Bluestem has been following the problem of nitrate contamination of groundwater and surface water in southeastern Minnesota in posts like State's southeastern Minnesota drinking water fix: grab donuts, coffee, and lobbyists, oh my and Agency soup: MPCA, DNR, MDH & Ag release "Preventing fish kills in MN driftless region"
On Monday, January 22, the issue is on the agenda of the Clean Water Council. One piece under consideration is private well mitigation. Where will the funds for this effort--a problem that's not created by the well owners--be drawn?
One suggestion in the agenda packet is Minnesota's Legacy Clean Water Fund. Reading through the meeting packet, I noticed this note in Council chair Paul Gardner's "Supplemental Clean Water Fund Recommendations from the Budget & Outcomes Committee" (pages 8-11 in the meeting packet'; pages 3-4 of the memo):
CONSTITIONALITY QUESTION
Based on some feedback, I spoke to Minnesota Senate Legacy Finance Committee fiscal and research staff about their view on the constitutionality of using Legacy funds for private well mitigation. Their view is that the mitigation part of the Health Department’s request would NOT be consistent with the state’s constitution. Their reasoning is that the amendment says we are to “protect groundwater from degradation and to protect drinking water sources.” Providing a household with a new well or water treatment system would not be protection since the groundwater is polluted. That would be a narrow reading of the constitution rather than a more expansive one, which would be that one’s well is the drinking water source.
However, they noted that this is the advice they would give the Senate Legacy Committee and should not be interpreted as a formal legal opinion. Their advice would not prevent the Council from recommending funding for mitigation, nor would it prevent the Senate from recommending an appropriation or even passing it in a budget bill. (It would not be the first time a legislative body passed something when they got contrary advice.)
Despite Gardner's demurrals, this seems like a serious question. At the Minnesota Legacy's Clean Water Fund page, there's this:
Thirty-three percent of the sales tax revenue from the Legacy amendment is allocated to the Clean Water Fund. Those funds may only be spent to protect, enhance, and restore water quality in lakes, rivers, and streams and to protect groundwater from degradation. At least five percent of the clean water fund must be spent to protect drinking water sources.
Protecting Minnesota's waters is a joint effort between seven partner agencies, who collaborate and partner on Minnesota's water resource management activities under the Clean Water Fund.
In the list of projecs linked to the page, it does seem that the Minnesota Senate Legacy Finance Committee fiscal and research staff has a point.
Bluestem has to wonder whether the raiding of sales tax dollars in the state's Legacy funds is just another version of grabbing donuts, rather than making the polluters pitch in to clean up polluted water in private wells, as we noted in Minnesota nitrate pollution update: raise fertilizer fees to help pay cost of nitrate pollution.
Members of the public who want to join the meeting tomorrow can sign in virtually through WEBEX or by phone:
- Webex: Clean Water Council meeting - January 22 (9 a.m.)
Meeting number (access code): 2499 045 1894; Password: 4P5TxJAYH22
Join by phone: +1-415-655-0003; access code: 2499 045 1894
The meetings typically run through 2 p.m.
Photo: Private well water samples are lined up in a queue for testing at the Minnesota Well Owners Organization's free well water testing clinic at the St. Charles Community Center on Thursday, Feb. 2, 2023. Dené K. Dryden / Post Bulletin
Related posts
- State's southeastern Minnesota drinking water fix: grab donuts, coffee, and lobbyists, oh my
- Agency soup: MPCA, DNR, MDH & Ag release "Preventing fish kills in MN driftless region"
- Minnesota nitrate pollution update: raise fertilizer fees to help pay cost of nitrate pollution
- Land Stewardship Project applauds court’s support of Winona County; launches ‘Story Center Powerline’ initiative for rural residents
- Minnesota district court rules against Winona County dairy expansion; owner will appeal
- Agweek Special Report on Rural Health: 10% of MN private wells pose a health problem
- This is fine: update on MN state agencies' response to EPA letter on karst country nitrates
- Following emergency petition regarding nitrate contamination in SEMN karst region, EPA sees further action needed to protect public health
- On ‘Cancer Road,’ a group of southeastern MN families ask if nitrate exposure is to blame
- Eleven environmental groups petition EPA on nitrate pollution in Southeast Minnesota wate
- Strib scrutinizes MN Department of Ag action on nitrate-related Groundwater Protection Rule
- Nitrates in Southwestern Minnesota water: 'Do not give the water to infants' in Ellsworth
- Commentary from MinnPost: Can the state control nitrates in Minnesota waters?
- Minnesota Department of Health isn’t properly enforcing drinking water law, and kids will suffer
- is far from over
- Packed house at Newburg Township on using local control to protect community, karst
- All citizens are equal, but one thinks he's more equal: massive hog farm shareholder* seeks to prevent August 2 Newburgh Township meeting
- Jean Wagenius: For climate and clean water, state agencies need Walz to lead
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.
Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.
I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6
Comments