit existing drainage systems with water quality practices, evaluate outcomes, and provide outreach.
• Hennepin County $0.5M -0- $0.5M
Grant for riparian restoration and stream bank stabilization in the 10 primary stream systems in Hennepin County. County will work with WDs and WMOs to identify and prioritize projects. To the extent possible, county shall employ youth through MCC and Tree Trust. Must be matched by non-state sources, including in-kind contributions.

Oversight, support, accountability reporting    $0.275M    $0.315M    $0.59M

Includes an annual report to the legislature prepared jointly with DNR and MPCA, detailing recipients and projects funded; anticipated water quality benefits; relationship of restoration projects to TMDL load allocations; relationship of protection projects to monitored water quality trends; and individual county progress in implementing SSTS programs and upgrading open lot feedlots <300 AU in shoreland areas. Organizations receiving grants under this section shall provide this information to BWSR. BWSR will require grantees to specify outcomes achieved by the grants prior to any grant awards.

Technical Assistance and Engineering    $1.25M    $1.5M    $2.75M

Targeted nonpoint restoration technical assistance and engineering.

SSTS Programs    $1.6M    $1.9M    $3.5M

Grants to counties to implement septic sewage system programs including inventories, enforcement, development of databases, and systems to insure septic sewage system maintenance reporting program results to BWSR and the MPCA and base grants. Priority must be given to protection of lakes, rivers and streams. Grants can only be provided to counties that have adopted septic sewage system ordinances and can demonstrate enforcement of the ordinances.

Imminent health threat systems    $0.8M    $1.0M    $1.8M

Grants to address imminent health threat and failing septic sewage systems..

Outdoor Heritage Fund 2010

RIM Wetlands Reserve Program $9.058M

In cooperation with US Department of Agriculture Wetland Reserve Program. A list of proposed acquisitions and a list of proposed projects, describing types and locations of restorations, must be provided as part of the required accomplishment report. All easements involving restoration: must be permanent; include a long-term stewardship plan and funding for monitoring and enforcing the easement agreement; have an ecological restoration and management plan including timetable for implementation.

How Will Board of Water and Soil Resources Spend Amendment Dollars?

Related Articles: