Agenda - Council - 02/08/2021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

At some point, however, the diminishing or nonexistent environmental benefit received from additional efforts is fiscally irresponsible. The programs are often improperly designed to meet their stated goals. Additionally, the absence of funding by the state and federal government has removed an essential restraining feature in program design and implementation. Agencies are less accountable to the governments that mandate environmental programs when they do not have to find the money to implement the programs. Specific problems faced by cities include: a) New programs or standards are continually adopted without regard to the existence, attainability or cost of existing programs and standards. b) Regulatory bodies fail to consistently use the best science available and the most current and accurate data when establishing water quality standards. c) Regulatory bodies impose new permit requirements without going through rulemaking. Instead, the agencies rely on internal documents, program strategies, and "best professional judgment of staff' when setting permit criteria. d) Regulatory bodies approve permits and programs that compete with traditional municipal services and encourage urban sprawl. This behavior puts at risk the public investments and growth management efforts cities have made when planning for future development. e) Permit fees and other cost -transfer elements of federal and state programs do not provide an incentive for environmental agency efficiency, policy prioritization or risk assessment. Additionally, all residents of the state contribute to the need for wastewater, drinking water, and stormwater treatment and benefit from the resulting improved water quality. These factors 53 f) g) make the state general fund an appropriate source for significant portions of state water program funding. Third -party environmental advocacy groups create significant hardships on cities by threatening litigation even when the best science available may not support the groups' positions. Cities are often required to pay the cost of removing problem materials from the waste stream, rather than preventing the problem at the consumer product or manufacturing level. Response: Alternative wastewater treatment and cooperative service systems should be prohibited from operating in areas that can reasonably and effectively be served by existing municipal systems, unless: a) The municipal system is proven to be substantially less cost-effective and substantially less beneficial to the environment; and b) The operation of these systems will not create a stranded public investment in the existing system. Sufficient state and federal financial assistance should be provided to local governments when complying with state and federal infrastructure requirements, particularly with regard to wastewater, stormwater, and drinking water facilities. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) should streamline its permitting and re -issuing processes to allow for effluent standards and permit requirements to be known earlier, thereby giving communities more time to defend against contested case hearings. The Legislature should require the MPCA to make its determination regarding permit -required submittals,