DRAFT MINUTES

OF THE

CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

FOR THE

MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT

Thursday, April 22, 2010

6:35 p.m. – 7:55 p.m.

Members present: Tony Goldenstein (Chair), Gerald Ciardelli, John Iacono, Neil Weber, Tom Casey, Duncan Steinman, Steve Mohn, Tom Aasen, Robert Eastman, Marc Rosenberg, Chris Dovolis, Bill Bushnell

Alternates present and upgraded to voting member: N/A

MCWD Board of Managers members present: Pam Blixt

MCWD Staff present: Luke Schwitzer, Steve Christopher, Catherine Bach (minutes)

  1. CALL TO ORDER.

Chair Goldenstein called the meeting to order at approximately 6:35 PM.

  1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.

Mr. Iacono moved to approve the March 25th, 2010 meeting minutes, seconded byMr. Casey. Motion passed unopposed.

  1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA.
    Mr. Iacono moved approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Steinman. Motion passed unopposed.
  2. OLD BUSINESS. N/A
  1. NEW BUSINESS.
    Mr. Schwitzer presented an overview of the Clean Water Act (CWA) framework and how it’sapplied through federal, state, and local agencies.

Mr. Goldenstein asked about where the CWA stood a few years ago. There was discussion about Congressman Jim Oberstar wanting the CWA to cover more waters (in addition to “navigable” waters). Mr. Steinman noted that Congressman Oberstar is re-proposing the issue, even though similar legislation had been vetoed in the past.

Mr. Mohn asked who is in charge of enforcement [of the CWA]. Mr. Schwitzer repliedthat it’s the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with regulatory authority delegated to theMinnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) in MN). Manager Blixt noted that there are small old houses close to the Mississippi River that the city of Minneapolis built for lower-class workers because no one wanted to live close to the river due to the smell. She also noted that the Pig’s Eye wastewater treatment plant was one of the earliest treatment plants built here (built because of the water quality problems). Mr. Iacono noted that he didn’t know of any citizens groups or anyone caring or doing anything about pollution of the water during that time [prior to federal clean water regulations].

Chair Goldenstein asked for clarification on the definition of TMDL, with Schwitzer replying ‘Total Maximum Daily Load’.

Chair Goldenstein asked about how Joint Powers Agreements (JPAs)are established. Mr. Christopher replied that the MCWD had to apply to the MPCA. The MCWD would still coordinate with the MPCA for enforcement issues. Mr. Christopher noted that MCWD was the only watershed district that had a JPA for Construction Stormwater (CSW) enforcement.

Mr. Christopher explained that the MPCA’s Industrial Stormwater (ISW) permit expired in 2004. Industrial activities were operating under that expired permit until the new permit was passed early this month. The MCWD wanted to participate, and an agreement was drafted with the MPCA. Mr. Goldenstein asked what materials need to be submitted when applying for the ISW permit.Mr. Christopher replied that a Soil & Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) was required and briefly explained components of the SWPPP. Mr. Christopher then explained the timeline for the components of the new industrial stormwater permit. Chair Goldenstein asked if everything fell on the MPCA if there are no other partnerships in the metro area. Mr. Christopher replied yes. Mr. Casey asked what triggers having to apply for an industrial permit. Mr. Christopher replied that it’s based on the tax code. Mr. Casey asked why agriculture wasn’t regulated under this permit. Mr. Schwitzer replied that at this point, agriculture has essentially been exempt from the CWA. Mr. Christopher added that agriculture is a touchy subject, because it is difficult to regulate such an important resource.

Mr. Rosenberg asked if the CWA is focused on navigable waters, not including Lake Minnetonka. Mr. Schwitzer replied that Lake Minnetonkais considered navigable, but the definition of ‘navigable’ is obscure.

Mr. Rosenberg asked if there were any known industrial outfalls into Lake Minnetonka. Neither Mr. Christopher norMr. Schwitzer knew of any. Manager Blixt said the watershed itself is a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System(MS4). Mr. Schwitzer replied that yes, it [CWA] is enforced on us, not by us.

Mr. Rosenberg asked what chemicals the MPCA is interested in regulating. Mr. Schwitzer replied that there are many, and currently there are federal regulations for specific pollutants that need to be met at the local level. Mr. Christopher noted that we do have impaired waters within our district.
Mr. Rosenberg asked about how road construction projects are regulated. Schwitzer replied with the example of the Crosstownproject and the County Road 101 in Plymouth (both have District and MPCA CSW permits). Mr. Rosenberg asked about medians using grass or brick and how important those components are for infiltration? Mr. Schwitzer replied that infiltration featuresare incorporated, as well as impervious features, but the overall [MPCA and MCWD] permit requirements must be met[with regard to water quality, rate control, etc.].

Mr. Casey asked about MPCA staffing level for CSW inspections in other parts of the state. Mr. Christopher replied that MPCA staff is thin, especially after ending their JPA program last year, but that funds have been shifted to other NPDES programs. Mr. Casey asked if MCWD staffcould talk to our regulatory partners at the MPCA about the authority to include farm land in industrial regulations (if not now, sometime in the future). Schwitzer noted.

Mr. Iacono asked if the MCWD has to have a permit application for a particular project before the MCWD can get involved? Mr. Christopher replied that the MCWDhas the authority to inspect any site that may need a permit from the District.

Mr. Iacono asked if Hunters Crest was cleaned up yet, and Mr. Christopher replied that yes, it has, and that there has also been a significant improvement in the contractors’ approach to regulations.

Mr. Iacono asked if it was easier to work with MNDOT compared to other contractors. Mr. Christopher replied that MN DOT has a requirement that approximately 10% of the total project cost must go to sediment/erosion control. Manager Blixt noted that MN DOT being so good about erosion control was partially a result of the District educating them over a number of years (there had been many violations in the past).

Mr. Casey asked Mr. Schwitzer to summarize regulatory gaps with regard to wetlands, regulation authority, etc. Mr. Schwitzer replied it would be valuable for the District to have the authority to issue monetary penalties. Manager Blixt noted that the Board tried to get that power, and so far they have failed to get the authority allocated. Mr. Casey asked Manager Blixt to explain the politics of why we can’t get that authority. Manager Blixt replied that the problem is not so much with issuing that authority to us, but granting it to all watershed districts, and other similar units of government. She continued that [the authority to issue monetary penalties] is a very powerful tool that is not carelessly being handed out. Mr. Schwitzer added how the CSW JPA was very valuable because we had the backup of the MPCA. Mr. Christopher stated that currently the MPCA does not have the staff to oversee the JPA program.

There was continued discussion about the strong lobby agriculture has, which is one of the main reasons why it has not been targeted for regulations. Chemical companies have a lot of stake in agriculture, and lots of money is involved. There was consensus that any regulations on agriculture would haveto come from the federal level. Mr. Weber talked about his experience working for the Wright County Conservation District. He explained that with regard to violations, sometimes there are situations where farmers have nothing else to do. If you have them do something to fix the problems, they would go out of business. He explained that education is a key component for farmers in implementing BMPs. He found that most farmers were very cooperative and responsive to suggestions. Farmers would then no longer fear you if its not “regulation”. Mr. Casey talked about what a reasonable regulation might be for farms to fill the gap in terms of water quality.

Mr. Casey asked about other gaps (other than agriculture) in improving water quality. Mr. Christopher noted that regulations at the state level pick up a lot of key areas (wetlands, etc). Manager Blixt noted that a gap that the Board struggles with is regarding the enforcement of WCA. Some cities have chosen to be the enforcers for WCA, and there are concerns about lack of city staff to do enforcement. Cities currently get to choose whether they want to enforce WCA or not. Mr. Casey asked if you can have double LGU regulatory authority (MCWD and city). Manager Blixt said no, and added that there are currently no standards that need to be met for cities to have authority to enforce WCA.

  1. Re-cap of “action items” to be worked on by CAC and/or staff before next meeting.
    Mr. Casey noted that Eric was going to give an update about groundwater and whether the District should get involved in regulation. Mr. Schwitzer replied that Eric had met with a staff member from Hennepin County (also attended by representatives from other watersheds). Manager Blixt added that Hennepin County had suggested a plan to require all cities to have a groundwater plan, but the plan never got adopted. There is apparently money in the stimulus funds and the Clean Water LegacyAct funds for groundwater, but the County needs to revise and adopt a plan in order to use those funds. The meetingwas focused mainly on getting the County’s plan revised and adopted. There was also discussion about surface water/ground water interfaces (especially regarding lakes and creeks within the district).
  1. NEXT MEETING DISCUSSION (May 27, 2010).
  2. Literature review on aquatic herbicide.
  3. Inquire about whether the Board can provide funds for CAC members to attend the MAWD (Minnesota Association of Watershed Districts) Summer Tour scheduled for June 24-26, 2010.
  4. ADJOURN.

Mr. Ioconomoved to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Eastman. Motion passed unopposed.

The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:55 PM.

SECRETARY CASEY: ______

1