Ground Level Category Archive: Water quality

Can ag feed the world without destroying it? Looking for the Minnesota answer

Posted at 11:30 AM on April 9, 2012 by Dave Peters (3 Comments)
Filed under: Hunger, Local Food, Rural, Water quality

If you've heard Jon Foley on MPR News talk shows or seen him give presentations at the University of Minnesota or elsewhere, you've seen him work pretty hard at looking for a middle ground.

He directs the Institute on the Environment at the U and one of his main arguments is that the world needs to look at agriculture in a different way. It's huge greenhouse gas emitter; it's a huge consumer of the world's water; it's rapidly changing land use everywhere. But it's not going away and it in fact has to provide more food for more people in coming decades. How does the world accomplish that? As Foley puts it, how do we feed the world without destroying it?

What brings this to mind is that a 17-minute TED talk he gave a couple years ago went up on the national TED home page this month. It's worth a look.

Undoubtedly there are responses to Foley's question that could be taken up at a variety of international and national forums. But, given the reporting we've done here on local food, cleaner water, hunger and other Minnesota community issues, seeing the talk made me wonder how people on the ground in Minnesota might address them. Locally, not globally.

So, what can people on the ground in Minnesota do to address the dual demand on modern agriculture -- feed the world but don't wreck it? If you have an answer, add a comment.

(Disclosure: One of my daughters works at the Institute.)

Comment on this post

Cities not so sure about farm-runoff pilot

Posted at 4:30 PM on January 25, 2012 by Dave Peters (0 Comments)
Filed under: Water quality

Minnesota's cities threw an elbow at farmers today, suggesting that a pilot program to encourage farmers to curb water pollution actually leaves cities bearing an unfair burden to clean up rivers.

The pilot program was announced last week by U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa P. Jackson and Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton.

Details are uncertain, but its goal is to get farmers to take steps that prevent runoff into the Minnesota and Mississippi rivers.

This debate has gotten contentious. Lots of data shows increases in sediment and pollutants in the rivers, and most scientists point to farm runoff as a main culprit. Farm groups have bridled and argued that more needs to be known before farmers are forced by regulators to take action. (For in depth reporting on this, see our Ground Level project, Cleaning Minnesota's Water.)

The pilot project would provide help to farmers trying to curb runoff and would also exempt them from new regulations that come down the pike.

That's the problem the League of Minnesota Cities cites on its website today.

Cities, the League points out, are under constant pressure to upgrade the stormwater and wastewater they send into the rivers:

Our citizens and businesses are regularly required to pay higher rates and taxes to meet these requirements. That problem could become even worse if some farms are able to claim that the plan to clean up a polluted watershed cannot ask them to do anything additional.

Farms, the League says, need to do their fair share.

Comment on this post

WEIGH IN ON WATER: Why take action?

Posted at 8:37 AM on October 10, 2011 by Dave Peters (0 Comments)
Filed under: Water quality

When we asked seven Minnesotans to "weigh in" and tell us why they got involved in water issues, we heard about brown rivers in southern Minnesota, green lakes in northern Minnesota and mercury in fish in the Twin Cities.

Why people want to do something about cleaning Minnesota's water varies, but seldom, it seems, does the reason stem from an abstract sense of a generalized problem.

It's not the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico that Lauren Klement in Le Sueur County cites; it's the swamp she grew up on. It's not invasive species that Patrick Moore in Montevideo mentions; it's seeing dirt mix with wind-blown snow when he visited the countryside as a teenager.

You can read the answers from our panel of Minnesotans involved in water issues here and, of course, add your own comments at the bottom of that page.

This is the third of our water-related "Weigh In" discussion questions. The first one deals with farming practices, as did the online chat we held Sept. 30. The second "Weigh In" question dealt with why local action matters.

We'd love to hear your thoughts on any and all.

Comment on this post

WEIGH IN ON WATER: Does local matter?

Posted at 11:49 AM on October 3, 2011 by Dave Peters (0 Comments)
Filed under: Water quality

There are some huge state and national water quality questions looming, from invasive species in the Great Lakes to fracking that increases the natural gas supply. So it might seem less significant somehow to talk about the shoreline of a lake near Brainerd or fecal coliform in the Straight River in southern Minnesota.

But for a lot of people those long-haul local struggles is where the action is. We asked our seven "water panelists" to tell us why they think local matters when it comes to water quality. Check out what they said here. Their answers are a good example of how the world moves on details.

Better yet, leave your own answer in the comments on our WEIGH IN page.

For more on Minnesota and water, check out package of coverage on "Cleaning Minnesota's Water."

Comment on this post

A conversation: Farming and pollution

Posted at 1:21 AM on September 30, 2011 by Michael Olson (2 Comments)
Filed under: Water quality

We just wrapped up a great conversation on farming practices and water quality with Redwood Falls farmer Bruce Tiffany and water quality director Kris Sigford of the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy.

The chat ranged from voluntary action that might change farming practices to setting priorities for the state. Look for the effort Tiffany plans to make in coming months to broaden the impact of what he's been doing on his farm.

And there was good participation from people around the state who have an oar in this water. Check it out here, and if you are moved to comment further, use the comment box at the bottom of this page.

Comment on this post

Farming and pollution: join a conversation Friday noon

Posted at 12:35 PM on September 28, 2011 by Dave Peters (0 Comments)
Filed under: Water quality

If you think farming is contributing to water pollution from western Minnesota to the Gulf of Mexico -- and there's a lot of evidence that it is -- what would you do about it?

We're going to build on the reporting we've done for our Ground Level project -- "Cleaning Minnesota's Water" -- by holding a conversation with Bruce Tiffany and Kris Sigford and inviting you to join in.

MPR NEWS LIVE: Farming and pollution
Friday, September 30
12:00p.m.
Online
Anyone can join the conversation by signing up here.

Sigford is the water quality director for the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, a 35-year-old organization pushing to strengthen the state's environmental laws. She has long worked for the state's rivers and lakes to achieve the goals of being "swimmable" and "fishable" and she thinks it's time agricultural interests took more responsibility in addressing the problem.

We'll be chatting here at noon Friday. Please join us. You can register and add your comments as the conversation rolls along.

Comment on this post

WEIGH IN: How should we deal with farming and pollution?

Posted at 8:38 AM on September 26, 2011 by Dave Peters (0 Comments)
Filed under: Water quality

If farming is responsible for pollution of rivers and lakes, what's the best way to deal with that?

On one hand, as we showed with our package of stories, Cleaning Minnesota's Water, some farmers are adopting new ways to deal with runoff and others interested in the problem are seeking new means of reaching across traditional lines of dispute and collaborating in solutions.

On the other, environmentalists and others think farm organizations and some farmers are dragging their feet. The answer, they say, is less a matter of talk and voluntary action than it is a matter of requirements and restrictions.

In Ground Level's latest "Weigh In" conversation, we asked seven Minnesotans who have been on the front lines of water pollution and farming issues to give us their thoughts. Take a look at what they told us -- from demanding farmer action to understanding the farmer's plight -- and then weigh in with your thoughts.

Comment on this post

More legacy money goes into water

Posted at 4:42 PM on September 20, 2011 by Dave Peters (0 Comments)
Filed under: Water quality

The Legislature earlier this year appropriated nearly $180 million for various water pollution projects in the next two years, money coming from Minnesota's Legacy Amendment sales tax that voters approved in 2008.

But that was only a third of the Legacy funds. Recommendations for spending another third were made Tuesday for outdoors projects, and some of those deal directly with water as well.

MPR News reporter Elizabeth Dunbar reports that a lot of projects may get a haircut so the state can deal with the Asian carp invasion. But still, the Mississippi, the St. Louis and the Cannon rivers all had projects approved to help restore habitat and take other steps to improve conditions.

Comment on this post

A new look to tackling Minnesota's water pollution

Posted at 8:30 AM on September 13, 2011 by Dave Peters (0 Comments)
Filed under: Water quality

Lake Volney may not be enough, but it ought to count for something.

For all Minnesota's celebrated rivers and lakes, probably most people haven't heard of Lake Volney, a 130-acre body of water near Le Center in southern Minnesota. It's surrounded by cabins and homes and soybean fields, and for years, members of a local lake association have been working to make it cleaner.

And they have had success. Once, you could see only three feet down into its murky water; now you can see 12 feet. Building on outcomes like that, members of lake associations around Minnesota are banding together this year to create an organization with statewide clout.

In some ways, that's kind of a new look for Minnesotans wrestling with water quality problems, a topic we explore in Ground Level's "Cleaning Minnesota's Waters" project. Residents have banded together, formed new kinds of partnerships or simply found ways to get local cooperation in efforts to clean up lakes and rivers.

Cleaning Minnesota's water has been a huge task for decades, but it's different today than it was when taconite tailings in Lake Superior, power plants on the Mississippi, Minnesota and St. Croix rivers, pulp operations up north and sewage treatment plants grabbed the headlines.

Technology and a changing sense of tolerance that put restrictions on how water gets used have made for cleaner water. But population growth, agriculture, development and new kinds of pollutants continue to pose difficult challenges, and lakes and rivers continue to suffer.

And, although there's plenty of room for state and federal policy debates, a lot of the action is local.

With this report, Ground Level explores some of these efforts to take action locally and places them in the context of how Minnesota is - or is not - protecting its water heritage.

A big issue, of course, is how farming practices contribute to pollution. As reporter Jennifer Vogel writes, there is contention over responsibility and over the science of measurement. At the same time, there are efforts at reaching across traditional lines and at trying new practices.

Check out the video of Windom farmer Tony Thompson. See how farmers and local officials are tackling problems in a watershed near Moorhead. Learn how much-criticized Crow Wing County is trying to deal with shoreline development pollution and how a Duluth collaboration is cutting down runoff into Lake Superior.

All these stories and more involve Minnesotans in communities taking action to solve a problem. See if you can learn something from the folks around Lake Volney and their counterparts across the state.

Comment on this post

Frustrated project manager retires from MPCA

Posted at 2:25 PM on September 8, 2011 by Jennifer Vogel (0 Comments)
Filed under: Water quality

After seven years of trying to forge a plan to reduce sediment in the South Metro Mississippi River, which is filling Lake Pepin at an accelerated rate, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency staffer Norman Senjem has decided to retire from the organization. His last day is Sept. 27.

Stay tuned for a radio report Friday by MPR News reporter Stephanie Hemphill. (UPDATE: Here's a link to the story.)

In a farewell note to colleagues, Senjem expressed frustration with the process, especially when it came to working toward scientific consensus on the sources of sediment (suspended dirt particles). Of the battle between farmers and environmental advocates, he wrote, "I am most disappointed at my inability to establish trust with major stakeholder groups, including agriculture, a sector in which I worked professionally before joining the agency."

"Distrust of MPCA took the form of questioning the science time and again throughout the process, despite our attempt to establish a well-rounded and independent Science Advisory Panel, contract with the best research organizations we knew of to develop the basic river model, identify sediment sources, and investigate sediment transport processes from areas in the Minnesota River basin."

He noted that even after he'd gained broad agreement among scientists, he'd find "that the skeptics had not been persuaded."

Various parties around the state are attempting to build bridges between the agricultural and environmental communities in order to bring about widespread water conservation practices. Ground Level will run a package of stories discussing these attempts and other water quality issues starting next Tuesday, September 13th.

It's interesting to note that Senjem is leaving state government to work on water issues more locally.

After leaving the MPCA, Senjem will work part time for a nonprofit called the Zumbro Watershed Partnership. "I will be interested to see if people react differently to someone who does not work for the MPCA," he wrote.

Comment on this post

What's the water and sewer equivalent to gravel roads?

Posted at 8:30 AM on August 30, 2011 by Dave Peters (2 Comments)
Filed under: Baldwin Township, Local government finance, Water quality

As cities and counties grapple with shrinking pots of money and a desire not to raise taxes, one of the ideas you hear from time to time is to let paved roads go to gravel.

We've built a road and street infrastructure, the argument goes, that we cannot afford to maintain, so let's turn back the clock and drive on gravel roads. Ground Level's Brooke Walsh wrote about it last year in regard to exurban Baldwin Township.

As that post noted, it's not so easy to determine exactly whether you save money in the long run with gravel, but on some intuitive level, at least, it makes sense that you would.

So I wondered when I saw this story in the Duluth News Tribune about a documentary being shot to show how the water and sewer infrastructure is falling apart beneath Duluth.

If the water system gets too expensive to maintain (a la paved roads), what is the gravel road equivalent? Private wells in every backyard? A common well on every street? Bucket brigade organizations to fight fires?

Comment on this post

Minnesota Idea Open names finalists

Posted at 11:07 AM on August 23, 2011 by Jennifer Vogel (0 Comments)
Filed under: Water quality

For the second year in a row, the Minnesota Community Foundation has solicited entries from the public for solving a big issue facing the state. This year's contest focuses on water. More than 100 ideas for improving water quality were submitted and now the foundation has narrowed them to three finalists.

They include a proposal to enlist older farmers to mentor younger farmers in matters of water conservation, another to educate the public about water issues through artistic performances, and a third to expand a canoe and kayak library where the community can borrow boats.

It's up to the public to vote for the winner, who will receive a $15,000 prize. You have until September 5 to pick your favorite online or in person at the Idea Open's booth at the state fair.

Comment on this post

Pick your best idea to preserve water quality

Posted at 10:05 AM on August 12, 2011 by Dave Peters (0 Comments)
Filed under: Water quality

When you ask people for their ideas about preserving Minnesota water quality, you get everything from an app that provides river information as you canoe along to a plan for using water twice before sending it down the line.

From a proposal to use retired farmers as a resource for improving river water quality to a call for "splash" mobs to get quick-hit volunteer work done.

Those ideas are among 20 semifinalists in the Minnesota Idea Open Water Challenge, which will award $15,000 to a final winner.

We wrote about the challenge a month ago as its deadline for entry neared. The water challenge is the second such idea open sponsored by the Minnesota Community Foundation.

Check out the semifinalists here.

The 20 will be trimmed to three finalists, and polls open Aug. 23 for anybody to vote on them either online or at the Minnesota State Fair.

Comment on this post

Study points to increasing nitrate problem in the Mississippi

Posted at 10:29 AM on August 11, 2011 by Jennifer Vogel (1 Comments)
Filed under: Water quality

Sediments in the Gulf of Mexico are shown in a September 2002 file photo. (AP Photo/NASA)

A new study from the U.S. Geological Survey has found that by at least one measure, pollution in the Mississippi River has gotten worse since 1980, despite efforts to curb runoff.

When measuring nitrate--a nutrient that causes oxygen depletion and can come from sewage treatment plants and farm fields--researchers found that the overall amount flowing to the Gulf of Mexico has grown by 10 percent in the last three decades.

Using a new technique that controls for changes in natural water flow in order to identify the impacts of nitrogen management, the study considered data from a series of testing stations along the Mississippi. The highest nitrate concentrations were found at the northernmost station, at Clinton, Iowa, where the water largely comes from Minnesota and Wisconsin.

At that site, according to researchers, "annual flow-normalized nitrate concentrations increased 76 percent from 1980-2008," compared to decreases or small increases from some stations farther south.

Cities and farmers have been working to improve water quality through measures like wetland filtration and state-of-the-art sewage treatment plants. The new study questions whether these efforts are enough. "While conservation practices may have decreased nitrate levels in some portions of the basin, we aren't seeing widespread effects at larger scales," says Lori Sprague, a USGS hydrologist who was the report's lead author.

On a more hopeful note, the study suggests that current conservation measures may have an impact down the line: "Because nitrate moves slowly through groundwater to rivers, the full effects of management strategies designed to reduce nitrate movement to groundwater may not be seen in these rivers for many years."

Comment on this post

Duluth collaborates to improve water quality

Posted at 12:04 PM on August 5, 2011 by Jennifer Vogel (0 Comments)
Filed under: Water quality

On a dry, sunny day, Amity Creek on Duluth's east end looks like your average trout stream. A small flow of water crosses large rocks on its way to the Lester River and on to Lake Superior.

But after a big rainstorm, like the one Duluth experienced last Tuesday, the Amity turns into a muddy torrent. So much so that a 13-year-old boy apparently drowned after the recent storm in an Amity swimming hole. Searchers are still looking for his body.

Given Duluth's steep terrain and the non-absorbent nature of its soil, scientists say the creek has probably always swelled and rushed after a big rain. But the city's many impervious surfaces--typical urban streets and driveways and rooftops--also contribute to the flow.

To mitigate its impact on the storm water that flows into Lake Superior, the city is finding innovative ways to control water volume and improve quality, such as discouraging impervious surfaces and maintaining a series of enormous concrete sediment catch boxes at the bottom of Duluth's hill.

What's interesting is that Duluth is searching for solutions in an unusually collaborative manner. For almost a decade, the city has been part of an informal group called the Regional Stormwater Protection Team, which involves a long list of partners including St. Louis County, the Fond du Lac Reservation and the University of Minnesota Duluth. The group works to coordinate education efforts.

For Duluth, the overarching goal is to slow storm water, settle out its sediment, and even cool its flow so it's less harmful to the fish that live in the city's 16 designated trout streams. "We are trying to smooth out the spikes," says Duluth project coordinator Chris Kleist, who chairs the protection team, while showing me around town on Monday, the day before the latest storm. "We are trying to slow the water down. It might be the same volume, but it will be released over a period of time. We're trying to create more of a natural runoff situation."

Recently, Duluth joined forces with the Weber Stream Restoration Initiative, which is headquartered at the U of M and partially funded by Ron Weber, a Duluth native who made his fortune importing Rapala fishing lures. Together, Duluth and the Weber team fixed a patch of road crossing the Amity that washed out in the 1940s and had been releasing mud into the creek for decades.

Duluth, the Weber team and others also just completed a three-year experiment, which involved the city's Lakeside neighborhood, whose storm water flows into Amity Creek. They measured runoff from three streets for a year, then during the second year added rain gardens and rain barrels to houses along one of the streets. The third year was spent measuring the difference in runoff volume and quality between the street with conservation measures and the streets without them.

The report is in the process of being finalized, but Kleist says, as he trudges through a vegetated water control trench behind the row of houses with rain gardens, "There were definitely benefits in the treatment group." Comparing one year to another can be tricky, given differing rain conditions. And the experiment was geographically small. Yet, says Kleist, "When we looked at the total volume throughout the season, it was down slightly."

One of the more exciting outcomes of the study, he adds, is that local residents have become more aware of water conservation, even requesting their own rain barrels. "There was more interest after the fact," says Kleist.

Comment on this post

Changes farmers have made to clear the water

Posted at 10:31 AM on July 29, 2011 by Dave Peters (1 Comments)
Filed under: Rural, Water quality

One of the fronts in environmental debates these days is agriculture's impact on water. How much river and lake pollution are farmers responsible for? How much are the consumers who demand the products of agriculture responsible for? What are farmers doing on their land to make things better?

As our Ground Level project continues exploring Minnesota water issues, we tapped into MPR News' Public Insight Network to put that last question to farmers and others familiar with farming and here's what we heard. (Click on the balloons for more detail.)

Some farmers have created grassy buffer zones to reduce runoff to streams. Others are installing new tile systems that actually slow the drainage of water from the land. Some have built ponds to retain water.

Is it enough? What's the role of the consumer? We'd love to see your comments and if you want to fill out the questionnaire we put to farmers, go here.

Comment on this post

Lake associations form new statewide collaborative

Posted at 2:50 PM on July 26, 2011 by Jennifer Vogel (1 Comments)
Filed under: Water quality

Aiming to have more impact on policies that affect lakes and water quality, more than a dozen coalitions of lake associations (COLAs) are forming a statewide group, the Minnesota COLA Collaborative. "We figured out that we could have the most strength in numbers," says Dan Kittilson, president of the Hubbard County association and one of the brains behind the effort.

At first, he was looking at establishing a regional coalition, but the effort quickly blossomed to include coalitions from around the state. Kittilson, who lives on Little Sand Lake near Dorset, asked the advocacy group Minnesota Waters to help with recruiting and organizing. Members of the new collaborative will meet in late August in Nisswa to formalize bylaws, elect a board and officers and discuss a potential dues structure. A website is in the works.

"There are a lot of COLAs out there working individually," says Kittilson. "We felt that if we could get together, we would have a stronger voice and be able to support each other." He estimates that the collaborative could represent 40,000 to 50,000 people and most, if not all, of the lake association coalitions in the state. It's a unique approach to addressing water quality issues, a topic Ground Level will be investigating for the next month or two.

Lake associations have long worked to address specific local issues: leaking septic tanks, excesses of curly leaf pondweed, runoff from local farms, county boards granting too many zoning variances. But now, by joining forces, they hope to be able to share information and educational campaigns, have an influential voice at the Legislature and draw bigger grants for projects like the prevention of aquatic invasive species.

"We worked this year on the variance standard," says Kilttilson, referring to his group's attempt to alter a bill that lowered the standard by which cities grant zoning variances. Another priority is supporting new shoreland development standards, which govern how and where cabins and other structures can be built. The DNR recently came up with a revised set of rules, but they were vetoed by former Gov. Tim Pawlenty on his way out of office. "We're trying to get those through," Kittilson says.

While the collaborative hopes to affect larger change, there has been some disagreement among members over how to couch those efforts. "There are some who do not want to use the term 'lobbying,'" says Molly Zins, a program director for Minnesota Waters. "This is a continuing discussion for the group and something we're working through. Like any group, there are diverging opinions."

Douglas County coalition president Bonnie Huettl, who lives on Lobster Lake near Alexandria, is another force behind the collaborative effort. "We will always be watching what's going on in the Legislature as far as lake issues go," she says. "That is part of our mission statement, looking to enhance the waters, repair the waters. Water is our big deal. We do want to influence local senators and representatives. And if you can give them the information they need... Some call that lobbying. I call it getting the word out."

Comment on this post

U report proposes new approach to farm pollution

Posted at 11:30 AM on July 14, 2011 by Jennifer Vogel (0 Comments)
Filed under: Rural, Water quality

Environmentalists and farmers in Minnesota have been working--sometimes apart, sometimes together--to address farm runoff that impacts the state's lakes and waterways, whether due to sediment, bacteria or nutrients. There has been a lot of debate over how to go about making changes that protect water, but aren't so onerous as to put farmers out of business.

We covered a bit of the tug and pull, including competing scientists, here as part of Ground Level's new exploration of community issues surrounding water quality.

Since "nonpoint" pollution sources, including most individual farms, tend not to be regulated by the federal Clean Water Act, advocates and regulators have encouraged farmers to voluntary adopt conservation measures. Some of these have been incentivized by efforts like the Conservation Reserve Program, and many farmers in the state have taken ecological steps despite the siren call of high corn and soybean prices.

But now, with a growing stack of water quality studies yielding disappointing results, some environmental advocates argue that voluntary efforts aren't enough and tougher measures are needed. One interesting proposal--made in the comprehensive if underappreciated Minnesota Water Sustainability Framework report completed in January by the U's Deborah Swackhamer--is to establish agricultural management areas or AMAs.

The idea is to group together farmers within each of the state's 81 watersheds. The AMAs would function like mandatory co-ops and would be charged with meeting the watershed's pollution reduction goals. According to the framework, which was commissioned by the 2009 Legislature, the AMA plan could include matching funds to offset the cost of conservation measures.

The proposal is interesting because while overall reductions would be mandatory, the farmers within each AMA would have the autonomy to determine together how best to solve pollution problems. Writes Swackhamer, "This recommendation provides flexibility and self-determination for farmers, and the solution is performance-based rather than proscriptive to the farmer. It avoids treating each farm as a point source requiring its own permit."

Kris Sigford, water quality program director for the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, sees promise in AMAs. "It should be the next thing we try," she says. "I understand the benefit in setting the overall reduction goals and in having some flexibility in how we meet them." Her concern is that watersheds often include multiple counties and other management entities that could be difficult to coordinate. "The model could be successful," she says, "but it would require that we have more consistent watershed districts throughout the state."

Warren Formo, who represents farmers in his role as executive director for the Minnesota Agricultural Water Resources Coalition, also thinks AMAs could be a step in the right direction. "I think it's absolutely awesome to be thinking of agricultural management areas," he says. "We have to look at agriculture more specifically, rather than in generalities. Looking at each farm and an area and how farms are managed in that area is a better approach than just 'Ag is the problem.' This opens the door to a more productive discussion."

His ongoing support, however, would depend on how AMAs are defined. "It depends on the scale," he says, adding that he'd favor smaller, even more specific management areas. "The bigger the scale gets the harder it will be to manage."

Sigford and Formo, both of whom provided input to Swackhamer's framework, think some version of the AMA in Minnesota is likely. Sigford suggests it may take a different Legislature to get the idea off the ground. While Formo says, "It's out there. I would expect that over the next year it will continue to creep into discussions about water management and quality."

Comment on this post

Minnesota Idea Open deadline looms: Got an idea for improving water?

Posted at 8:12 AM on July 13, 2011 by Jennifer Vogel (0 Comments)
Filed under: Water quality

For the second year in a row, the Minnesota Community Foundation is sponsoring a "Minnesota Idea Open" to solicit potential solutions to a big community issue. Last year, the topic was obesity. This year it's water, a subject Ground Level is also taking a look at.

Entrants only have until Friday (July 15) to enter a bright idea and have a chance at winning $15,000 to help bring that idea to life.

So far, the contest has drawn more than 30 entries from regular people all over the state. Ideas include increased use of rain gardens to control storm water, privatizing watercraft inspections to save money, training well drillers to identify high-arsenic aquifers, running a consulting service that would show households how to conserve water, conducting storm water education for non-English speakers, posting cigarette pack-style warnings about invasive species at local lakes, and building a smart phone application that would identify aquatic plants.

Derek Tonn from Springfield wants to create an online "collective think-tank" where people could share notions for how to store excess water during heavy rain periods for use later in irrigation and energy production.

Many of the ideas focus on educating kids about the importance of water conservation, putting the focus on the next generation. Patricia Hall from the White Bear Lake-based group H2O for Life, wants to provide educational materials to schools and teachers in order to "ramp up a campaign to put a stop to bottled water" and promote tap water instead.

Another proposal would expand a Rice Creek Watershed District program that sends "resource teachers" into classrooms as substitutes. These teachers take kids on field trips where they learn about nature and water.

Jennifer Ellison from Plymouth submitted an idea for an H20pen Play Park, an educational water park that would teach children "to experiment and interact with water in a way that will create appreciation and understanding for its role in our lives."

Not a bad offering so far. If you've got an idea up your sleeve for improving water quality or access in Minnesota, you have until Friday to enter. After that, a panel of judges will narrow the field to a few finalists, which the public will vote on.

Comment on this post

Sediment clouding the river: Getting to conversations about why

Posted at 2:15 PM on June 27, 2011 by Jennifer Vogel (2 Comments)
Filed under: Water quality

There has been a lot of attention lately on sediment, those particles of soil and other solids that float down river and can cause problems, like pollution and the filling in of Lake Pepin. The topic is controversial because taking ownership of high sediment levels means having to do something about them.

Some recent reports have placed the onus on farmers in the Minnesota River watershed and especially on new, highly efficient tiling systems that quickly rush water off the land and into streams. On Friday, at the Country Inn & Suites in Mankato, a group of more than 200 people--about half of them farmers--gathered to hear a variety of viewpoints on climate, geology, and potential solutions to runoff.

The meeting, organized by the Minnesota Agricultural Water Resources Coalition, was interesting because it was an effort to put farmers at the center of the debate. This drew the matter into the bailiwick of Ground Level, which seeks to explore community solutions to big problems.

A few of the presenters intimated, if not outright stated, that farmers play a minimal role in the current sediment woes of the Mississippi River, a perspective that dismays some scientists and environmentalists.

Dr. Stanley Trimble, a professor of geography at UCLA, made the case that farm-related sediment has decreased markedly since the 1930s. "In my view, farmers have done an extraordinary job," he said, partly chalking up current levels to bank erosion caused by a wet weather regime. "The stream itself is the source of the sediment," he said. In some cases, Trimble added, conservation practices themselves can change water flow patterns and cause erosion. He called this a "cruel irony."

Largely concurring with Trimble's assertions, Dr. Satish Gupta, a researcher at the University of Minnesota, added dredging to the list of culprits. "The problem is still not rightly diagnosed," he said. Gupta showed a modern-day aerial shot of the muddy Minnesota River flowing into the cleaner Mississippi alongside a similar photo from the 1930s. "The Minnesota River and its tributaries have been muddy since pre-settlement times," he said.

"I don't think erosion is due to tile drainage," concluded Gupta. "We need to do more research before we spend money we don't have."

These sentiments were more warmly received by farmers than by the environmentalists and regulators in attendance. Because it's difficult to control "nonpoint" pollution sources, change largely must come from voluntary efforts. "Facts and data are necessary, but not sufficient," said Robert Finley of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, from his chair at the back of the room. "Emotion plays a big part. Culture plays a big part. There is a strong ethic around voluntary compliance. I don't see that changing."

Mostly what came across at the seminar is that farmers, at least those in attendance, want to do better at controlling runoff and pollution. Case in point: According to Minnesota Farm Bureau literature, "Minnesota farmers rank third nationally in miles of Conservation Reserve Program filter and buffer strips along waterways." Still, there seems to be a ways to go.

"We need to set aside the ag versus environmentalist mindset," said Matthew Wohlman, a farmer in Renville County who serves as assistant commissioner at the Minnesota Department of Agriculture. "We need to work together. We share some common goals here."

Wohlman called on farmers to be flexible when it's shown there is a better way. "Farmers are the best stewards of the land and water. We know the challenges better than anyone else."

Toward the end of the seminar, the MPCA's Larry Gunderson spoke. "Nobody benefits if it becomes our science versus your science," he said. "We need to have mutual respect." He made a series of suggestions to farmers, including targeting priority areas, working with support networks and supporting calls for enforcement of existing laws. "We believe water quality and agriculture can both exist, " Gunderson said to applause. "You can control your own destiny."

A theme began to emerge, that by taking conservation seriously, farmers can avoid further regulation. Don Baloun, State Conservationist for the Natural Resources Conservation Service, closed the event by asking that farmers, when making their yearly budgets, include something for conservation. "Don't make that number a zero. If we are going to tile, let's be smart enough to put water quality measures in place at the same time. The right practice, the right place, the right time. It can work."

"Don't look at this globally," Baloun added. "Look at your operation and decide what works."

Comment on this post