11:10 Stakeholder Process Discuss stakeholder process for policy recommendations.

Transcription

1 Policy Ad Hoc Committee (Committee) Meeting Agenda Clean Water Council (Council) July 22, :00-1:30 MPCA, 520 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul, MN MPCA Conference Room Policy Ad Hoc Committee members: John Barten (Vice Chair), Gary Burdorf, Pam Blixt (Chair), Warren Formo, Gene Merriam, Victoria Reinhardt, John Underhill 10:00 Regular Business Approve agenda Chair and Staff update 10:10 Living Cover Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) and Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) Review and discuss policy ideas related to living cover. 11:10 Stakeholder Process Discuss stakeholder process for policy recommendations. 11:30 Lunch 12:00 Next Steps for the Policy Ad Hoc Committee Discuss how the Committee wants to move forward on remaining policy topics. o Tax Incentives for Water Conservation Activities o Shoreland Rules o Drainage o Soil Health o Nonpoint Source Implementation (Standard of Care, Nutrients, Animal Management) o Living Cover o One Watershed, One Plan (new idea) Policy Committee future structure and interaction with Budget and Outcomes Committee 1:30 Adjourn The next Policy Ad Hoc Committee meeting will be held on Friday, August 26, The Policy Ad Hoc Committee web page can be found at wq-cwc5-16g

2 J uly22, 2016 Living Cover for Water Protection Policy Statement Land use is one of the greatest influences on the quality of Minnesota s ground and surface waters, affecting the purity of our state s sources of drinking water. The State of Minnesota should promote land use practices like living cover that minimize or eliminate potential contamination of water in targeted high risk areas such as wellhead protection areas. The Clean Water Council should consider multiple approaches to encourage living cover with an emphasis on economically sustainable approaches. One approach that has not been fully explored would be to offer lower property taxes for certain types of land use practices that are protective of groundwater in defined (vulnerable) wellhead protection areas, as an opportunity to reduce costs and influence choices made by landowners. Background Recent reports including the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency s Nutrient Reduction Strategy have indicated the dramatic influences land use can have on water quality. 26 million acres of Minnesota s 55 million acres total is in agricultural lands and important to our economy. Roughly 1.2 million acres are in areas where groundwater is used as a public drinking water sources (called wellhead protection areas) Because of the nature of native soils and geology, roughly 360,000 of those 1.2 million acres are vulnerable to contamination from activities on the land surface. In these areas, land use has a significant impact (positive or negative) on groundwater quality. When soils are bare (for up to 9 1/2 months of the year for some crops), nutrients and other chemicals in the soil can leach away or run off to contaminate ground and surface water, and can lead to contamination of drinking water sources. When there is living cover on the land, soil erosion is reduced or eliminated and plants take up nutrients that might otherwise contaminate ground or surface water. Barriers Economics drives many land use decisions. Currently there are a number of barriers to establishment of perennial crops and cover crops including markets for products; equipment for establishment, management, and harvesting; infrastructure (e.g., for cellulosic ethanol production); and consumer awareness and demand for foods like flours from perennial grains, and grass-fed beef. Costs for crop production include equipment, seeds, fertilizer, fuel, shipping, storage, land (owning or renting), salaries, etc. Revenue comes from sale of crops. Other factors also affect economic returns on land use, including property taxes. There are limits to funding available for economic incentives like easements and land purchase. State government can have relatively little influence on costs or revenues, other than by providing cost-share to promote or support activities, and altering the impact (costs) of taxes. An additional factor in land management is that roughly 50 percent of cropland in Minnesota is rented. Incentives that can positively influence a landowner (whether directly operating the land or renting it out) to establish land use practices that are protective of groundwater in vulnerable areas. Produced at the request of the Ad Hoc Policy Committee of the Clean Water Council, June 24, 2016.

3 Clean Water Council (CWC) Policy Committee Meeting July 22 Policy Ideas from stakeholders: Living Cover (Perennials) Shown in italics below are policy ideas presented by CWC stakeholders. The Intent narrative is what we have interpreted as the meaning of the policy idea(s). Pros and cons of the policy idea is then listed, followed by existing programs/activities that may address this policy idea. (1) Use living cover around wellheads to prevent groundwater contamination. Intent: Establish living cover to protect source water from groundwater contamination from non-point sources. (Ex: plant forage instead of/in addition to row crops), Pro: Complementary to existing State agency (MDH, MDA, BWSR) activities. Protective of groundwater vs. some land use activities. Could provide additional/new income to landowner. This could be done now, based on stakeholder interest. (No development of programs, legislation). Con: May not be profitable, and could require funding. Implementation would rely on landowner interest. May need agreement(s) mechanism for vegetative cover to be maintained to provide long term benefit. Existing programs/activities that address this: Wellhead Protection Program; See; RIM Wellhead Easements; See: Other existing federal and state grant and loan programs (2) Develop markets for low impact forage and cover crops. Promote the use of alfalfa - in rotation with corn and use to feed beef cattle. Consumers could request that beef cattle diet includes alfalfa. Intent: Develop markets and uses for perennials so farmers can grow these profitably. Create specific market for alfalfa or other perennial, so it can be part of a profitable rotation. Create consumer value for forage fed beef. (Note that this should include all forage, not only alfalfa) Pro: Complimentary to MDA and other agencies programs This could be a component of the "Vegetative Cover & Soil Health" funding request. Complementary to the Forever Green Program. This would create an opportunity for a third crop that is economically viable. Potential partnership with MN Cattlemen's Association and/or the Conservation Marketplace of MN (and others) to discuss/create markets and ecosystem service trading.

4 Cons: Requires up-front costs and administration to create and maintain market. Other factors limiting livestock may be applicable (Infrastructure (equipment, seed, etc.). See MDA Livestock Industry Study. May be difficult to establish: must create standards to create market distinction. (Ex. All cattle consume perennials) It is unknown whether the state s livestock and their forage requirement is in balance. Do we need more forage to feed our existing livestock population? Is forage grown in in locations most beneficial to livestock needs? A third crop has been discussed for some time, but has been difficult to develop and establish. Existing programs/activities that address this: MDA s Vegetative Cover and Soil Health proposal Under development MDA Cropland Grazing Exchange. MDA along with Partners from NRCS and Sustainable Farming Association is developing a web-based application which is intended to match up livestock farmers with crop farmers who have potential forage to harvest. A major goal of the project is to encourage crop farmers to explore options to use livestock, cover crops and diversity in their cropping rotations to build soil health. Other existing federal and state grant and loan programs (3) Create a market for profitable perennials versus harvesting corn stover to meet renewable fuel standards. Intent: Create market driven approaches to increase living cover by creating/increasing their use to make biofuels (in lieu of using corn residue as cellulosic source). Pro: This could be a component of the "Vegetative Cover & Soil Health" funding request. Complimentary to the Bioincentive Program and the proposed working lands watershed restoration program legislation that passed this session. An incentive would be created for a 3 rd crop. Corn residue would remain in the field, which would be a benefit to soil health. Con: Need to do market analysis to determine need and scale needed to be viable. Uncertain if perennial versus corn stover has the same value as a renewable fuel stock Existing programs/activities that address this: Bioincentive Program legislation established this programs See: Under development Working Lands Watershed Restoration Program 2016 legislation established a feasibility study and implementation plan to incentivize the establishment and maintenance of perennial crops. See: r=2016&session_number=0&type=ccr&format=pdf pages

5 (4) Encourage the use of perennial crops to meet the cellulosic ethanol mandate. Intent: "Same as above and; creation of incentives (technical & financial assistance) to use perennial crops to produce biofuels Pro: Complimentary to existing programs Could create a market for perennials Con: Biofuels plants may not have technology available. Other factors such as corn and soybean prices and fuel prices will be large determining factors. Existing programs/activities that address this: Bioincentive Program legislation established this programs See: Under development Working Lands Watershed Restoration Program 2016 legislation established a feasibility study and implementation plan to incentivize the establishment and maintenance of perennial crops. See: r=2016&session_number=0&type=ccr&format=pdf pages (5) Enhance existing markets for perennial-fed beef and dairy products and bioenergy from perennial crops. Intent: Same as #2 above, and; Create awareness and market for livestock & products that are produced using perennials. Pro: Identified in 2015 EQB Water Policy Report Could create a market value for forage fed beef & dairy, therefore making growing of perennials more attractive. This could be a component of the ""Vegetative Cover & Soil Health"" funding request. May encourage cattle on pasture versus feedlots. Opportunity to use Legacy Funds for forage lands purchase/easements. Opportunity to work with MN Milk Producers Association and the MN State Cattlemen's Association to discuss creation of markets. Con: Would likely involve significant effort in marketing and take significant time to establish. Must create standards to create market distinction. (Ex. All cattle consume perennials) Farmers will be reluctant to grow perennials if they aren t sure it will pay off. (chicken & egg) Existing programs/activities that address this: Bioincentive Program legislation established this programs See:

6 (6) Provide cost sharing for practices that promote living cover. Intent: Create incentive, through government funding, to promote more living cover. Pro: Identified in 2015 EQB Water Policy Report Government programs that do this are already established. (CRP, EQIP, RIM, State cost-share, etc.) May overlap/correspond with soil health initiatives. Con: Funding may not be adequate to create adequate incentive. This has historically been the case. Existing programs/activities that address this: Other existing federal and state grant and loan programs

7 Item Number Topic Original Policy Ideas (2015-early 2016) from Stakeholder Groups or Agencies List of Potential Policy Ideas for the Clean Water Council to Discuss in 2016 REV 7/18/16 Newer Draft Policy Ideas (2016) Revised Policy Ideas (2016) Next steps 1 Cumulative Impacts of Groundwater Withdrawals Manage the cumulative impacts of groundwater withdrawals (1) Support DNR report and/or legislative proposal related to cumulative impacts, (2) Consider rule change related to lake levels and use of surface water vs. groundwater for golf course irrigation Discussed in January; Committee will revisit this topic in August. 2 Drainage (1) Develop drainage performance standards and require Best Management Practice treatment where appropriate. (2) Improve watershed resilience through watershed management, including agricultural drainage systems. (3) Leverage local agricultural accountability by creating agricultural management areas and drainage authority accountability at the subwatershed level. (1) Incentives for reduced runoff volume, peak flows and sediment delivery. (2) Water storage to reduce peak flows (detention storage) and to reduce volume of runoff and carrying capacity Discussed in April. Will discuss in (longer term storage that provides more infiltration June. Warren Formo is working on and/or evapotranspiration). (3) Enhanced draft policy recommendations. integration of multipurpose drainage management in local water plans, including 1W1P. 3 Drinking Water (1) Prioritize economically attractive living cover in high risk wellhead protection areas. (2) Increase flexibility of permitted land use options in easements that protect groundwater while still providing economic value. (3) Identify a clear pathway for land purchase in high risk wellhead protection areas through MN RIM program based on drinking water protection needs. (4) Promote multiple benefits from land use practices that protect groundwater; pheasant habitat, solar power, or wind farms. (5) Create tax benefits for appropriate land use in wellhead protection areas. (6) Support surface water intake protection through legislative authority and/or dedicated hydrological and planning resources. (7) Build local capacity for groundwater and drinking water protection actions on the land. (8) Develop reconnaissance system for contaminants determined to be of concern in source water in Minnesota, and ensure a robust risk assessment system for new/emerging contaminants is maintained. (9) Establish a Drinking Water Think Tank to translate emerging science and monitoring results into protective public health policy and action. (10) Develop Minnesota-specific risk management practices that address health risks from unregulated contaminants and identify health benefits through public health policy and action recommendations. (11) Require notification of the existence of a lead service line upon property transfer. (12) Inventory and map lead service lines in cities statewide. (13) Require landlords to notify renters if a lead service line is present and provide educational materials on how to reduce exposure. (14) Make lead testing of water available to customers. (15) Provide financing for homeowners to replace lead service lines. (16) Assist cities to plan for and finance full replacement of all lead service lines. (17) Provide funding for fixture replacement or filters. (18) Increase outreach and education activities. (19) Require water testing at property transfer. (20) Recommend further study of contaminant occurrence in private wells. (1) Establish a Drinking Water Think Tank to address drinking water challenges. (2) Increased support and flexibility for land uses in wellhead protection and surface water intake areas that are protective, economically viable and provide multiple benefits. (3) A robust and flexible monitoring system to identify unregulated contaminants in drinking water sources and appropriate risk assessment and management strategies. (4) A strategic plan to identify and address sources of lead in drinking water throughout the state, including a better understanding of the costs and benefits of lead service line removal and heightened consumer awareness of effective actions. (5) Enhanced protection for Minnesotans who drink from private wells through increased education and outreach, characterization of water quality issues, and water testing at property transfer. Discussed in April, May, and June. Committee pass draft recommendations in June. Will go to full Council and out for stakeholder review for feedback. 4 Nonpoint Source Implementation - Animal Management (1) Promote practices to reduce animal (cattle) access to streams (2) Regulations to reduce animal (cattle) access to streams Develop and implement a 'working lands' permanent conservation easement program for livestock grazing and pasture. Eligibility should be limited to highly sensitive land and should require livestock management plans. MDA provided pros/cons of stakeholder ideas to the Committee in June. Committee may revisit this topic.

8 List of Potential Policy Ideas for the Clean Water Council to Discuss in 2016 REV 7/18/16 5 (1) Use living cover around wellheads to prevent groundwater contamination. (2) Develop markets for low impact forage and cover crops. Promote the use of alfalfa - in rotation with corn and use to feed beef cattle. Consumers could request that beef Nonpoint Source cattle diet includes alfalfa. (3) Create a market for profitable Implementation - Living perennials versus harvesting corn stover to meet renewable Cover fuel standards. (4) Encourage the use of perennial crops to meet the cellulosic ethanol mandate. (5) Enhance existing markets for perennial-fed beef and dairy products and bioenergy from perennial crops. (6) Provide cost sharing for practices that promote living cover. Discussed in March. Requested that MDA/MDH return to the Policy Committee with more complete policy recommendations in July. 6 Nonpoint Source Implementation - Standard of Care and Best Management Practices (1) Develop performance-based standards for nonpoint pollution sectors (e.g. consider doing this by watershed). (2) Consider policy options that require a basic standard of care for crop agriculture. (3) Promote landscape Best Management Practices (BMPs) (e.g. buffers, BMPs on new tile systems, cover crops, no-till, etc.) for nutrient management. (4) TBD - Address challenges for landowners to implement Best Management Practices (1) Develop and implement research and demonstration sites to provide information and education, and actively engage farmers in water quality BMPs. (2) Explore a tax incentive program to promote conservation implementation. (3) Support and promote the opportunity to capture market value for water quality protecting and enhancing agricultural products and services. MDA provided pros/cons of stakeholder ideas to the Committee in June. Committee may revisit this topic. Pam Blixt will work with agencies to explore a tax incentives for water conservation (broader than just focused on nutrients). 7 Nutrients 8 Shoreland Rules 9 Soil Erosion (1) Consider a polluter pays principle for nutrient management. (2) Recommend a nutrient accountability program (e.g. fall fertilizer application prohibitions). (3) Recommend adding the word sustainable to maximum return to nitrogen guidelines provided by the University of Minnesota. (4) Institute a fertilizer surcharge to provide compensation for drinking water treatment where contamination has occurred (1) Give local governments the backing and support to make variance decisions that protect lakes and rivers. (2) Recognize higher standards in shoreland ordinances are an effective way to address water quality stressors and risk and make it a priority to provided funding to local governments to adopt them. (3) Provide a strong statement on the importance of vegetative riparian buffers in urban areas. Assist in advancing reforms that will require on Highly Erodible Land (HEL) a conservation plan or system which will prevent water and wind erosion from exceeding tolerable soil loss limits as identified in the U.S. Department of Agriculture s Field Office Technical Guide. Recommend that the State act to strengthen how shoreland protections for public water resources are implemented at the local level. Add a special set of criteria for variances in shoreland areas. Since Minnesota passed new soil erosion loss language last year need to know the results of that effort first. MDA provided pros/cons of stakeholder ideas to the Committee in June. Committee may revisit this topic. Presentation on Shoreland Rules at April full Clean Water Council meeting. Discussed in May and June. Recommended that DNR and implementers of shoreland rules discuss aspects of shoreland rules Discussed in March and June. Tabled further discussion on this topic this year. 10 Soil Health Adopt a soil health policy statement similar to other state policies related to water. Needs to address both urban and rural areas. Discussed in March. John Barten and Doug Thomas will return to the Committee at a future meeting with a more complete policy proposal.

9 List of Potential Policy Ideas for the Clean Water Council to Discuss in 2016 REV 7/18/16 11 Water Storage (1) Expand the current Council policy on water storage and retention to add guidance to agencies and/or local governments, (2) consider developing a set of recommendations/principles designed to integrate all of the pieces such as soil health, living cover, conservation cropping systems, and water storage (1) Revisit Council 2014 policy recommendation (2) public land (3) a statewide soil health watershed policy issues (3) wildlife versus storage (4) wetland design (5) fairness (4) BOC discussed this idea in March where appropriate, require comprehensive watershed management plans that use the One Watershed, One Plan framework to include water volume reduction (or storage) goals. (5) There is so much overlap on these topics should also consider developing a more overarching policy. For example, a policy recommendation that watershed plans have water quantity (storage) and water quality goals/requirements. Draft proposal to revised 2014 Council policy recommendations related to water storage. Discussed in January and June. Tabled this topic for this year. However, drainage policy recommendation may include some water storage ideas.

10 Policy Ad Hoc Committee Draft Timeline REV 7/18/16 December 14, 2015 Developed Committee Charter Organized list of potential topics and reduced list of topics (from 27 to 16 topics) Elected Vice Chair o Developed factors to consider when selecting policy recommendations (e.g. capacity for responsible parties to implement, cost benefit relationship, leveraging opportunities exist, likely champions to lead efforts, politically feasible, technical information is available to implement) January 22, 2016 Presentations/Discussion of the following policy topics: o Contaminants of Emerging Concern o Cumulative Impacts of Groundwater Withdrawals o Sustainable Water Use o Water Storage March 25, 2016 Presentations/Discussion of the following policy topics related to nonpoint source implementation (note this will be more high level discussion) o Living Cover o Certification o Soil Health o Soil Erosion o Cover Crop (Insurance) April 22, 2016 Potential topics o Drinking Water Protection o Drainage o Nonpoint Source Implementation Protection (high level discussion) o Shoreland Rules *On April 22, 2016 the Policy Committee decided not to pursue the following topics this year. Members noted that these were still very important topics to discuss in the future. Feedlot Management Septic System Management Local Water Governance and Planning Chloride Urban Stormwater Point Source Implementation 1

11 May 27, 2016 Potential topics o Protection Forestland Conversion o Revisit Drinking Water o Revisit Shoreland Rules o Revisit the following topics - Cover Crops (insurance) o TBD may need to revisit additional topics *On May 27, 2016 the Policy Committee decided not to pursue the following topics this year. Members noted that these were still very important topics to discuss in the future. Protection Forestland Conversion Cover Crops (Insurance) June 24, 2016 Potential topics o Revisit Shoreland Rules o Revisit Drinking Water o Revisit Drainage o Revisit Soil Erosion o Revisit Water Storage o Discuss whether to pursue Nonpoint Source Implementation Standard of Care, Animal Management and Nutrient topics *On June 24, 2016 the Policy Committee decided not to pursue the following topics this year. Members noted that these were still very important topics to discuss in the future. Soil Erosion Water Storage (but concepts may be included in a policy recommendation on Drainage) July 22, 2016 Potential topics o Revisit Living Cover o Discuss Policy Committee stakeholder process and structure August 26, 2016 o Revisit Cumulative Impacts of Groundwater o Revisit Soil Health o Revisit Shoreland Rules o Drinking Water Protection - finalize draft policy recommendations based on stakeholder and Council member comments; discuss background material for recommendation o Other topics TBD September 23, 2016 TBD October 28, 2016 TBD 2

12 12/14/15 Policy Ad Hoc Committee (Clean Water Council) Factors that should be discussed and considered in selecting a smaller list of potential policy topics to recommend to the Clean Water Council. Factors are not limited to the following: Capacity for responsible parties to implement Cost benefit relationship Leveraging opportunities exist Likely champions to lead efforts Politically feasible Technical information is available to implement Policy Ad Hoc Committee web page -