Janna's comments from the email exchange over this idea:

Can we flesh out a bit more what exactly would be taken away from existing agencies in terms of data mgmt and reporting? As I'm sure everyone is well aware, control of information is power, and interpretation of information is right up there with godliness. I don't know if we have in mind that absolutely all data analysis would be done by this entity, but if so, I suspect this in itself would be resisted. Many agencies may still insist on doing their own data analysis.

I really like this idea. It fits very nicely with what I was trying to say at the meeting (inarticulately) about my "dream" information clearinghouse. In my mind, a deliberate outcome of such an endeavor should be to improve coordination of efforts by making information on what everyone else is doing more readily (and completely) available. It also would be really great if this entity could be responsible for providing a state of the art web portal for citizens to be able to go to when they have questions on a range of water related issues.

And in a follow-up email:

I took Randy's idea to be a way to drastically improve the ability of existing agencies to do their jobs under current arrangements. Right now they operate in relative isolation from one another, with the "water plan" as the mechanism that launches eventual action. So in my mind, anything that makes "integrated" water plans a possibility is a huge improvement. It may seem simple, but opening up the information divide would, I think, provide more than a "big picture" view for agencies, it would provide a "collective" view, a "collective" identity, that no agency currently has. This shift in orientation would make it much easier for a "coalition" of agencies to launch the more ambitious initiatives (i.e., Minnesota river probs) which have eluded us thus far due to communication and collaboration insufficiencies.

As you've all probably figured out by now, I am a big believer in the influence organizational structures have on the performance of individual actors in a system. This includes communication structures (or lack there of). And secondly, on this point of information overload for an incredibly complex resource, I want to echo what Larry is saying - sharing information is an art. And right now many water related entities do not have communication experts on staff to help them with this. That's why I was saying in our meeting my "dream" would be a state-of-the-art website that would be designed in such a way that anyone from the novice citizen to the expert scientist or engineer could easily navigate their way to the information they need. It CAN be done, but it takes people with expertise in database design, web site design, and communication studies to develop a user-friendly interface.

For me, the new “entity” idea is problematic, but has some good nuggets for further exploration.
I’m apprehensive of creating yet another stand alone organization. Instead, could there be a one-stop-shop type of shared purpose within an existing agency, like a PCA-and- DNR type combo department? Large private businesses fund staff functions in this manner, and make it work. (Disclosure, I made my living for some years as one of those staff people).

Here’s why I find a new independent, impartial entity impractical:
Despite good intentions, no one is truly impartial. In an institutional sense, an entity can start out trying to be “impartial”, but humans all become biased by educational specialties, routines, etc. In our fast-moving world, how can you ensure that an entity stays technically current? Give-and-take style challenges seem healthier than a king on the mountain approach.
As described, the dream data base sounds wonderful. However, the scope, expense, and length of development needed are too ambitious at this stage.
I hope my concern proves to be unfounded, but I’m apprehensive that these new amendment funds will not survive the budget crunch intact. It will be a challenge to keep them incremental. Despite the amendment language, substitution will be tempting to legislators. Actual new funds may fall short of forecasts.

For our education/social marketing recommendations, I’d like to pursue some type of new or improved web site displayed in consumer language. Part of the problem with even the term “non point source pollution” is that it sounds “medicinal” to most lay people and school children. The nomenclature itself is an impediment.

I missed the meeting when Bruce Wilson spoke, but I noticed in the notes that his wish list included “re-organizing, in a medical specialty mode”. This sounds intriguing. I’d like to learn more about he meant. Perhaps this has database applications.

(Posted by Annie on behalf of Joe Mansky)

Let me make an alternate argument, namely that it is time for more fundamental structural change in the manner in which water resources are managed in Minnesota. Here are a few observations, based on my own personal experiences.

1. Long range planning is not a strength of the state government. I don't need to belabor the point - the record of the former State Planning Agency makes this abundantly clear. Planning is needed, but it will not happen by the methodology we have used in the past. Which leads to my second point ...

2. Coordination (whatever that means) does not work. I once worked for an agency whose purpose was to engage in long range planning and coordination - take it from me, it just does not happen. I am not an expert on the history and travails of the EQB, but I would not be surprised to learn that is has exactly the same kind of problems I have experienced personally.

3. When it comes to water, no one is in charge. If I say the words "fish and wildlife" or "air pollution", you immediately conjure up in your mind the people who work with these issues. When I way the word "water", what do you think of?

4. Governing is a partnership between those who set the direction for the public to move and those who make it happen. In our context, the role of the state government would be to set the objectives and provide the muscle for enforcement. The role of local government would be to find creative solutions to carry out the state mandates in a manner best suited to local circumstances.

5. I find the local end of the management network in Minnesota to be quite curious. On the one hand, you have a statewide network of districts whose governing bodies are elected but who have no legal authority to levy taxes. On the other hand, you have another layer of similar districts who do not have statewide scope, who are not governed by elected officials and who do have taxing authority. One of you will have to explain this to me.

6. I have worked for both state government (16 years) and county government (7 years) in Minnesota. What I do works because there is no planning, there is no coordination. What we have is clear statutory direction from the legislature on what role the state actor plays and what role the county actors play. What I do works because we are very close to the elected officials. There is pushback from time to time between the state and local actors, but that is to be expected and it's not entirely a bad thing.

7. We don't need more government, we need better government. Or at least more effective government.

8. At the state level, we need a single state agency whose function is to provide the direction and the muscle for water resources management in Minnesota. At the local level, we need a single set of hydrologically based districts that have local involvement and the freedom to design the means through which the state policy will be administered.

9. Don't get too greedy about the money from the constitutional amendment. First, it only last 25 years. Second, by the time we get down the road, the value of the money will be worth a fraction of it's buying power today. The amendment money is useful in making up for the accumulated problems of the past, but cannot sustain the water resource management system in the long term. Alternate funding sources are needed that are closely related to the use of the resources.

10. Finally, we need a structure to channel (no pun intended) the intellectual and financial resources of the U into water resources management (at least to the extent that it is working on these issues - or is directed to work on these issues.)