MASWCD Policy Positions 2018

Transcription

1 MASWCD Policy Positions 2018 updated May, 2018 A Compilation of All Standing Resolutions Along with Policies Developed by the Minnesota Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts (MASWCD) Board of Directors Minnesota Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts

2 MASWCD POLICY DEVELOPMENT Each year, MASWCD membership utilizes the resolutions process as a means for members to voice concerns or opinions to influence change within the organization. Resolutions are initiated at the local, grassroots level and must be approved by a member SWCD to move forward to the Area level. At the Area level, a resolution must pass by a majority vote to be considered at the state level. The eight Area Directors then forward resolutions that passed at the Area level to the MASWCD Board of Directors, the board on which they serve. The MASWCD Board directs the Resolutions/Policy Committee to review the resolutions in order to consolidate identical resolutions, clarify intent when necessary and identify those which are already MASWCD policy. The Committee then presents its recommendations to the Board. Upon the Board's review, the resolutions go out to member districts for statewide preconvention balloting. This process is a means to limit debate on the floor of the convention on resolutions for which the membership is in strong agreement for or against. Through preconvention balloting, each supervisor of a member-swcd is eligible to vote once on each resolution to approve, disapprove or bring to the floor of the Annual Convention for discussion or amendment. One ballot is used per district to tally supervisor votes. The ballots are sent back to the MASWCD office to be tallied. The following rules apply to the preballoting process: APPROVE: If 66 percent of all supervisors whose ballots are received vote to APPROVE a resolution, the resolution will be deemed as moved and seconded for adoption at the annual meeting. DISAPPROVE: If 66 percent of all supervisors whose ballots are received vote to DISAPPROVE a resolution, it will automatically be rejected, with no further action at the annual meeting. DISCUSSION, AMENDMENT: If 34% of all supervisors whose ballots are received vote to BRING THE RESOLUTION TO THE CONVENTION FLOOR FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION OR AMENDMENT, it will be brought to the MASWCD annual meeting for further action. This provision overrides the first tow, in the event that this condition and one of the above conditions are both met. MASWCD Legislative Committee & Board of Directors may incorporate policy into MASWCD Legislative Platform* MASWCD requests agency or organization involved to take action & respond Resolutions which move forward as a result of pre-convention balloting are addressed during the business meeting portion of the MASWCD Annual Convention. Resolutions voted on from the convention floor require a majority vote for passage. MASWCD provides a parliamentarian to address questions of amendment procedure, etc. When a resolution passes, either through pre-balloting or on the convention floor, it then becomes MASWCD policy to support that resolution. What follows is a compilation of all standing MASWCD resolutions. Also included are policies developed by the MASWCD Board of Directors. * during appropriate legislative session biennial budget odd years, capital budget (bonding) even years ** if federal program or issue involved MASWCD submits resolution to National Assoc. of Conservation Districts (NACD); NACD committees & board vote on whether to advocate for change at federal level** MASWCD provides updates on status/progress at board of directors meetings & in updates to this handbook MASWCD Policy Membership Annual Meeting MASWCD Pre-Convention Balloting MASWCD Board of Directors MASWCD Resolutions Committee MASWCD Area Local SWCD MASWCD communicates policy as needed when issue arises

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1 State Conservation Programs and Issues Pages 1-24 SWCD FUNDING ISSUES Pages 1-3 BUFFERS Page 4 COST-SHARE Pages 5-7 DRAINAGE Page 8 EASEMENTS Page 9 GROUNDWATER Pages 9-10 PLANT MATERIALS/POLLINATOR HABITAT Page 11 SOIL HEALTH Page 12 WATER QUALITY & MANAGEMENT Pages WETLANDS Pages WOODLAND RESOURCES Pages OTHER STATE CONSERVATION PROGRAMS Pages AND ISSUES Section 2 Federal Conservation Programs and Issues Pages CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM (CRP) Pages COVER CROPS Page 27 COMPLIANCE ISSUES Page 28 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INCENTIVES PROGRAM (EQIP) Page 29 OTHER FEDERAL CONSERVATION PROGRAMS AND ISSUES Page 30 Section 3 Conservation Programs and Issues Related to Pages both State and Federal Levels of Government Section 4 SWCD Operations Page Section 5 MASWCD Operations Page 38

4 Section 1 State Conservation Programs and Issues SWCD FUNDING ISSUES TSA STAFFING FOR CONSERVATION DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT Policy goal: Cooperate with BWSR to define and secure additional technical resources to be assigned in critical areas of Minnesota where the most drainage system improvements will be occurring in the next 10 years and that these new Technical Service Area (TSA) staff work cooperatively with drainage authorities and all relevant private sector personnel, with the goal of planning and implementing multi-purpose drainage water management projects. Background: Intensive management of cropping systems involves crop rotations, agricultural drainage, and now to a greater degree in many areas of Minnesota, irrigation. Agricultural drainage systems (public and private, multi-farm systems with tiles and ditches) that were constructed in the 1900s will not function to meet both the agricultural and ecological demand of the next 100 years. Minnesota s drainage law, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103E, has been recently revised to account for multi-purpose drainage water management. BWSR s 2014 nonpoint source funding plan states: As old drainage systems continue to be replaced and subsurface tile is installed on more acres, it is more important than ever to integrate drainage water management systems into water-based management plans, with an eye toward downstream impacts. SWCDs and their Technical Service Area (TSA) staff can play a more significant role in promoting conservation with agricultural drainage system management, from the field to the watershed scale. TSA staff can work across county boundaries, to fill the implementation gap that exists at the watershed scale. Author: Dodge SWCD Approved: December 9, 2014 Sunset Date: December, 2018 Status: TSAs do have the flexibility to use state funds for a variety of shared technical assistance as identified by the TSAs including drainage management. BWSR established a separate TSA category in its FY14-15 Clean Water Fund, Accelerated Implementation Grants category. Each TSA applied for funds to support staffing and other services as decided by each TSA. All TSAs were awarded additional funds. MASWCD hosted a joint technical capacity summit in the summer of 2014 to discuss future shared services, assessments and funding for the NPEAP. In 2017 BWSR initiated a process to provide an assessment of the Technical Service Area Management and recommendations acknowledge the increased need for technical capacity at the local and state levels and will be working with TSAs on strategic efforts. INCREASE SWCD TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FUNDING Policy goal: Develop a strategy to acquire additional Technical Assistance funding for SWCD staff from the State. Background: Minnesota has a strong natural resource base to preserve and protect. No publicly funded conservation project is completed in Minnesota without someone qualified to work with the landowner and provide technical assistance. Minnesota SWCDs have been a leader in providing technical assistance to landowners and effectively implementing multiple conservation programs. SWCDs have a strong working relationship with other governmental units-such as cities, schools and townships-, private industry, local conservation groups and other nonprofit organizations. Minnesota SWCDs have been significantly impacted by budget reductions and cuts to staffing across the state. With the passage of the Clean Water Land and Legacy Amendment in 2008 significant new funds for conservation related projects will be available across the state and will require qualified technical assistance. Author: Cass SWCD Approved: December 9, 2014 Sunset Date: December, 2018 Status: Since 2016, MASWCD has obtained $11 million annually in additional state funding for SWCD operations including technical assistance. 1

5 SWCD FUNDING ISSUES (continued) LEVY AUTHORITY FOR DISTRICTS Policy goal: Actively pursue local levy authority for SWCDs to provide consistent stable and adequate funding for natural resource conservation projects and programs. Background: State and federal grants for natural resource conservation projects and programs require local matching funds. City and county government primarily focus on transportation, public safety, health and human services, and economic development, leaving little time or financial resources to devote to water quality or other natural resource management efforts. Soil and water conservation district boards are accountable to the public through elections. Erratic funding results in inefficiencies from cycles of program building, dismantling and rebuilding. While funding from the state is helpful to cover statutory mandates to SWCDs to implement the state cost share program, Reinvest in MN program, elements of the Wetland Conservation Act and other programs, it does not provide for the required local match for grants or cover all grant ineligible expenses. Boards elected by and authorized to serve the public should have the autonomy and authority to control their existence and perform their function, with quality service and expertise. Authorizing a levy for SWCDs would provide funding options and budget flexibility for SWCDs. Author: Anoka CD Approved: December 8, 2015 Sunset Date: December, 2019 Status: Ongoing policy. MASWCD s legislative platform for several sessions included a SWCD Funding Initiative - seeking statutory funding options that SWCDs could choose to utilize, such as levy authority and fee establishment. The legislature in previous sessions did not support these mechanisms, preventing them from moving forward. Although SWCDs have not obtained statutory funding options, since 2016, legislative negotiations ultimately increased the State s investment in SWCDs by $11 million annually for SWCD operations. STATUTORY OPTION FOR DISTRICT FUNDING INITIATIVE Policy goal: MASWCD and its Legislative Committee enthusiastically and urgently support a statutory funding initiative issue legislative platform that would ensure districts viability for the long term benefit of conservation. Background: Soil and water conservation issues are vitally important to all areas of Minnesota. Many districts are severely constrained in their efforts by financial restrictions, yet have proven themselves to be a superb delivery service of conservation programs and reporting. Grant moneys are leveraged by staff hours and limited by available staff. Getting the full support of SWCDs and their conservation partners behind one option would be easier for all to promote. Author: Mille Lacs SWCD Approved: December 9, 2014 Sunset Date: December, 2018 Status: Ongoing policy. MASWCD s legislative platform for several sessions included a SWCD Funding Initiative - seeking statutory funding options that SWCDs could choose to utilize, such as levy authority and fee establishment. The legislature in previous sessions did not support these mechanisms, preventing them from moving forward. Although SWCDs have not obtained statutory funding options, since 2016, legislative negotiations ultimately increased the State s investment in SWCDs by $11 million annually for SWCD operations. 2

6 SWCD FUNDING ISSUES (continued) STATE INCOME TAX CREDIT FOR CONSERVATION Policy goal: Coordinate with the BWSR, Drainage Work Group, DNR, and the State Department of Revenue, to develop legislation modifying the State Income Tax Code, so that it includes a State Income Tax Credit, which incentivizes the restoration of the landscape s hydrological properties. Background: Both agriculture and water resources are economic drivers of Minnesota s economy. As land use intensifies, water quality in most cases deteriorates. Certain modern agricultural practices are intensifying the State s land use. Virtually all conservation practices employed by agriculture are voluntary. Current farm economics (driven by the USDA Farm Bill) do not favor conservation. Yearly reviewed, local, state, or federal tax relief encouraging conservation practices is nonexistent. Most State water quality goals will not be met utilizing current strategies. Adopting conservation practices which, moderate runoff volumes is the most effective conservation measures agricultural producers can take. The adoption of practices to shift agricultural lands hydrological properties to be more congruent to the State s water quality goals will provide benefits to water quality and the public at large, and in most cases, will also increase total soil health, which may increase farm income and profit. Author: Wright SWCD Approved: December 8, 2015 Sunset Date: December, 2019 Status: Ongoing policy. 3

7 BUFFERS VEGETATIVE BUFFER STRIPS IN AGRICULTURAL AREAS Policy goal: Work with the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR), Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Assoc. of MN Counties (AMC), to promote statewide awareness and support compliance with Minnesota Statute 103E.021, relating to the shoreland management rules and the drainage law, for the benefits of improved water quality, stream bank and shoreline protection and stabilization, and the enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat. Background: Minnesota Statute 103E.021 requires 1 rod vegetative buffers on drainage ditches. Minnesota Rule 6120 Shoreline and Floodplain Management, administered by the DNR, requires that agricultural areas adjacent to lakes, rivers and streams have a buffer strip of permanent vegetation that is 50 feet wide, subject to provisions of a resource management system plan. Both of these sets of rules are managed by local government units. For any new ditches or ditch improvements, the land adjacent to public ditches must include a buffer strip of permanent vegetation that is usually one rod (16.5 foot) wide on each side. Properly installed and maintained vegetative buffers greatly benefit water quality, provide stream protection and stabilization and enhance fish and wildlife habitat. Technical and financial incentives may be available to landowners through local SWCDs, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Farm Service Agency (FSA) the BBWSR, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for the enhancement and long term protection of vegetative buffers. The 2005 Minnesota Legislature directed the BWSR to conduct an assessment of the use, maintenance, and benefits of required grass strips along public drainage ditches in consultation with farm groups, local government units, conservation groups, and federal agencies implementing voluntary buffer programs. A public drainage ditch buffer study was completed by the BWSR and other partners in A set of recommendations were made by the work group for the ditch buffer study. The 2009 Minnesota Legislature directed BWSR to study the condition of the riparian areas across the state, and report on the extent of which the buffers areas are being maintained in a natural state, and the extent to which the buffer areas are being used in a way that risks environmental damage to public waters. A study of riparian buffer areas was completed by the BWSR and the Drainage Work Group in Author: Kanabec SWCD Approved: December 9, 2014 Sunset Date: December, 2018 Status: MASWCD is working the with Association of Minnesota Counties, Minnesota Association of Watershed Districts, BWSR and DNR on buffer cost share policies, drainage law buffer requirements, and the buffer law implementation at the local and state levels. The Buffer Law that was signed into law by Governor Dayton in June 2015 was amended by the Legislature and signed into law on April 25, These amendments provide clarifications to several provisions of the law, including the buffer requirement by ensuring it only applies to public waters and public ditches and compliance and enforcement responsibilities and processes. Further changes to the law were enacted during the 2017 legislative session included: alternative practices expanded to include practices based on local conditions approved by the SWCD that are consistent with the Field Office Technical Guide; seed mixes need to be verified by MDA; and waivers/extensions can be sought by filing with the SWCDs. UPLAND BUFFERS Policy goal: Support upland buffers on all water resources areas, the establishment and maintenance of native vegetation in upland buffer areas, and harvestable options for upland buffers on drainage ditches. Background: Upland buffers on water resources provide multiple conservation benefits, i.e. reduction of soil loss, improved water quality, improved wildlife habitat, improved aesthetics. Upland buffers on water resources also provide direct economic benefits of reduced maintenance costs and reduced need for restoration activities. Author: Cass SWCD Approved: December 9, 2014 Sunset Date: December, 2018 Status: The Buffer Law that was signed into law by Governor Dayton in June 2015 was amended by the Legislature and signed into law by Governor Dayton on April 25, The amendments enacted in 2017 clarify the application of the buffer requirement to public waters, provides additional statutory authority for alternative practices, and addresses concerns over the potential spread of invasive species. Landowners have a variety of options for buffer vegetation, including haying and grazing under the buffer law. 4

8 COST-SHARE AMENDING BWSR CLEAN WATER FUND POLICY TO ALLOW YEARLY COVER CROP CONTRACTS Policy Goal: the Minnesota Association of Soil and Water conservation Districts encourage the Board of Soil and Water Resources to change its non-structural policy for cover crops to yearly contracts with a 3 year limit. Background: In the past fifty years land use in the agricultural regions of Minnesota has transitioned from diverse farms consisting of row crops, small grain, hay and pasture to predominantly a corn and soybean rotation. Cover crops promote increasing soil organic matter, infiltration, and soil health in general while reducing compaction, erosion and sedimentation, and nutrient loss. Sediment and the nutrients carried with it, is a significant environmental pollutant in the State of Minnesota and the Nation. The April 2015 MPCA report, Swimmable, Fishable, Fixable, indicates that waters in the agricultural regions of Minnesota tend to contain high levels of nitrogen, phosphorus, bacteria, and suspended soils and according to this report, an effective strategy to restore and protect water quality includes the application of cover crops. Cover crops are an emerging concept and many producers are hesitant to sign for a three year commitment mandated by Clean Water Policy. Some producers don t know with certainty what their crop rotation will be for 3 years. Author: Waseca SWCD Approved: December 5, 2017 Sunset Date: December, 2021 Status: Ongoing policy. MASWCD shared the resolution to BWSR. BWSR Response: BWSR has adopted policies for non-structural land management practices, which can include cover crops, for both the State Cost-Share Program and Clean Water Fund Implementation programs. Both policies set a minimum of three years for incentive payments. The rationale behind this policy is that both the Clean Water Fund and the State Cost-Share Program statues speak directly to the use of state funds for enduring environmental benefits. As such BWSR made a determination that requiring the implementation of non-structural land management practices for three years optimizes the chance that a landowner/producer will achieve success and will adopt and continue the practice/s for a significant period of time thus achieving an enduring soil and water conservation benefit. We were also made aware that NRCS does allow one-time payments for cover crops via its MN supplement to the Field Office Technical Guide. As such landowners/producers do have that as an option if they are only interested in a one-time incentive WATERSHED BLOCK GRANTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF ONE WATERSHED, ONE PLAN Policy goal: Work with BWSR to develop a block grant funding proposal for consideration by the Clean Water Council, the Governor, and the Minnesota Legislature that will provide stable, long-term base funding to support implementation strategies and actions in One Watershed, One Plan approved plans. Background: In 2013, the Minnesota legislature passed Chapter 137-HF 1183 (Clean Water Fund Appropriations) which provided authorization and funding to BWSR for assistance and grants to local governments to transition local water management plans to a watershed approach. The One Watershed, One Plan pilots are complete and the BWSR has launched One Watershed, One Plan statewide to align major watershed boundaries with prioritized, targeted, and measurable watershed plans that are developed and implemented locally. Planning is not enough; implementation of the strategies and actions in prioritized, targeted and measurable watershed plans is critical to meeting state and local water resource goals. Author: Fillmore SWCD Approved: December 6, 2016 Sunset Date: December 2020 Status: Resolved. The 2017 legislature appropriated $9.75 million to establish a pilot program for performance based watershed implementation funding. This was an outgrowth of the MASWCD, BWSR, Association of MN Counties and the Association of Watershed Districts partnership. In 2016, MASWCD and the Local Government Water Roundtable adopted a policy paper supporting non-competitive implementation funding for approved One Watershed, One Plan and metropolitan surface and groundwater management plans. 5

9 COST-SHARE (continued) COST SHARE ELIGIBILITY FOR RESTORING WATER AND SEDIMENT STORAGE CAPACITY IN EXISTING STRUCTURES TO MEET A CURRENT PRACTICE STANDARD Policy goal: Work with BWSR to convene an ad hoc technical committee to develop a recommendation for restoring existing water and sediment storage structures that are no longer under an Operation and Maintenance Agreement to meet a current practice standard and be eligible for state cost share. To be eligible for state cost share, it would be required to treat at least 75 percent of the contributing watershed controlled by the land occupier to meet T to bring those acres into compliance with the state soil erosion control law and to extend the structure s lifespan to make progress toward achieving state water quality goals and reducing sedimentation and peak flows in our rivers, lakes and streams. Background: Thousands of structural practices for water and sediment storage were foundational for soil and water conservation efforts in Minnesota for many decades. Many of these practices are well beyond their life expectancy and have collected decades of sediment. Removing the sediment from these structures can restore their capacity for capturing sediment that reduces turbidity and sedimentation and can also restore their capacity for retaining water during rainfall events which reduces peak flows in our rivers, lakes and streams. An additional benefit of increased water storage will improve wildlife habitat by providing a water source for wildlife. Water quality models show that the sediment and contaminant removal efficiency of water and sediment storage structures is primarily dependent on the length of time that runoff remains in the pond, known as the pond s Hydraulic Residence Time (HRT), which is increased by the removal of accumulated sediment. Restoring the water and sediment storage of existing structures that have exceeded their life expectancy is more economical and cost effective than new construction providing a higher cost benefit for the use of state soil and water conservation grant funds. Sediment removal alone from existing water and sediment storage structures is not an eligible state cost share practice and treating at least 75 percent of the contributing watershed controlled by the land occupier to meet T would extend the life expectancy of the structure and bring those acres into compliance with the state soil erosion control law. Author: Fillmore SWCD Approved: December 6, 2016 Sunset Date: December 2020 Status: BWSR assigned this resolution to BWSR s cost-share workgroup to study, evaluate and develop guidance and or recommendations for consideration by the BWSR Grants Policy & Program Committee and the BWSR Board. In July of 2017 the BWSR adopted and updated Erosion Control and Water Management Policy (i.e. State Cost Share). The policy addresses the restoration of previously constructed practices is guided by the following policy statement: Effective Life. All structural and vegetative practices must be designed and maintained for a minimum effective life of ten years. The beginning date for a practice s effective life is the same date final payment is approved and the project is considered complete. The effective life of nonstructural land management practices will be based on the district s BWSR approved Implementation Plan, as per Section Rehabilitation of structural and vegetative practices beyond their designed effective life are eligible for this program. This policy is consistent with the intent of the original resolution but stops short of what some SWCDs are asking for which is to simply use State Cost-Share funds to remove accumulated sediment from water and sediment control basins without bringing the structure up to current design standards. 6

10 COST-SHARE (continued) FUNDING FOR NON STRUCTURAL NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Policy goal: Request Minnesota Department of Agriculture use some funds generated by the fertilizer fee be transferred to BWSR for the establishment of a cost share program for a nutrient management and/or a cover crop program to be administered by the SWCDs with the express purpose of reducing non-point pollution from fertilizer use. Background: The State of Minnesota has been collecting a fee of $.80 per ton since 2008 under a program administered by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) at the proportions of Fertilizer Inspections and Non- Point Nitrogen Activities: $0.30 per ton and for the Ag Fertilizer Research and Education Council (AFREC): $0.40 per ton. Expenditure for the AFREC are capped by the legislature at $880,000. In recent years fertilizer sales have been greater than 3 million tons per year which generates more than $1.2 Million for the activity of the AFREC. Author: Wadena SWCD Approved: December 9, 2014 Sunset Date: December, 2018 Status: Resolved. While not a result of redirected fertilizer fee proceeds, legislation was enacted at the conclusion of the 2015 session that included statutory changes making nonstructural land management practices eligible for the state cost share program through BWSR. BWSR has provided guidance to the SWCDs related to the eligibility of nonstructural BMP including the practices must be incorporated into an approved Implementation Plan and into the SWCDs locally adopted cost share policy. COST SHARE FOR FEEDLOT RUNOFF CONTROL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Policy goal: Lobby BWSR and the State Legislature to restore and increase the priority and funding levels for feedlot runoff control best management practices. Background: Based on the most current Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) web site feedlot registrations, Minnesota has about 25,000 registered feedlots. The MPCA regulates the collection, transportation, storage, processing and disposal of animal manure and other livestock operation wastes. According to MPCA there are two primary concerns about feedlots in protecting water in our agricultural areas: 1. Ensuring that manure on a feedlot or manure storage area does not run into water; 2. Ensuring that nutrient-rich manure is applied to cropland at a rate, time and method that prevents nutrients and other possible contaminants from entering streams, lakes and ground water. The State of Minnesota has provided cost share assistance for constructing feedlot runoff control practices through the Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources (BWSR). Funding for feedlot runoff control practices has been shifted from the General Fund to the Clean Water Fund where it is now part of Projects and Practices. In FY2014 the established ranking criteria prioritized other projects, resulting in only one feedlot project being approved in the entire state of Minnesota. Author: Goodhue SWCD Approved: December 9, 2014 Sunset Date: December, 2018 Status: Resolved. Additional feedlot cost share is available. On August 15, 2016, BWSR signed a memorandum of understanding with USDA-NRCS to implement the Lower Mississippi River Feedlot Management in Minnesota project from 2016 to This project is leveraging State funding from BWSR to provide match for a USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) project. USDA-NRCS is providing $1.6M in assistance directly to landowners for this RCPP project through the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP). BWSR is providing technical and financial assistance to plan and design projects to mitigate feedlot runoff from smaller open lot feedlots in southeastern Minnesota. BWSR is dedicating $260,000 per year of General Fund appropriations for five years, subject to availability, to provide both financial and technical assistance, along with $300,000 in BWSR FY 2017 Clean Water Funds as financial assistance, for a total obligation of $1.6M over the duration of the RCPP project. The BWSR funds are granted to the Southeast Minnesota Technical Support Joint Powers Board (JPB). 7

11 DRAINAGE COST SHARING FOR REMOVAL OF TILE INTAKES Policy Goal: The MASWCD supports cost share practices at the federal and state level to remove tile intakes from drainage areas to sensitive waterbodies and provide pattern tile alternatives when practical. The Association shall also initiate discussion with NRCS about the development of standards and specifications for this practice including exploring ways to direct smaller storms through the soil profile. Background: Minnesota has identified many impaired lakes and river systems for nutrients with the limiting factor to algae blooms usually related to phosphorus concentrations. Tile intakes were a legal and recommended practice to deal with excess water affecting crop production over the last 100 years and have been used extensively. These tile intakes provide a non-filtered direct conduit for pollutants including sediment and phosphorus to a number of waterbodies of concern including recreational lakes and highly used river systems. Relatively small amounts of phosphorus can have a devastating effect on waterbodies as it leads to premature aging of water systems and impairs recreational activities. Infiltration through the soil medium would allow a significant amount of the phosphorus to be captured in the soil profile for plant use. The use of French Drains has proven problematic in heavy soils causing crop stress and significant areas of drown out during heavy rainfall. Author: Wright SWCD Approved: December 5, 2017 Sunset Date: December, 2021 Status: MASWCD shared the resolution with NRCS and BWSR. BWSR Response: BWSR has allowed cost-share of alternative tile intakes under its Clean Water Fund water quality implementation grant programs such as Projects & Practices and Targeted Watershed programs. We have not allowed the use of cost-share on alternative tile intakes under the State Cost-Share program as practices funded via that program must be in the NRCS Filed Office Technical Guide. We continue to work with NRCS on the development of a design standard and guidance for this practice. Once that work is completed then it would be incorporated into the Field Office Technical Guide and MN practice docket and become an eligible practice under federal financial assistance programs and the MN State Cost-Share program. Recently we have heard that NRCS will have a standard for blind tile intakes by October of this year. NRCS Response: NRCS has identified a need for alternatives to open tile intakes which allow for direct discharge of sediment and pollutants to surface waters through ongoing discussions with State partner agencies. There is currently work being undertaken to develop standards and design guidance for alternative intake systems which would improve water quality by reducing sediment transport through tile lines or side water inlets without causing unacceptable crop stress during rain events. This effort will include coordination with agencies who have already been engaged with evaluating alternative intake systems. The use of subsurface drains or media filters to direct flow through the soil profile is one alternative that is being evaluated. SUPPORT FOR RUNOFF BASED ASSESSMENT OF PUBLIC DRAINAGE SYSTEMS Policy goal: Support the optional application of runoff based assessment as an alternative in viewing for apportioning of benefits for public drainage system in proceedings which trigger the appointment of viewers Background: The Drainage Work Group has been evaluating the potential application of runoff based assessment for apportioning costs and benefits for drainage management needs. GIS based techniques exist which can be applied to assist in assessing public drainage systems based on the potential delivery of runoff volume and sediment to the system. The application of a runoff based assessment approach creates the opportunity for increased implementation of conservation as landowners implement conservation practices in order to reduce runoff and thereby their assessment. Author: Carver SWCD Approved: December 6, 2016 Sunset Date: December, 2020 Status: Ongoing Policy. MASWCD is a member of the Drainage Work Group (DWG) and will continue to work with BWSR, AMC and MAWD. The resolution was shared with BWSR. BWSR s response: BWSR continues to work with the DWG to achieve consensus on revisions to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103E (drainage law) which would allow for an alternative method of allocating the cost of repairs to benefitting properties. The alternative is based on a runoff and sediment delivery charge option (rather than the amount of benefit as determined in the original drainage system proceeding or subsequent redetermination of benefits and damages). The feasibility of this type of approach to allocating drainage repair costs was tested and reported back to the DWG in 2016 ( Runoff and Sediment-Based Charge Method, December 2016, International Water Institute). To date the legislature has not passed legislation to address the revisions for the runoff based assessment. 8

12 EASEMENTS CONSERVATION EASEMENT VALUATION Board Policy, ratified February 25, 2014 MASWCD supports repeal of the change made during the 2013 legislative session which now requires that conservation easement lands be assessed at their previous use for property tax purposes, unless they are riparian lands. Election County officials should have discretion in determining at what level to tax lands enrolled in conservation easements. GROUNDWATER MASWCD GROUNDWATER GUIDING PRINCIPLES Board Policy, ratified September 9, 2014 Quality and quantity: Potential impacts need to be evaluated holistically. The potential for quality to affect available quantity, and vice-versa, is a key consideration to future access and use. The connected interrelationship of groundwater and surface water cannot be overlooked when considering uses of either. Sustainability: The appropriation of groundwater must adhere to basic principles of sustainability such that current uses do not diminish the potential for future needs. Science based: Policy and technical assistance must be based on scientific data. Data collected in monitoring, and information developed from the data, should be shared with decision makers, other entities, and the public. Education: Greater emphasis must be provided to education on groundwater and its critical importance to our society. Water conservation and wise use practices must be promoted. Engage stakeholders: Challenges involving groundwater quality, quantity, and/or surface water interaction should fully engage all stakeholders in devising appropriate solutions that will be supported locally. Funding: Federal, state, and local resources for funding best management practices associated with groundwater management shall be supported along with the potential for direct partnering. Innovation: Wise use and conservation of water will be encouraged. Shared, integrated, and mutually supporting systems should be developed. Leak detection and infrastructure management needs must be addressed. Stormwater management, re-use, and promotion of infiltration practices in recharge areas should be assessed. Rainwater harvest and water re-use systems should be implemented where possible. Management practices for agriculture should be encouraged such as irrigation management, nutrient management, soil health, and crop rotation. 9

13 GROUNDWATER TASK FORCE Policy Goal: That MASWCD advocate for SWCD representation on state agency committees and teams focused on groundwater and irrigation related activities that have a region or statewide significance. The Association shall work with the task force to identify or develop reliable funding for activities of regional or statewide significance, including the expansion of an on-line irrigation scheduling assistant to agriculturally irrigated areas in Minnesota. Background: SWCDs act as a primary technical advisor to stakeholders in Minnesota for the voluntary adoption of Best Management Practices related to groundwater quality and groundwater consumption. There are numerous planning efforts in progress related to conservation of groundwater, for example GRAPS and DNR Groundwater Management Areas. However statewide coordinated planning for groundwater conservation is less effective than it should be, including stakeholder engagement, funding and innovation activities. SWCDs, irrigators and voluntary adoption of BMPs are not represented properly on a region wide and statewide level. Initiating and coordinating projects of region wide or statewide significance by an SWCD has been demonstrated to be very difficult by multiple SWCDs. Author: Benton SWCD Approved: December 5, 2017 Sunset Date: December, 2021 Status: Ongoing MASWCD Policy. MASWCD shared the resolution with DNR and BWSR and will be meeting with the agency. BWSR Response - The Interagency Groundwater Team has not addressed this MASWCD resolution as of May The Interagency Groundwater Team at the moment is the only group that is made up of all the state agencies with roles in groundwater that meets on a regular basis as such BWSR does plan to bring the resolution to the attention of the Interagency Groundwater Team for their discussion and to determine if it could serve as a forum for local government to bring forward issues, ideas, and opportunities related to groundwater and irrigation related activities. Specific to irrigation related activities the University of Minnesota with funding from the MN Department of Agriculture is in the process of refilling the University of Minnesota Extension Irrigation Specialist. BWSR encourages MASWCD to monitor this process and to reach out to this position once it is filled to explore opportunities for SWCDs to engage. 10

14 PLANT MATERIALS POLLINATOR HABITAT ON PUBLIC LANDS Policy goal: Support the managers of government lands partnering with SWCDs and non-profits (such as Pheasants Forever, Ducks Unlimited, The Nature Conservancy, etc.), to actively seek appropriate sites on which to plant pollinator habitats, and to educate the general public on the benefits of such habitat. Background: There are greater than 8.4 million acres of public land in the State of Minnesota. Soil and Water Conservation Districts and other public agencies and private organizations have been encouraging the public to plant pollinator plots to help a dwindling population of pollinators. Studies have shown pollinators to have adverse reactions to chemical sprays, particularly neonicotinoids and public lands receive little to no chemical spraying and may provide suitable sites for pollinator habitat. Author: Clay SWCD Approved: December 6, 2016 Sunset Date: December 2020 Status: Ongoing Policy. FUNDING TO ESTABLISH POLLINATOR HABITAT Policy goal: Support state funding for establishing pollinator habitat including non-agriculture land. Background: Habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation are the leading causes of pollinator population decline. USDA is investing millions to provide technical and financial assistance to agricultural producers to establish pollinator friendly habitat. Diverse native plant communities provide ideal pollinator habitat that benefit many species of pollinators with nectar and pollen throughout the growing season. Rural vacant land and large open residential landscapes are typically not eligible for USDA financial assistance, but are appropriate and ideal spaces for pollinator habitat establishment. Technical and financial assistance have a proven history of motivating landowners to establish native habitat. Author: Sherburne SWCD Approved: December 8, 2015 Sunset Date: December, 2019 Status: Ongoing policy. BWSR shared the resolution with BWSR. BWSR Response: BWSR maintains a Pollinator Toolbox on its web-site ( that provides information on pollinators ranging from identification of programs and funding to maintenance after plantings are established. BWSR does not have a separate pollinator habitat cost-share program rather it does support the establishment of pollinator friendly seed mixtures and plantings as part of it project funding programs. 11

15 SOIL HEALTH MASWCD SOIL HEALTH GUIDING PRINCIPLES Board Policy, ratified March 20, 2017 Working in Support of the State Soil and Water Conservation Policy (M.S. 130c.005) The Minnesota Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts (MASWCD) supports the State Soil and Water Conservation Policy. The MASWCD works to maintain and enhance soil and water quality for environmental and economic benefits, preventing degradation, and restoring degraded soil and water resources with the understanding that these soil and water resources contribute to the health, safety, economic well-being, and general welfare of the state and its citizens. The MASWCD supports the administration of sound soil health management principles to help control and prevent erosion, sedimentation, siltation, and related pollution, ensure and enhance continued soil productivity, protect water quality, prevent impairment of dams and reservoirs, reduce damages caused by floods, conserve wildlife, protect the tax base and protect public lands and waters. Recognizing the Benefits of Managing Soil as an Ecosystem The MASWCD recognizes the living biological soil ecosystem as the critical key component of Minnesota s diverse above ground ecosystems. The productivity of Minnesota s agricultural and forest ecosystems cannot be sustained unless the biological health of the soil ecosystem is researched, understood, maintained and improved. The four basic manageable soil health principles include armoring the soil by covering it for as long as possible, minimizing soil disturbance, utilizing above ground plant diversity to maximize the soil s biological diversity, and maintaining a living root in the soil not only in the growing season but as long as feasible. Implementation of these basic principles advances the goal of soil and water conservation and protection by minimizing nutrient and soil loss by effectively storing and cycling soil water, carbon and nutrients. Local Technical and Resource Capacity The MASWCD supports efforts and resources to develop and enhance the capabilities of all Minnesota SWCDs to provide technical support to all stakeholders through individual districts or shared resources. This includes allowing Districts to access appropriate resources for technical training and assistance through local, state and federal initiatives. Funding and expertise must be directly accessible to those performing the on-the-ground work of soil health implementation. This should include funding for initiating and implementation of soil health practices by landowners. Funding should also be available to Soil and Water Conservation Districts to provide the technical expertise necessary for implementation of soil health practices. Locally Led/Locally Administered The MASWCD supports local stakeholders, with guidance from local SWCD staff, to assess their soil s biological health, set soil health goals and develop long term soil health management plans utilizing available programs and strategies to implement these plans and measure success. PRIORITIZING SOIL HEALTH FOR SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION Policy goal: Develop a set of Soil Health Guiding Principles as it has with Wetlands, Groundwater, Forest, and Water Management Guiding Principles. Continue to seek funding and cost share, and work with our Partners to train our SWCD staff to implement Soil Health components to help meet the soil and water conservation goals of all Minnesota Soil and Water Conservation Districts. Background: It is recognized by the Natural Resource Conservation Service(NRCS) that Soil Health, also referred to as soil quality, is defined as the continued capacity of soil to function as a vital living ecosystem that sustains plants, animals, and humans. NRCS recognizes we can achieve a new level of soil conservation by focusing on building Soil Health and thereby Soil Carbon(C). Building Soil Health and increasing a soil s biological activity act to improve a soil s permeability thus decreasing the amount of soil loss and nutrient leaching. NRCS accepted practices such as Conservation Crop Rotation (328), Cover Crop (340), Residue and Tillage Management No Till/Strip Till (329), Residue and Tillage Management - Mulch Till (345) and Prescribed Grazing (528) are important tools in building soil organic matter and soil health. NRCS recognizes that US farmers could save $8.2 billion worth of soil annually by focusing on conservation efforts that manage for Soil Carbon (C) instead of Tolerable Soil Loss (T). Authors: Big Stone, Crow wing, Mille Lacs SWCDs Approved: December 8, 2015 Sunset Date: December, 2019 Status: Resolved. Soil health principles have been adopted; cost share is available for soil health BMPs and training is being conducted. 12

16 WATER QUALITY AND MANAGEMENT MASWCD WATER MANAGEMENT GUIDING PRINCIPLES Board Policy, ratified February 15, 2012 The MASWCD Board of Directors puts forth the following set of guiding principles that provide criteria for MASWCD leadership to apply in evaluation and response to potential proposals coming forward regarding water management, operations and governance. The foundational principles for soil and water conservation districts include: 1) Science Based Resource Management and Protection Strategies 2) Locally Led/Locally Administered 3) Citizen Elected Boards 4) Local Technical and Resource Capacity 5) Voluntary Technical and Financial Assistance 6) Long Term Sustainability 7) Watershed Scale COMMUNICATE AND COORDINATE STATE PRIORITIES FOR STREAM RESTORATION PROJECTS Policy goal: Work with DNR and ask them to identify what their stream restoration project priorities are and how much funding is budgeted for each priority. The MASWCD shall also request that DNR agency stream restoration priorities and budgets be made available annually to soil and water conservation districts and other local units of governments so they can be considered for inclusion in their local water plan updates and amendments. Background: Rivers and streams in the state have been channelized straightened to reduce their footprint for agriculture and to increase the speed of runoff. Rivers that have been straightened have steeper instream slopes, greater peak flows, and were disconnected from naturally occurring floodplains. These alterations resulted in increased instream velocities, increased downstream flooding, weak and unstable streambanks, increased instream erosion, increased sedimentation, reduced water quality, and loss of wildlife habitat and diversity. Natural or restored meandering rivers with vegetated riparian zones and floodplains provide ecological, fish, wildlife and recreational benefits. Natural or restored rivers also improve water quality by filtering overland inputs of sediment and nutrients, and greatly improve bank stability and decrease bank erosion. Natural or restored rivers increase stream length and when connected to vegetated floodplains allow the river to properly carry flood events. The State of Minnesota is contributing significant funding to local units of government and state agencies including BWSR, DNR, MDA, MDH, and MPCA. Local units of governments including counties, SWCDs and watershed districts are encouraged to target our efforts and to work together to identify and communicate local priority resource concerns for funding in local water plans, biennial budget requests, and in the new one watershed one plans. There is a lack of communication and coordination between state agencies and between state agencies and local units of government when it comes to how much funding they have and what stream restoration projects they are spending it on. Better decisions and projects can come about when local and state agencies understand each other s priorities as they related to altered water courses. This will result in better communication and coordination of funding for stream restoration projects. Author: Wilkin SWCD Approved: December 6, 2016 Sunset Date: December, 2020 Status: DNR Commissioner Landwehr provided the following response to MASWCD in a correspondence dated February 8, The Stream Habitat Program handles the work the Association s resolution refers to within the DNR. The Stream Habitat Program is committed to protecting and restoring the biology, hydrology, geomorphology, water quality, and connectivity of Minnesota s streams. Every year the DNR s Stream Habitat Program (SHP) sends out a request for projects and reviews the Stream Restoration Priority List. New project submissions, that meet the minimum criteria, are due by the end of the February. The projects are subsequently ranked, reviewed and added to the updated list based on how well they meet stream restoration criteria. The purpose of the Stream Restoration Prioritization Criteria is to identify projects that best address these components. The stream restoration list is typically available in May of each year. Any SWCD can submit stream restoration projects as candidates for the list and the available funding. Also the program is statewide and would be happy to work your member on developing or processing your proposals for projects to expand scientifically sound restoration of our watersheds. 13