Agenda - Council - 02/13/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

December 15, 1989 Metro Local Water Management Task Force Report Agency rules governing the water planning process and the content of watershed and local plans were never promulgated by the former Water Resources Board, the agency which originally had the approval authority over "509" plans. The Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) was formed in 1987 through the merger of the Water Resources Board, the Soil and Water Conservation Board, and the Southern Minnesota Rivers Basin Council. tt has been the position of the BWSR to not pur- sue development of plan content rules since it was felt to be inappropria? to change the rules "midstream" in the planning process. Further, the original "509' law never p.rovided any positions for any agency to provide adequate support to the "509" plan- ning process. A good example of the lack of standards concerns wetland protection. Wetlands are clearly one of the primary "natural water storage and retention systems" referred to in the Metropolitan Water Management Act. The planning guidelines encouraged watershed organizations to inventory wetlands down to one acre, and to compile data on significant wetland characteristics and values. Wetland inventories actually performed, however, var5, significantly among watershed plans. More importantly, wetland management strategies also vary significantly. A city in two watershed or- ganizations ma), have one requiring regulation of ail k, etlan~ts down to .5 acres in size, while the other only calls for regulation of Types 3, 4, and 5 wetlands down to 2.5 acres, which are already protected by DNR rules. Plans vary significantly in their treatment of other topics including: requirements for local controls, water quality management strategies, implementation elements, and oversight of local plan execu- tion. '. Th~ Metropo, litan Water 3~anagement Act has partially met its eX£ectationsi It ..."'.'~ has increased mterlocal communication and cooperation, and improved local ': ".i : water management in many areas. It has not resulted in a compr~hens'iv6 effec;' tive~ Or uniform approach to watershed management across the metro ama. "'Act's'implementation requirements should be spelled out, and rules Should be · adopted t° add specificiO' to.the Ac~'s general requirements and ensure greate~ ~0~i~ ::!".::':i1 ~ sistency among plans. .. : ".'..: ': i--' ::..-::, .-'.- ':.-.-,.'-' 'i . :;:' ...... · '.!:-.':::::i: ':=.:~'-' '...=!- · :'=: '.:? Recommendation for Issue 7: #22 The BWSR should be required to flromulgate rules establishing performance stand- ards for the content of second generation WMO plans before July 1, 1991. The rules may differentiate between rural and urban plans. ISSUE 8 metropolitan watershed management organizations. lf~hat changes are needed in state law or the structure of local watershed management organizations to achieve greater consistency and stabiIio' in Findings for Issue 8: A phone survey of the 46 metro watershed organizations conducted by BWSR staff revealed that a significant number of WMOs were very unsure about their role as water management entities into the future. The Task Force firmly believes that