(Annie asked that I copy this to the blog - from my email to members)

I just wanted to say a couple of things before we get too far down this case study road. First, Karen has written an EXCELLENT summary of the Shingle Creek Chloride TMDL and asks some very astute questions for addressing this dilemma. But I do want to offer up a caution... when I suggested in our last meeting we might want to use case studies, my thought was we would pick two or three salient examples and use them as a tool to help us illustrate the complexity and fragmented nature (gaps, overlaps, tensions) of MN's water mgmt system, i.e., the various governing agencies and statutes. I think we need to be careful not to get too bogged down in trying to "solve" the case studies, and instead remember that the intent is to illustrate our larger point: the governance structure for managing water in MN lacks overarching vision, systematic coordination and is structurally and operationally fragmented.

If you remember, we had a spirited debate earlier about whether we should take on a more narrowed focus (NPS pollution or sustainable supply) with the intent of making recommendations for resolving that particular problem -- or if we should step back even further and consider the logic of the overall governance structure and ask conceptual questions about our management approach to all water related issues. Our use of NPS pollution and (eventually) sustainable supply examples were only intended to be used as descriptive tools. At least that's how I interpreted our intentions.

So.... I would simply like to suggest we think about how we will use the case studies (and how much detailed research we will do for each) before breaking into case study work groups. My preference is our research be descriptive only - describe the case problem in the context of the overall mgmt system and then use our evaluative criteria to discern if and/or how the governance system is failing to affect or even perpetuating the problem.

Should we do as Joel has suggested and pick our case studies based on the short list Annie put together of "types" of NPS pollution (urban stormwater, agricultural runoff, etc.) and then follow a particular policy (MS4 permitting, wetland conservation act, shoreline zoning or whatever) to see where all the tethers lead us (which agencies, which monies, which statues, which stakeholders, etc. get pulled in - or don't). And/or we could do as Randy suggests and follow a particular program (PCA citizen monitoring? WSD cost-share for raingardens? Watershed Partners Coalition? etc.) , see where it leads.

I like Karen's road salt case study and think it makes an excellent example of problematic "organizational" behavior (municipal, state, private co., etc.) that contributes to polluted stormwater runoff, and it provides us with an active TMDL. But I think our focus should be on the governance pieces invoked rather than the technical details of the problem itself. I'd also like us to pick a case that is largely citizen-caused pollution so we can get into the water literacy/community organizing/citizen participation questions and the private property rights vs. public trust doctrine tension. And of course we should pick an agricultural issue so we can get into the voluntary BMPs vs. mandated regulations and the role of the DOA. How 'bout a development and land-use case??

Anyway... just some ideas. I hope this makes sense.

Janna