My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-09-1993 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1993
>
08-09-1993 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/9/2024 9:59:42 AM
Creation date
1/9/2024 9:56:29 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
315
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Impact of Minnesota Rules Chapter 8410 <br />and Minnesota Statutes Section 103BJ365 <br />on Metropolitan Storm Water Design <br />by Bruce Sandstrom, BWSR <br />March 23, 1993 <br />I.Introduction <br />In the last five years there has seemingly been a continuum of mandates from the state <br />and federal government for local government that potentially affect the design and <br />operation of storm water systems in the seven county metropolitan area. In the next five <br />years, we are going to see varying successes in carrying out these mandates. <br />Here is listing of the most prominent recent mandates that will or may impact storm <br />water management: <br />1987 • metro ground water planning authorized <br />1989 - DNR shoreland rule amendments <br />1990 - revisions to Metro Surface Water Management Act <br />1991 - Wetlands Conservation Act <br />1991 • MS 103B.3365 (Reding Bill, 1 acre impervious surface) " <br />1991 - EPA erosion control permit for development >5 acres ^ <br />1992 • adoption of metro surface water management rules — . s > 0 <br />1992 - Met Council interim policy on NFS pollution <br />1993 - Chapter 8420, rules for implementing WCA <br />1993 - MPCA draft rules for wetlands & water quality standards <br />These mandates are sometimes as overwhelming to state and federal bureaucrats as they <br />are to the local officials who ultimately have to deal in some way with implementation of <br />them. Why is this happening? Can ’t the state and federal government get it together? <br />These rules and regulations all relate in some ways to storm water design and <br />management, but it seems that the events and processes are somewhat disjointed at <br />times. <br />Its not that the politicians and bureaucrats purposefully set about to cause confusion. I <br />feel that the laws and rules are a result of the combination of a more informed public <br />demanding cleaner water and the realization that non-point pollution has a major impact <br />on water quality. <br />This is where local government, the land use authority, comes in. Local govcrMcnt is <br />the most important player in controlling NPS pollution, thus is the prime recipient of the <br />mandates. Its an issue that won ’t go away. But it’s going to be a struggle for a while to <br />put together local programs that will keep up with the mandates.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.