09-20-1982 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

> % Intent of New Water Act By Conni* L*vi 8tat« RaprMMUativ* Surface water rnanegemem has hMtoricaNv been a politically volatile issue. The Minnesota Watershed Act (1954) has been only intermittentiy successful at facHitati^ peaceful re> solutions to water-related disputes betw een local govertMnents in the nnetropolitan areas. The act has also been much criticised for being vague and ambiguous. Further, its place ment of power in the hands of a few appointed watershed district offi cials had. in some cases, tended to exacerbate political problems as much » facilitate resolution of hydrologic ones. Until passage of the Metropolitan Area Surface Water Management Act of 1982, (Chapter 509, Minnesota Sessions Laws, 1982, known also as the Levi-Merriam bill) the Watershed Management Act was the only device available to those faced with a need for water planning in a watershed which transcertded local government boundaries. The new act, however, provides some ahemativee vrfiich ought to provide surface water management options w4tich are both less expensive and less controversial than manage ment by a watershed district. Despite some perceived dissatisfac tion the Wdtershed Management Act, the rww law ntakes only minor changes for existing metropolitan area vatershed districts. Each will be re structured to accomodate a larger board of managers, and each will assume a mandate to carry out watershed planning in a manner con sistent with the intent of the law. Minor watersheds not currently re gulated by a planning body now must also have comprehertsive plans devel oped which provide for the unique characteristics of the indmdual water shed. Ultimate responsibility for de velopment of this plan lies with the several metropolitan counties, but this responsibaity may also be assumed with a maximum of local flexibility, the law authorias counties to delegate planning authority to the County Soil arKf Water Conservation Disthct, to petition for the formation of a watershed district, or to faciiitate the execution of a joint powers agre e mwit between munidpelities located wholly or partly within the watershed. The plan itself involves pt similar to those followed by other governmental entities in planning for land use. These include formulation of management objectives unique to each watershed; assimilation of in formation relating to water quality, hydrology, and soils: and development of an implemontatim program to be used in meeting management ob jectives. i . \ Connie l#vl Following adoption of a plan by an individual watershed management or- ganizaticn, the plan must be submitted to the Metropolitan Cound, the Minn esota Pollution Control Agency (PCA), and the Minnesota DepartnMnt of Natural Resources (DNR) for review and comment on the conformity of the plan with state law and consistancy with metropolitan systems. Rrtally, the plan will be for^rded to local units of government wHMn the watershed. These units will thm be obliged to sdjust existing plans or prepare a specific water manage ment plan which will be in confo^ artce with the plan developed by the governing water management or ganization. Funding for the planning process may be derived from a number of sources depending on the type of water management organization select ed to govern the watershed. Water shed districts will retain the capa bility to levy ad valorem taxM and special levies within the boundaries of an identified watershed. Joint powers organizations will also derive revenue from those parties residing witNn the watershed, but through a slightly different process. Rather than mtaking a direct assess ment. tite joint powers board will require contribution from munidpalities party to die agreement. The muni cipalities, which have been given authority to create special taxing districts and exceed levy limits for this purpose, will be required to contribute according to a pro rate formula based on the relative water shed area contained within the muni cipality. Funding for surface water manage ment projects undertaken by water shed districts has created a great deal of controversy in the past. Voter dissatisfaction with what has been perceived as "taxation without representation" was a major motivat ing force in my search for alternative systems for surface water manage ment in the metropolitan area. I am convinced that joint powers entities are one viable solution to the problem, principally because the funding for a given project would be raised by the municipalities involved rather than through the management organization itself. This localized control on finan cial resources should insure a height ened political sensitivity, reducing the chances that major projects will be undertaken unless such a project is consistent with a general community philosophy of surface water manage ment. This same feature ought to increase the likelihood that management prac tices will be followed that are ^oth environmentally sound and inexpen sive to maintain. That is to say. it makes precious little sense to spend millions on stormwater construction projects when wetland preservation, floodplain management, and other stomsMter ret e ntion mechanisms can be used at a much lower cost. Further, if a community values these latter types of stormwater con trol methods, then they ought to at least have the opportunity to be governed by a planning organization that is sensitive to those values. Surface water management through the use of joint powers entities pro vides such an opportunity.