1995-07-20_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

i i into tr I ni ironically, a lack of water inspired the Local Water Planning Program. The drought of the mid- to late- 1970s was severe enough to draw legislative attention tao one seem- ingly obvious omission in Minnesota's natural resource coffers: we had no comprehensive plan for water resources. To remedy the situation--and hope- fully, ensure that Minnesota's waters remained consistently clean and plentiful-the Legislature in 9977 created the Water Planning Board and gave it responsibility for developing a statewide water plan. Although the board fulfilled this responsibility, legislators were concerned that the plan did not adequately address the fragmented and confusing role of local govem- ment.. Despite the fact that almost all local units of govemment could potentially play a part in water management, no one local unit had been designated responsibility, resulting in wide variations of protection, coordination and enforcement. The Legislature directed the Water Planning Board to study the issue further. The board reviewed a range of op- tions, including: •establishing watershed districts throughout the state; •making soil and water conser- vation districts watershed- based; •creating regional water management districts (a new form of govemment); and •using county govemment. The study recommended the last possibility for a variety of reasons, the key one being that county land use authority ties in closely with water management. Input , on county-based water ";•, • , , management was '= obtained #rom a wide i variety of sources ~ when the Southern Minnesota. River Basins Council-a t•' ~w'"` citizens/local govern- ~, went advisory panel to the state Environmental ®uality Board-the State Planning Agency, the Association of Minnesota Counties, and the Minnesota Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts held Beltrami con't settle. In addition, a Bemidji State Univer- sity student has been working with the district to design an aquatic planting plan for the basin. So although it won't technically be a wetland, the basin w~ have many wetland-like functions.. The purpose of the plans is to help the three cities get funds for projects like the waterfront holding pond, according to Jeff Hrubes, aquatic biologist for the Beftrami Soil and Water Conservation District, which is the local coordina- for for the water plan. By developing the plans, the communities will know what needs to be done and can work on finding outside funding, Hrubes said.. 'If you've got the plans on the shelf and an opportunity presents itself, you can take advantage of it, rather than start from scratch,' he said. Mrubes also noted that most cities could not afford to hire someone to do a similar study. A large engineering firm recently did a similar runoff analysis using the same software for an area in the Twin Cities for a cost of $50,000, Hrubes said. ~- ~ ~ry~~~Al WATERP~'A~~ 4 meetings on the subject throughout the state. All this effort culminated in 1985 when Representative Virgil Johnson of Caledonia authored a bill mandat- ing both surface water and ground- water planning throughout the 80- county greater Minnesota area. (The Metropolitan Water Planning Act, approved in 1982, already covered the metro area.) After funding was stripped from the bill, it was amended to make the planning voluntary. The Comprehensive Local Water Management Act gave the state Water Resources Board-later merged into the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil ~, '.'.~ '~ Resources (BWSR)- -the responsibility to write rules covering plan approval and the '~~~~~ planning process. The Environmental Quality Board (EQB) provided staff to the Water Resources Board for the rule-writing process. In 1986, the rules-based on input from an advisory committee and a technical committee--were adopted. Although response during the state- wide meetings and from the rules advisory committee had been positive, funding for plan develop- ment still presented a major ob- stacle. However, in 1987, the Legis- lative Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCMR) allocated $882,000 to the EQB for six planning groups, comprised of 52 counties and two watershed districts. Again, the EQB provided staff support for this "pilot" project, developing a handbook and data sheets and holding meetings for the project sponsors. History con't on p. 6