Laserfiche WebLink
and for state programs needed for <br />municipal wastewater and stormwater <br />permitting and technical support, <br />including the Clean Water Revolving <br />Loan Fund, Wastewater <br />Infrastructure Fund, Phosphorus <br />Reduction Grant Program, TMDL <br />Grants Program, Small Community <br />Wastewater Treatment Grant and <br />Loan Program, and other state <br />programs that provide financial <br />resources for city wastewater <br />treatment facilities, septic tank <br />replacement, stormwater management <br />projects, and other city water quality <br />improvement and protection projects; <br />d) More adequately cover the current <br />five-year wastewater infrastructure <br />funding need projection of more than <br />$1.65 billion; <br />e) Recognize and address the upcoming <br />costs of stormwater management <br />infrastructure and operation on <br />municipalities from new regulatory <br />mandates and load reduction <br />requirements; <br />f) Allow flexibility in achieving pollutant <br />load reductions and limitations <br />through offsets or trading of pollutant <br />load reduction credits for both point <br />and non -point load reduction <br />requirements within watersheds; <br />Recognize and credit the work <br />underway and already completed by <br />local units of government to limit <br />point and non -point source water <br />pollutant discharges; <br />h) Recognize the diversity of efforts and <br />needs that exists across the state; <br />i) Ensure the best science available is <br />used to accurately determine the <br />sources of pollutant load in order to <br />maximize positive environmental <br />outcomes and minimize unnecessary <br />regulatory and financial burdens for <br />cities by correctly accounting for and <br />g) <br />j) <br />addressing agricultural and other <br />non -point pollutant sources; <br />Ensure the state requires that the <br />MPCA retain control of the TMDL <br />development process and that all <br />scientific research related to TMDLs <br />is conducted by the MPCA or <br />qualified, objective parties pursuant <br />to state contracting, procurement, and <br />conflict of interest laws; and <br />k) Clarify state water quality mandates <br />so cities know specifically what they <br />are required to do and what methods <br />of achieving those outcomes are <br />acceptable to state and federal <br />regulators. <br />SD-62. Urban Forest Management <br />Funding <br />Issue: Urban forests are an essential part of <br />city infrastructure. Dutch elm disease, oak <br />wilt disease, drought, storms, and emerald <br />ash borer threaten our investment in trees. <br />The costs for control and removal can be <br />catastrophic and put pressure on city <br />budgets. The Minnesota Department of <br />Natural Resources, through its Urban and <br />Community Forestry program, and the <br />Minnesota Department of Agriculture, <br />through its Shade Tree and Invasive Species <br />program, currently have regulatory authority <br />to direct tree sanitation and control <br />programs. Although these programs allow <br />for addressing some tree disease, pest, and <br />other problems, funding levels have been <br />inadequate to meet the need of cities to build <br />capacity for urban tree programs and <br />respond to catastrophic problems. Cities <br />share the goal of the state's Releaf <br />Program —promoting and funding the <br />inventory, planning, planting, maintenance, <br />and improvement of trees in cities <br />throughout the state. In addition, economic <br />gains for stormwater management, tourism, <br />recreation, and other benefits must be <br />League of Minnesota Cities <br />2015 City Policies Page 40 <br />