Policy Blog

December 19, 2008

Q&A: Follow-Up with Bruce Wilson

On December 3, the Water Policy Study Committee heard from Bruce Wilson of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Bruce has been involved with several collaborative efforts to clean up lakes and rivers, including the Chain of Lakes in Minneapolis. (See more in my Dec. 4th blog.)

There was plenty more to talk about when the meeting ended, so I caught up with Bruce to ask a few more questions:

Q: In the case of the Chain of Lakes clean up, the responsibilities of all the parties involved were pretty clear, because they were spelled out by agreements signed by each group (including the cities, the Park Board, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, the MN Pollution Control Agency, etc.). Was it difficult to come to agreement on who would be responsible for what? How did you do it?

Bruce Wilson: The Minneapolis Chain of Lakes Clean Water Partnership is an example of how different groups came together to solve problems. I believe the basic formula was: (1) acknowledgment of problems; (2) acknowledgment that many hands (and funding sources) will make lighter work; and (3) local leadership and commitment to solve the problems. Inherent in the agreement was to define realistic expectations over short (~5 years) and long terms (~5-20 years) and then focus on priorities starting at the top of the list. (Rehabilitation efforts usually take years, as it takes time to define causes and solutions, design fixes, construct, and allow the water body to respond.)

Key Leader -- Jeff Lee of the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board was the extraordinary staff-leader who was the core of the project. A citizen advisory committee was established and received intensive training while their Clean Water Partnership monitoring was underway. The citizen advisory panel crafted management goals that were submitted to the cities and watershed district. Funding of various goal work components (sediment basins, etc.) were discussed by the Mayor of Minneapolis with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, the Minneapolis Park Board Director and Minneapolis Public Works, and agreement reached.

I think the collective synergy of galvanized electorate, superb leadership (from Jeff Lee of MPRB, Mayor Sayles Belton, Hennepin County, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District managers), flexible grant resources, and technical support all contributed significantly to their successes.

Q: In the Crow River clean up, did you work out contracts similar to the Chain of Lakes? If not, how did the parties (as well as citizens) know what their job was and what to expect from others?

BW: Remember I mentioned the importance of "ramping up" of citizen and local decision makers' awareness of problems and their management options. In this case, there was a two year ramping up phase of working with citizen groups who, like the Minneapolis Chain Project, were very concerned about degradation of the Crow River system. The MPCA assisted in establishing river monitoring network and helped citizens and the counties in developing management options. (This was before much of the impairment listing/TMDL process currently in place.)

After preliminary assessments confirmed widespread and substantial degradation of the River's health, the watershed counties formed a joint powers organization (JPO). the JPO then applied and received a MPCA Clean Water Partnership grant diagnostic study with utilized 30 stream monitoring locations. That monitoring along with the more detailed TMDL modeling effort now being completed, allowing targeting of various phosphorus and sediment loading sources.

Q: When we're talking about pollution prevention rather than cleanup, would you say it's less clear who is responsible for what? If so, do you have suggestions to make it clearer?

BW: I believe there are two issues in this question: responsibilities and available funds. There is also the phrase "if it isn't broke, don't fix it" that describes a commonly heard theme.

Protection efforts, while extremely cost-effective, may not rise to priority status to some overstretched municipal and county budgets. Many counties prepare water management plans to address protection, but funding is a universal problem. Watershed districts, in contrast, generally focus on water quality and quantity issues and have taxing authority.

Secondly, there continues to be the need for institutional recognition of the potential effects of urban runoff on very sensitive waters, particularly of the Northern Lakes and Forests and Central Hardwood Forests ecoregions (NE and Central MN). Hence the need for development commissions to fully detail new development infrastructure costs and benefits by including long term operation and maintenance costs for municipal public works departments, for example. Adoption of low-impact design and conservation design ordinances will be most important in this regard by reducing runoff volumes and impervious cover.

Q: In your experience, how much of nonpoint source pollution clean us is due to actually reducing pollution versus trapping pollutants before they enter water bodies?

BW: In reality, you are describing three of the 8 management approached which I am simplifying:

  1. education/information (preventing pollution);
  2. source controls (a variety of onsite agriculture and urban practices); and
  3. treating runoff waters (e.g. agricultural and urban stormwater treatment systems

I am convinced that effectively marketed information and education can make huge changes in behavior that in turn result in substantially reduced pollutant loading (measurable changes of 5% to 50%). For example, we rarely hear of waste oil being dumped into storm sewers. Farming practices have changed dramatically over time. We are selling a product -- clean water -- and will need long-term reinforcing marketing efforts to maintain behavior changes.

Common watershed management goals focus on series of reductions, for example reducing 25% phosphorus loads over ten years. To accomplish these goals, we rely upon a series of "base hits" mirroring the 8 Common Watershed Approaches in my presentation. Pollution prevention could be an important part of the 25% reduction goal over a ten typical year effort.

Sometimes education efforts get overwhelmed by other forces and regulation may be needed -- for example the limitation of phosphorus in household detergents that was advanced in the 1980's or the more recent restrictions in urban fertilizer phosphorus content. (A study in Minnesota showed that the fertilizer phosphorus limitation was likely reducing total phosphorus loading by 12-15%.)

Impervious cover, ~2/3 for car habitat, is really our main urban problem generating source. To the degree we can prevent or reduce impervious cover and/or connected impervious cover in urban areas (as in low-impact and conservation designs), the greater our protection potential. Adoption of low-impact design and conservation design ordinances will be most important in this regard by reducing runoff volumes and impervious cover in new and retrofitting of old urban areas.

Q: What elements of successful cleanups do you think could be replicated broadly, without the large price tags that were required for the complete projects?

BW:

  • Watershed planning, land conservation (maybe via trust funds, easements, set asides, tax forfeit lands), watershed stewardship (information and education), better land use designs and erosion and sediment control of developing and established urban areas.
  • Rehabilitation projects requiring multiple Best Management Practices are going to be expensive, hence the emphasis on avoiding via protection.

Q: At the end of your presentation to the committee, you started to tell us your "wish list" for policy change related to nonpoint source pollution. Unfortunately, we ran out of time before you could finish. I'm interested to hear the rest of your answer.

BW:

  • Increased education and information efforts and continued UM certification training of watershed managers and professionals.
  • Support incorporation of specialties needed to rehabilitate our water resources, in a similar fashion as human medicine has specialties.
  • Re-examination of institutional aspects to more fully integrate watershed management across political boundaries. New technologies should be harnessed for city and watershed planning (GIS-based and computer enhanced images, for example).
  • Use of targeted professional marketing approaches for clean water as "products."

Posted by Annie Levenson-Falk at 2:12 PM | Comments (0)

December 4, 2008

Water Policy Committee hears from Bruce Wilson

Yesterday, the Water Policy Study Committee heard a presentation from Bruce Wilson of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Bruce has been involved with several successful clean-ups or nonpoint source pollution -- where pollutants in a river or lake were significantly reduced -- including in the Minneapolis Chain of Lakes, a project that is held up by the EPA as a national model.

You can view the notes from this meeting online, and the Power Points will soon be available here. For now, I'll just highlight one point that stood out to me.

Much of what Bruce told the committee focused on the importance of collaboration. To successfully reduce pollution in a water body requires cooperation between many different groups with many different perspectives -- not just the various state and local government units involved, but also residents, citizen groups, nonprofits, businesses, etc. The strong interests involved makes it difficult. A neutral, trained facilitator is essential, he said. But the need to bring in a facilitator also shows just how much we care about water here, and the strength of democracy on this issue.

Bruce told us that it is challenging to get various groups to work together and takes years of building relationships, but in the end it is worth it. With the data and a good understanding of the situation in the Chain of Lakes, for example, citizens came forward with goals that were more ambitious than those presented by the Pollution Control Agency. This can not only make clean-up projects more effective and less expensive at the outset, but can help to sustain the projects after they are built.

Bruce has volunteered to answer additional questions that we didn't have time for. If you have more questions you'd like to run by him (even if you weren't at the meeting), please post them here and I will pass them along to him.

As in past meetings, it was also great to hear from others who attended this meeting. I want to thank everyone who has been following this study and encourage all of you to continue giving us your input.

Posted by Annie Levenson-Falk at 3:02 PM | Comments (1)

November 21, 2008

Working Group for Water Policy

Various members of the water policy study committee have suggested that we break into working groups to look into bite-size chunks of research around governance and management of nonpoint source pollution. Two or four volunteers could review the regulations in a certain area and report back to the committee (maybe once, maybe multiple times) focusing on the criteria and core questions the committee identifies (see the criteria/questions draft from 11/12).

Some of the potential case studies that have been suggested include:
  • Shingle Creek Watershed TMDL on chloride (road salt)
  • Look at "types" of nonpoint source pollution -- agricultural runoff, urban runoff, shoreland development, wetland loss, septic systems, and/or forestry, etc.
  • Look at a particular program of a state agency or other government body

At the encouragement of committee members, I'm putting this idea out on the blog to get feedback on the best way to do it.

Committee members and others who have been involved in this study: What are your thoughts the best area(s) of focus?

Citizens League-ers with experience on other study committees: What words of wisdom would you impart on how to best take advantage of working groups like these (and what should be we sure to avoid)?

Posted by Annie Levenson-Falk at 11:18 AM | Comments (1)

November 7, 2008

Transparency must be applied to federal bailout

At the October 22 Policy and a Pint, a key theme that was discussed was the need for transparency in how the federal bailout of financial institutions proceeds. Transparency has also been a key word used by federal officials in describing the bailout.

Bailoutsleuth.com is good source of information on the specific measures as the bail out proceeds. They have filed a Freedom of Information Act request over bailout contracts with redacted portions. For more details:

http://bailoutsleuth.com/

Posted by Bob DeBoer at 4:26 PM | Comments (0)

October 31, 2008

Principles/Evaluative Criteria for Water Governance

We spent only a short time in yesterday's meeting talking about what principles or criteria should be used to evaluate water governance. (I'm still a little confused on the distinction between principles and criteria, sorry, and pretty sure I use them interchangeably.) As several committee members said, though, this needs a lot more work.

Let's use this space to collect thoughts on this while they're still fresh. Feel free to post your brainstorms without worrying too much about repeating what has already been said, or if the principles are on the right scope, etc. I will do my best to pull it all together and bring back an attempt at a summary.

To get it started, I want to pull out the principles from the October 20th post and comments:

  • Transparency -- clearly defined principles and/or goals behind government actions and decisions. Clear roles for citizens. Clear where responsibilities lie.
  • Outcomes-based
  • Accountability -- among other things, this requires that the responsibility given to a government body is matched by their authority
  • Comprehensive -- water management integrates quality/quantity, incorporates multiple and sometimes competing interests
  • Adequate funding
  • citizen input mechanisms exist and are utilized
  • watershed-based science used to inform watershed-level policy
  • watershed policy and projects get applied by watershed and other types of governments, organizations, and citizens
  • decades long trend information is accessible by many (it takes time for things to show up in water column)
  • recognize one size will not fit all at the local level (local resource and tax bases vary significantly)
  • gov't boards or executives ought to articulate measurable short- and long-term goals for their organization
  • (missing a concise principle related to how we get more systematic interaction between organizations -- it's episodic now)
  • Public trust - obligation to protect water for other people and for future generations

Posted by Annie Levenson-Falk at 9:35 AM | Comments (3)

October 28, 2008

Center for Democracy and Citizenship Blogs on our Action Group

Yesterday's By the People blog post, from the Center for Democracy and Citizenship's Ellen Tveit, highlighted the project of the Citizens League's environment action group and a team of students at St. Bernard's School to build a rain garden at the school.

This project was one of two pilot action groups that we organized in 2007-2008 with the goal of giving young members an opportunity to build their civic organizing skills by leading a meaningful project of their own design. We learned a lot in this first round, and a group of members are meeting now to plan another round of action groups that will start in early 2009.

Posted by Annie Levenson-Falk at 10:45 AM | Comments (0)

October 23, 2008

What we heard in the initial poverty discussions

In September, the Citizens League held three initial conversations on how we could best focus our efforts on the policies to address poverty in Minnesota. Those who attended were mainly from different levels of government, higher education, or non-profit organizations, along with some interested citizens. The Citizens League is using these conversations to hone our focus for a second round where we will seek to engage more people who are directly impacted by the effects of poverty and more institutions that are part of the economic reality of poverty.

The Citizens League approaches these conversations with particular goals in mind. As the process continues, we will ask all participants to:

  • Contribute to problem definitions and solutions according to the current realities of policy questions around poverty. It is our goal to involve a broad range of individuals, groups and institutions that are affected by poverty.
  • Share and learn from one another and be open to exploring the implications of various courses of action through a transparent process that expects all participants to engage in decision-making.
  • Identify actionable next steps, where all participants connect their self-interest with the common interest to evaluate outcomes and determine ways to work together.
  • Strive to make progress on the next steps by encouraging all participants to advance and sustain recommendations in the institutions where they spend their time and have the authority and influence to act.

The Citizens League sent emails to a list of about 900 to invite them to be a part of the conversations. About 40 people were able to attend and participate, although many more either signed up to attend or indicated interest in the conversation. Nearly 70 people took the online survey that was part of the invitation. On our website and at the meetings, we asked people to comment on what they thought were some of the misconceptions about poverty and why we hadn't been able to "solve" poverty in Minnesota. The breadth of the discussions was startling and the following excerpts represent some of the most compelling thoughts that emerged.

Click here to read the details from the three conversations.

WHAT NEXT?

The Citizens League is organizing a second round of conversations that will explore this ground further with a greater diversity of perspectives to find the areas where we can be most effective. To see the list of those who participated in the conversations click here.

Posted by Bob DeBoer at 12:14 PM | Comments (0)

October 20, 2008

Findings, Vision, and Guiding Principles in Water Governance

At last Thursday's Water Policy Study Committee meeting, the committee began to brainstorm a vision for water in Minnesota and the principles that should direct water management. Using the vision as our future state and the principles as a guide of how to get there, the committee plans to develop recommendations that can improve our water management system.

I want to use this blog to put down what I'm seeing as some of the conclusions the committee is coming to -- both its findings and the results of the brainstorm on vision and principles. The committee has NOT agreed on these -- it's just a starting point based on the meeting on the 16th -- and I would really appreciate feedback. Also, please take a look through the complete list of ideas from our brainstorm and help pull out what I'm missing.

Findings:
  • The water governance system is fragmented. The system has been developed piecemeal, without an overarching picture of how all the pieces fit together. The system is not organized by an overall set of goals nor through good coordination among executive agencies, resulting in multiple and often unclear lines of responsibility and unclear and at times overlapping authority. However, there are benefits to this system at well. Competing agencies can act as advocates for their areas of responsibility, balancing the various interests at play. Bottom line: there's no evidence that drastically overhauling the system to make it more streamlined would lead to better results.
  • There seems to be general agreement that the most effective way to manage water is on a watershed basis. Political units are restricted to their borders, which do not usually fall along watershed lines -- a downstream county, for example, has little control over what is happening upstream. Watershed-based management, on the other hand, can help deal with upstream/downstream conflicts. Watershed units can also engage people meaningfully, because they can (and should) work on a local level.
  • The state does not have good data on outcomes, such as water quality or groundwater supply, so it can be difficult to tell when practices and policies are working.
  • Evaluations of Minnesota's water management system are most often focused on the executive agencies involved. We should also consider how the Legislature is organized to deal with these issues and what effects that has on statutes and budgets, as well as the roles of businesses, nonprofits, communities, and citizens.
  • Governance is generally program-oriented. Most funding goes toward specific programs, and most inter-agency coordination is done on a program basis.
Vision:
  • Clean, plentiful waters, both for human use (drinking water, recreation, business and industry) and wildlife
  • Equity of access -- including affordability of drinking/tap water and access to lakes and rivers
  • Clarity -- clearly defined goals guide governmental decisions, and the role of citizens in water management is clear
  • Water management is a shared responsibility -- upstream users take into account those downstream, and we manage water for future generations
  • Knowledge of the resource -- we understand the problems that need to be dealt with, and we know the quantity of water available in the state
  • Governance is efficient and cost-effective

Jack Ray put together a nice vision statement at the meeting: "Water is life. Earth is our home because it is the blue planet, the water planet. Access to adequate clean water in our homes and in our lakes, streams and groundwater is a fundamental human right. Water is not merely a commodity. Private transactions in water must never violate the highest public trust, the public stewardship of our collective treasure, our state's water resources."

Principles:
  • Transparency -- clearly define principles and/or goals behind government actions and decisions. Clear roles for citizens. Clear where responsibilities lie.
  • Outcomes-based
  • Accountability -- this requires that the responsibility given to a government body is matched by their authority
  • Comprehensive -- water management integrates quality/quantity, incorporates multiple and sometimes competing interests
Some ideas of how to get there (maybe some of this belongs under principles, I'm not sure. Trying to keep the list of principles as simple as possible):
  • Water has value -- we shouldn't treat it as if it were free
  • Hydrologic basis for water governance -- I'd like to explore more what this means
  • Policy decisions based on data where possible (and water viewed as a finite resource). Precautionary principle where we don't have enough information.
  • Incentives as well as regulation

One of the areas of tension that stands out so far is: to what degree should priorities be developed by citizens and on a local level vs. the need for a statewide water plan?


I also want to draw attention to Larry Baker's comment following the meeting on the 16th, with some ideas of how to move forward. It probably should be attached to this post, but I didn't get it up quickly enough.

Posted by Annie Levenson-Falk at 3:15 PM | Comments (5)

October 6, 2008

Water Policy Committee to Study Governance

At its meeting on October 2, the Water Policy Committee voted to focus its study on governance issues.

In the research we've done and presentations the committee has heard, it has become clear that the system by which water is governed in Minnesota is far from ideal. From an outside perspective, at least, it is difficult to differentiate the purviews of the many agencies involved in managing various aspects of water policy, and it can be just as difficult to see where the rest of us fit into this system.

Through the rest of the study, the committee will look at particular problems (e.g. nonpoint source pollution, questions of supply and future sustainability) as case studies. The committee agreed it won't make recommendations to improve any of these particular issues, but to use them as a way to illuminate problems with governance.

With this focus in mind, we've got our work cut out for us. Over the next couple of meetings, the committee will be developing a list of questions to be answered through this study. Using that list, we'll design a survey to take to government officials, employees of agencies and nonprofits, and citizens to help determine where the gaps in water governance are and how they can be resolved. Acknowledging that this is an issue that has been taken on before by other groups, the committee will also be reviewing the many reports that have already been published on the topic of Minnesota's water governance structure.

The discussion was going strong when the last committee meeting ended, so I'm looking forward to hearing from members with more ideas. It would also be great to hear from the rest of you -- I know that the committee would really appreciate hearing from those of you with thoughts or any experiences in this area.

Posted by Annie Levenson-Falk at 10:10 AM | Comments (5)

September 24, 2008

Thoughts on the Process to Focus the Water Policy Committee's Charge

Since my last post, the Water Policy Study Committee has met twice to discuss how to focus its charge.

From the presentations, we heard quite a number of important issues that the committee could address (for more on those questions, see the earlier blog posts and comments). The task for the committee now is to figure out in which area the Citizens League and this committee can be the most effective.

At the meeting on Sept. 4, we came up with potential policy questions in the categories of water quality, water supply, governance, citizen engagement, and economic incentives. We discussed these issues further on the 18th, and came to three potential topics: governance issues (including citizen engagement and governing "tools"); water supply and sustainability; and a third topic that combines issues of supply, quality.

To determine the best direction for the committee, we will look at each of these topics in the context of the Citizens League's criteria for selecting study topics. For the next meeting, a few members have volunteered to answer the following questions with respect to the 3 proposals (these questions are asked of anyone submitting a study topic for consideration):

  1. Describe our project idea, including clearly defining the problems and special policy questions to be addressed.
  2. Why is this problem important?
  3. How could the Citizens League make a unique impact?
  4. What are the prospects that the project would yield recommendations that oculd be implemented and have a major impact on the problem?
  5. Explain how this problem can be addressed by data, research, and reason. Identify probable sources for data and research.
  6. Explain how this problem can be framed without partisan bias.

Several members and other folks who have attended these meetings have come to me with ideas and concerns about the process of focusing the committee's charge, and members have suggested it would be good if the whole group -- as well as our readers -- could see these comments.

So please share your thoughts!

Posted by Annie Levenson-Falk at 12:18 PM | Comments (13)

September 8, 2008

My departure from the Citizens League

As many of you have already heard, I will be leaving the Citizens League this week - nearly four years to the day that I came on board.

I never intended to move back to Minnesota after graduate school, but when I saw the job posting at the Citizens League I knew I needed to be here (luckily for me, Sean agreed!). Working at the Citizens League has been a blessing and a privilege, and it is with not just a little regret that I am saying goodbye. It is rare to find work that is as important, as fulfilling and as fun. I am grateful for all the opportunities the Citizens League has afforded me.

More than the work itself, however, I will miss the people who make the Citizens League what it is: the most talented and generous colleagues one could ever ask for, our thoughtful and committed members and our remarkable partners. You have all spoiled me rotten. How can future jobs ever measure up?

My next step is an exciting one. At the end of September, I am headed off to Pennsylvania to spend a year at Pendle Hill, a Quaker center for spiritual growth, study and service. It is a new direction for me, but I don't think I'll be away - from Minnesota, or from policy - for long.

A final bit of business: My departure is not the result of the Citizens League's current financial challenges (see Sean's blog for more information about our finances). I applied to Pendle Hill some months ago and made the decision to leave before the problems with our finances came to light. While the Citizens League is not immediately hiring a replacement for my position, the projects that I have managed will continue and will be transferred to current members of the Citizens League staff.

  • Bob DeBoer is taking over the Poverty Policy Project and the Minnesota Journal. He can be reached at bdeboer [at] citizensleague dot org or 651-293-0575 ext. 13.
  • Annie Levenson-Falk is taking over the Immigration and Higher Education Study Committee. She can be reached at alevensonfalk [at] citizensleague dot org or 651-293-0575 ext. 16.
  • Catherine Wood is taking over Policy and a Pint. She can be reached at cwood [at] citizensleague dot org or 651-293-0575 ext. 10. You can also contact Catherine if you have questions about anything else that I would usually manage -- she'll direct you to the right person.

I wish you all the best as you continue to "do the common good" here in Minnesota. Good luck and have fun!

Yours,

Victoria

Posted by Victoria Ford at 4:51 PM | Comments (0)

September 4, 2008

Students Speak Out leaders tour the Republican National Convention

This week, thanks to Comcast and C-SPAN, three of our Students Speak Out leaders (and two very excited Citizens League staff members) got a chance to tour the Republican National Convention.

P1030182.JPG

Click here to check out pictures of Brett, Holly and Victoria at the Xcel Energy Center - and don't miss Cindy McCain, Norm Coleman and Tom Ridge!

Posted by Victoria Ford at 11:09 AM | Comments (0)

August 25, 2008

Focusing our Water Policy Work

The Water Policy Study Committee's primary task is to draw up principles that can guide collaboration in water management between everyone involved -- government, businesses, individuals, communities, etc. To get to these principles, we'll look at a particular problem Minnesota is dealing with right now. So, having spent the past 6 weeks getting a basic knowledge of these issues, it's time to figure out what topic we'll focus on for the remainder of the committee work.

I'd like to throw out a few ideas that I've heard. (I'm sure this will break the "short and sweet" rule of blogging -- forgive me for what will probably become a long post!) Here are some ideas, numbered but in no particular order:
  1. How do you get from plans to results? Gene Merriam raised this question at our meeting on July 29th. We spend months and months and thousands of dollars to build TMDL plans, for example, but how, then, do we make sure these plans actually turn into reality? Likewise, both Gaylen Reetz of the DNR and Jo Colleran from the City of Minnetonka raised the question: What can we do to protect waters that are still clean?
  2. How should Minnesota plan to make sure we are sustainable in the amount of water we use and where it comes from? This is a huge question, and we could look at it from any number of angles, such as:
    • What exactly is our real water supply, and how do we take this into account when making decisions about how much water we will use (permitting through the DNR, etc.)? And what are our real water needs? (Janne Flisrand's question)
    • How can we create incentives for conservation? Should we reevaluate water pricing? Right now, we don't pay for water; we just pay the cost of providing the service (as we learned from our discussion with Laurel Reeves and John Wells on July 15th). How about pricing structures that encourage conservation, as Larry Baker and others discussed?
    • How do we make decisions that weigh shorter-term economic interests (individual, community, or statewide) with what's best in terms of water stewardship?
    • Should we check out alternative water sources (rainwater, recycled waste water, etc.) and creative ways to fund conservation investments? Kelsey Johnson, Janne, and Larry had some interesting comments on this.
  3. How can we cut non-point source pollution? Or: How can we cut non-point source pollution in urban areas? Should we do more on a "polluter-pays" model, to encourage people to cut pollution by making them responsible for the effects they cause? To what extent is this even possible when we're talking about non-point source pollution? We might need to get creative on this.
Some themes that I've noticed running through all these questions:
  1. From Dianne Krizan: How can we get water on the public agenda to create the will for the changes that will be necessary to get to sustainable use? How can we get beyond the educational efforts around specific issues -- these can be great, but they are generally quite narrowly focused, and reach only pockets of people who have a particular interest in the topic at hand. Or, as Gyles Randall asked: How do we encourage a culture of stewardship? Randy Neprash also raised this topic early on, suggesting we need to look at social marketing and models for bringing a stewardship ethic into public schools.
  2. How do we deal with these issues on a statewide basis when they are so often local problems and need local solutions (often in places without watershed districts with the capacity to take charge)?
  3. Can we redefine collaboration (between citizens, state agencies, etc.)? The state agency structure is very confusing -- do we want to look at how to make it a little more "sensible?" And do we want to take that on? In the last 30 years, something like 17 reports have attempted to fix this problem, so we should how we might get into these questions in a way that will be productive in the end.
  4. We need to integrate water policy issues with other environmental issues, as well as economic and social issues. Our governing approach tends to isolate specific pieces (e.g. lowering the phosphorus levels of a lake), but the rest of us don't see it that way (we just want to be able to swim in the lake).

Phew! I could keep going, but I'll stop there. Thanks for your patience!

These questions will be the topic of discussion at our next meeting on September 4th, but it might be helpful to be able to bounce ideas off one another in before then.

Committee members: what issue do you think we should focus on? What questions do you have for each other, or for other readers? Other folks, please feel free to chime in with questions, suggestions, or ideas.

I'm eager to hear what you're thinking.

Posted by Annie Levenson-Falk at 1:21 PM | Comments (3)

August 15, 2008

Lake Management

At its August 14th meeting, the Water Policy Study Committee heard from presenters on the topic of lake management.

As usual, I've come out of the meeting with more questions than answers. (But that's a good thing at this point.) I'll stifle the impulse to list them all here, at least for now, but I did want to touch on a couple questions I thought were interesting.

Yesterday's meeting really highlighted the political nature of the problems we're dealing with. In so many of the cases we've discussed, we know more or less what needs to be done to improve the situation (to cut down on urban runoff, to minimize the amount of fertilizer that runs off the land, etc.). It seems there are a whole host of best practices just waiting to be implemented. The question is: How do we get there? How do we encourage citizens, organizations, and government to put these practices into place?

Another closely related question that was raised yesterday (or maybe it's just another way of stating the above): How do we get people engaged, and keep them engaged? Making real progress on the issues we're facing now will probably require that huge numbers of people change their behavior. So what makes people put their time and energy towards issues like these? What makes a commitment worthwhile?

From yesterday's discussion, the answer seems to lie in a combination of regulation, incentives, education, and the tools necessary for individuals and groups to make improvements, along with a healthy dose of social rewards.

I'm very interested to hear what others at the meeting have to say.
  • What policy issues did yesterday's presentations and discussion raise?
  • What questions do you have?
  • Other thoughts?
    •

Posted by Annie Levenson-Falk at 11:24 AM | Comments (3)

August 14, 2008

Citizens League on a Stick! (Visit us at the State Fair)

As you make your State Fair plans this year, be sure to check out the Citizens League (inside the Sesquicentennial Big Top tent, at the corner of Liggett & Griggs, just east of Heritage Square). You can participate in our redistricting study, test our new property tax tool, watch videos from the Minnesota Anniversary Project and be among the first to check out CitiZing!, the first-ever online civic engagement platform.

Want to help out? We need: Many thanks to the Bush Foundation for supporting our work with the Sesquicentennial Commission and the Minnesota State Fair. We'll see you there!

Posted by Victoria Ford at 1:22 PM | Comments (0)

Subscribe to this blog (RSS 2.0). View the archives or view by category →