Policy Blog
« Lake Management | Main | Students Speak Out leaders tour the Republican National Convention »
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:- 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?
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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)?
- 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.
- 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 August 25, 2008 1:21 PM
Comments
Regarding the question of balancing private and public interests, everyone should be aware that the state has a "public trust" charge to protect waters of the state. This has evolved over centuries from common law, but has been given greater legitimacy over the years through court decisions. In addition, Minnesota has a constitutional amendment (passed in 1997) that compels the state to protect "hunting and fishing" for future generations - a very specific articulation of public trust. The state MUST protect fishing for future generations - no law can interfere!
Thus, when one argues, for example, that "I can build as big a dock as I want", they are on very thin ice. If the dock infringes on public waters (which of course, it does), the state has a responsibility under public trust to prohibit it. There needs to be some reason, but the underlying "right" is with the state, via it's public trust responsibility. A private citizen's rights are inferior when it comes to public waters.
Perhaps one think we can do (or at least, the lawyers on the committee can do) is think about how to enhance public trust. For example, perhaps it should be built into new legislation (MPCA must XXX in order to protect the public trust?). Or maybe other mechanisms - lawyers?
Posted by: Larry Baker | August 25, 2008 7:28 PM
We need to be aware of efforts being made by non-government groups that could pass by our attention. Friends of the Minnesota Valley recently showcased at Farmfest its new Nitrogen Reduction in Surface Water Initiative, focused on using innovative agricultural drainage technology to reduce nitrogen pollution of the Minnesota River. This organization has also initiated cooperative conservation projects in the river valley directed to improving water quality. See friendsofmnvalley.org.
Posted by: Wallace Neal | September 3, 2008 3:43 PM
We have installed concrete and blacktop on roads, parking lots, driveways etc. and then insist upon instantly clean surfaces. Should building guidelines be changed to reduce the quantity of parking space. Should there be a graduated surface water to better manage surface water runoff, cleanup and encourage transit? Do we need to change our ice/snow removal and driving practices on local streets to using sand or more environmentally friendly snow removal products. How much are really paying for using salt in the premature maintenance of bridges and roads. Instead of applicators built into bridges, should there be heating. The Mayo Clinic did that many years to their network of sidewalks.
Posted by: Scott Halstead | September 4, 2008 5:19 PM