In regards to Karen Harder¹s recent post on stormwater fees, let¹s not forget that Ballot Box accurately notes that Ward 12 candidate Kevin McDonald does not question the need for the new Minneapolis stormwater billing system. Given his many years as an environmental professional, he undoubtedly understands that separating the stormwater charges from potable water and sewer fees will stimulate alternative stormwater management activities by residents and businesses. I think what McDonald is saying is that Minneapolis has to keep its eyes open and play it smart the State is poised to act on a Clean Water Legacy bill and Minneapolis needs a better understanding of its implications. Minneapolis can either go it alone in addressing stormwater quality and runoff issues, and in cleaning up its surface waters, or it can enlist the support of federal and state resources. The vehicle for securing federal and state financial support is through the ³impaired waters² program of the Clean Water Act. Most if not all, surface water bodies in Minneapolis, whether they be a creek, lake or river, are officially listed as ³impaired.² These include Nokomis, Hiawatha, Minnehaha Creek and the Mississippi River (all in whole or part in McDonald¹s Ward 12), as well as Harriet, Calhoun, Isles, Cedar, Wirth, Diamond, Powderhorn and Bassett Creek. None of these have in place completed restoration plans (there called TMDL study plans, for the enviro geeks out there). The key here is: without a TMDL study plan, no state or federal funding can be received. Support for preparing the many plans Minneapolis needs to get in place could be made available through the proposed state Clean Water Legacy Act. Karen may ³much prefer that we all pay into a city-wide Program² to address stormwater and impaired surface water issues. The reality is though that we live in a big state and the Minneapolis City Council does not get to decide whether we have a city-wide or statewide approach to water quality issues. While it is true that the state legacy act bill died during the 2005 regular (and special) session, what should be noted is that it is very likely this bill and some type of corresponding funding mechanism will be part of a fall 2005 special session.
If Karen¹s concern that Minneapolis will get royally screwed, we need to get on top of this now. Many members of our Minneapolis House and Senate delegation (Sen. Higgins, Rep. Wagenius, Rep. Kelliher, Rep. Kahn, Rep. Davnie, Rep.Clark, Rep. Hornstein) are bill sponsors. That, I believe, is the essential point McDonald is making here. We¹d be wise to heed this advice. I hope someone at City Hall is looking into how our city stormwater program will jibe with the state program. I have my doubts though and am personally glad Kevin McDonald is ringing this bell. Mark Snyder Windom Park On 8/10/05 10:01 PM, "Karen Harder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Me: Whoa! > > The City had already been funding their stormwater management activities > with a fee that had been combined with normal water fees on everybody's > monthly bills. They separated it out to bring more visibility to the work > they were doing on this issue and also to provide an incentive to those who > actively worked to retain stormwater on their properties through the use of > rain gardens and other means by reducing the fee. > > The Clean Water Legacy Bill, while everyone agrees with the policy basis > that the state should be more proactive with cleaning up our waters, created > great disagreement on how to pay for it. The original proposal required > that city folk who were connected to a sewer system pay $36 per year and > septic tank folk to pay $150/year towards this $80 million annual cost which > is based on....? Agricultural operations were to pay zero even though their > pollution contribution is the greatest cause for concern for our water > quality in Minnesota. Yet, they would be the benefactors. > > In a nutshell, the bill died but city folk would have had to donate the > majority of the funding which, after reduction for administrative expenses > for the MPCA, would have been reallocated to projects mostly in out-state > Minnesota. The project recommendations would have been made by a slate of > people significantly dominated by agricultural, governmental, and industrial > representatives. I don't believe for a minute that the City of Minneapolis > would have received back from this program a fraction of what the residents > would have paid into it. I much prefer that we all pay into a city-wide > program with appropriate incentives that reduce the costs to the city over > all. > > CM Sandy Colvin Roy was absolutely correct in creating and supporting the > City's stormwater fee. Although it still needs some tinkering, this was the > right way to go. > > Karen Harder > Lynnhurst REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
