2009-10-22_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

~~ j ~ + d ~ .~ j 6~ ~i'4I ._ i ' f) _ ~~~ to ~ Y~,~,f F9 ~ ~~ a 4,:5~ i' ~ * ~ ~ , 3 ~ ,~ '<~~~ t~~is~t a ~~ ~~~ ' }_ ~ _ ~ _~ As I toured Southeastern Minnesota areas devastated by the 2007 floods with the Board of Water and Soil Resources this August, I was heartened to see towns and lives being rebuilt and to see state funds being put to good use. I was also reminded that while the rest of us have moved on, those who live and work in the Southeast are still dealing with the reconstruction. As a society, we have a short attention span. It is important to re- memberthat recovering from these disasters takes time. Restoring our land and water resources after years of degradation also takes time. While we all want to see instant results and know that funds are being well spent, often it is a longer process to make sustain- able improvements to our environment. I know that when I review grants, I can become impatient, wondering why proposers are still seeking funding for projects I have seen for several years. Then I remind myself that when we seek to improve our land and water resources, we are working with complex systems. Our efforts take time, funding, and sustained energy to be truly successful. While we must take on the new initiatives and issues, we must also finish the work we have started, and that work may take years. Persistence and dedication were themes in recent office discus- sionsabout the percentage of onsite systems that are in compli- ance with state regulations, highlighting another situation in which long-term benefits require long"-term solutions. Trends dyer the past thirty years have been impressively positive. Estimates in the 1980s found only about 20 percent of septic systems in compli- ance with Minnesota regulations. By the mid-1990s, estimated compliance was approximately 50 percent, and currently the estimate is over 75 percent of septic systems in compliance. The trend shows a huge improvement over several decades, especially considering that this work is accomplished one household at a time. We must continue to support those who work on this issue of compliant septic systems through training, designing, installing, inspecting and funding onsite septic systems and the many other environmentalists who continue to make steady improvements with long-term efforts. This year's Water Resources Conference, October 26 and 27 (see article on page 1), brings a mix of looking ahead to new initiatives and issues and celebrating the work that has been completed and is ongoing. The keynote and luncheon speakers are nationally known experts from Minnesota as well as from other parts of the country. The breakout sessions and poster session highlight the good work of water professionals here in Minnesota in the areas of research, implementation, civic engagement and policy. The conference is a great. venue to connect with current colleagues and meet new colleagues. We hope to see you there! ~ a . `2`iG ~ 2 ~~~,~~ dye Sleeper ,~ ~.~ An interview with Congresswoman Betty McCollum about her amendment to the Water Research and Development Initiative Act Summary of Amendment: To amend H.R. 1145 to address both wa- ter quality and water quantity in the purpose statement; include the impacts of contaminants of emerging concern in our water supply as a research outcome; and enhance coordination of water quality re- search between the existing ]~~ational Institutes for Water Resourc- es, authorized in the Water Resources Research Act of 1984. Q: What motivated you to introduce this measure? A: Our national water research strategy has historically focused sep- arately on water quantity (availability) and water quality. However, water quality and quantity are inextricably linked. Our national water policy objective should be to ensure availability of clean water. My amendment clarifies that our national water research strategy must simultaneously address issues of water quality and quantity. My amendment also responds to the growing concern over chemi- cal pollutants, such as pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and endocrine disrupting compounds, in our water supply. Today we know enough about these contaminants to be worried, but not enough to provide good information to our state health officials or our constituents. After hearing from constituents and researchers at the University of Minnesota, I crafted this amendment to add the in- vestigation of scope and impacts of chemical contaminants as a new research objective to our national water research policy. This mea- sure supports the priorities of Minnesotans who voted for dedicated clean water funding as a state constitutional amendment in 2008:" Q: How will your amendment benefit Minnesota? A: We all know Minnesota contains over 10,0001akes, the head- waters of the Mississippi River, and the largest of the Great Lakes Lake Superior. As research increasingly indicates the presence of chemical pollutants in our water supply, understanding the impacts of these contaminants is critical for the health of the people of Min- nesota and the integrity of our water ecosystems. Q:How might this affect the role of the University of Minnesota's Water Resources Center or the University at large? A: Research centers, like the Water Resources Center at the Uni- versity of Minnesota, already play a significant role in water quality research, as part of the network of 54 existing federally-funded research institutes at higher education institutions all across the country. They conduct research on water quality challenges specific to each region. Currently this research network is an under-utilized resource, ~n-ith Little coordination bet~nreen institutes and with fed- eral research centers. My amendment would increase coordination among the centers so they are more effective partners in federal wa- ter quality efforts, linking the research goals of these water research centers with the news federal water research plan called for by the National Water Research and Development Initiative Act. --- __ ~ - ----- ___ - _ - - ___