2001-08-23_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

BWSR Meeting Minutes July 25, 2001 Page Seven value within the watershed. We also sought a name change from administrative levy to the general level. That levy can be used for projects, monitoring, not just for administrative purposes. There was always a provision in the Watershed District Act that if a municipality petitioned for a project, the watershed district had the ability to determine which portion of that project was a basic water management feature or basic water management function of the project. That petition requirement was expanded now to include any local unit of government or 50 residents within .the watershed district. Doug reported that counties in the metro area that are now levying for purposes of implementing the water management plans, are established as special purpose taxing districts. Minnehaha Creek received an enforcement levy authority because they are often challenged on permits, projects, and involved in litigation.. It has been difficult for Minnehaha Creek to finance those front-end costs on litigation out of their current general administrative levy. They were authorized $75,000 to levy for an enforcement fund to help defend the district when needed. Soil and water conservation districts received a general services grant increase of $270,000 overthe biennium. In feedlot cost-share, the money that is available for this program increases $625,000 in the first year of the biennium and then goes up to $650,000 in the second year of the biennium and that builds to the agency's base. PCA also received $500,000 of additional money for grants to support work at the counties effort for delegation. Road replacement funding was accomplished. Counties, cities and townships pushed and we did get $2 million in the bonding bill. The trespass law was amended this year, it defines the fact that RIM land and CRP land that is held in a conserving use under a state or federal program is by definition agricultural land and it does not need to be posted. There were minor changes to the RIM program which dealt with the landowner definition. We wanted it to be consistent with the State's definition of an agricultural producer who qualifies under the ag definitions. It also increased payment rates. Doug reported that last winter we started a federal farm bill forum which included DNR, MDA, and many of the conservation organizations to gather comments on the farm bill. Ron Harnack would like to get a small committee together from the Board as quickly as possible to work on this issue. We would like to have board members develop ahigh- level position statement explaining where we are on existing farm programs. Ron Harnack would like the Board to come up with a statement and he will work with the Governor's office for signature and then forward this on to our congressional members. Dwain Otte, Karen Harder, Joann Coover, Darryl Bruggman would like to be a part of this committee. We would also like at least one member from each of the agencies that are represented on the Board. Someone from NRCS and FSA would also be asked to participate. Mary Jo Anderson. will follow-up on this and contact everyone next week.