|
| | ||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| HOME | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SUBSCRIBE | NEWSSTAND LOCATIONS | ||||
| ||||
|
|
| | |
Clean Water Legacy Act may have big impact Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Agri News staff writer
ST. PAUL -- Only a sliver of the state's surface waters have been tested for water quality impairments, yet the results of those tests could have far-reaching impacts.
An impaired water in a watershed could halt construction of housing, feedlots or businesses.
A bill moving through the Legislature, the Clean Water Legacy Act, aims to fund and coordinate water cleanup efforts across the state.
The Clean Water Legacy Act is needed for two reasons, said the chief Senate author of the bill, Sen. Dennis Frederickson, R-New Ulm. First, it will help Minnesota comply with federal Clean Water Act rules passed in 1972. Second, Minnesota is known for its water. The state is second only to Alaska in miles of shoreline.
It's a Minnesota ethic to keep the water clean so residents can continue to enjoy it, he said.
Lawsuits have been filed across the nation under the Clean Water Act forcing states to halt development until plans are in place to address water quality impairments.
The chief House author of the legacy act, Rep. Dennis Ozment, R-Rosemount, predicts if the bill isn't passed this year, enough lawsuits will be filed in the next year that all parts of the state will be impacted.
Getting involved
The Clean Water Legacy Act was developed by a diverse group of 16, now refered to as the G16, over the past two years as directed by the Legislature in 2003.
Chris Radatz, Minnesota Farm Bureau public policy director, and Thom Petersen, Minnesota Farmers Union goverment relations director, served on the G16 at the request of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
Farmers will have to deal with the impacts of the legislation and it's best to be involved in shaping the policy, Radatz said.
Farmers could either stand on the sidelines and throw rocks at the idea or get involved, Petersen said. Farmers Union decided it was important to be involved.
The G16 developed a policy framework and their work was reviewed by a group of 40 that included representatives from commodity and conservation groups and an assortment of government agencies and private firms.
Funding the massive clean up and pollution prevention effort was controversial from the start. Some wanted to charge farmers as businesses, but others argued farmers will bring federal cost-share money to the state and they will pay for conservation practices they implement on their land.
The fee was set by working backward. The G16 determined how much they would need and then how much the existing system could effectively use each year, Radatz said.
It was also modeled after a plan in Maryland to clean up Cheasepeake Bay. Residents ther pay $30 a year.
It was agreed farmers would pay the same rate as city residents in Minnesota, $36 a year or 10 cents a day, but there has been legislative attempts to change the fee as it's moved through committees.
Funding questions
Radatz said Farm Bureau's support hinges on the $36 fee, as the organization may not support the legislation if it changes to tax farmers unfairly.
Petersen said Farmers Union members have questioned the fee, but they support the plan to clean up impaired waters. They would have preferred a general fund solution, but that isn't likely with the current financial realities. They also don't want a farmers pay-all solutioin.
Farm Bureau wants to be sure the money is spent to clean up water rather than to collect money, Radatz said. As the bill is now written, cities and counties can retain no more than 5 percent of the amount collected for administration costs.
The money will go to into a Clean Water Legacy account in the environmental fund, Frederickson said, where it will be easy to track and less likely that the money will be used for other purposes.
A Clean Water Council comprised of 16 members will offer advice on how to spend the money.
"I am cautiously optimisitic we'll get it adopted this session," Frederickson said. The big question, he said, is if there's enough support to enact the fees.
House File 826/ Senate File 762 |
| | |
| |
Copyright 2009 Agri News
All Rights Reserved
