Minnesota Currents|Online, Summer 2009

Even in these tough economic times clean water has proven to be a priority that won't be given up. On February 16, 2009, President Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. The $787 billion bill included $6 billion for water infrastructure projects through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF).

The CWSRF and DWSRF are existing programs created to provide states with low-interest loans to communities so they can build projects needed to comply with the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act.

The stimulus money will provide the opportunity for long overdue improvements to Minnesota water infrastructure. The most sizeable portion, over $82 million, will be available for the backlog of water pollution control projects required to clean up the water in our lakes, rivers and streams. The money will be distributed based upon a combination of the environmental quality improvements the projects offer and their readiness to proceed. The most recent list ranks 261 projects in Minnesota with a total cost of over $1.8 billion.

The ARRA includes new requirements on how the money is spent. First, it targets "shovel-ready" projects or those under construction within 120 days and requires that all funds must be awarded by February 17, 2010. Second, up to half of the money can be awarded as grants rather than only as low interest loans. Clean Water Action joined with other groups to urge Congress to include requirements that a portion of the water money be used for green infrastructure projects. These include energy and water efficiency improvements along with swales, rain gardens, green roofs and other environmentally innovative approaches. Congress responded by stipulating that at least 20 percent of the money should be used for green infrastructure.

Water pollution control projects wishing to receive state and federal support must file with the state. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) reviews all projects and ranks them using a scoring system of the environmental benefits the project provides. For example, projects receive points if they will reduce pollution into a lake, river or stream that doesn't meet Clean Water Act standards. They can also lose points like if they expand the capacity of wastewater treatment plants which increases environmental impacts due to development pressure. Municipalities interested in building specific green infrastructure projects may also submit applications to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency by May 1, 2009 to be considered for funds.

Minnesota voters also provided another stream of new money to clean up Minnesota's waters with the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment. The Amendment, supported by 55% percent of voters in 2008, increases the sales tax by three-eigths of one percent and dedicates the funds to restoring and protecting Minnesota's water, habitat, parks and trails along with the arts.

Predictions about the proceeds continue to fluctuate but the portion to be placed in the Clean Water Fund dedicated to water, one-third of the total, is expected to be about $150 million over the next two years. The Clean Water Council, established in 2006 as part of the Clean Water Legacy Act, has released their recommendations on how the money can best be used to ensure Minnesota's waters complies with the Clean Water Act and to protect drinking water sources.

The final decision rests with the Minnesota legislature who is still in the process of putting together the 2010-2011 budget. Clean Water Action has joined a coalition of business, agriculture, local government and environment and conservation groups to craft bills (HF2128 Eken and SF1913 Frederickson) matching the recommendations of the Clean Water Council. The bills divide the new Clean Water Fund money up with about 20% to testing and assessment of waters and preparation of water quality plans, 65% to wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and nonpoint source protection and restoration, and 15% to research, tool development and education along with drinking water source protection.

The Clean Water Fund money going to testing and assessment is necessary for the state to finish testing the waters of the state to determine which are polluted. Only about 40% of Minnesota waters have been tested. Ongoing funding is also necessary to monitor waters on a 10-year cycle. The money targeted at cleanup represents a dramatic increase in funding targeted toward on-the-ground projects with the most impact on water quality. High-resolution digital elevation mapping has been popular at the legislature and will likely receive Clean Water Fund money. The new tool will prove valuable to clean water projects across the state as it makes available publically detailed information on the slope and layout of land, helping map watersheds.

In this issue of Minnesota Currents|Online:

Minnesota Issue Updates
Updates on Minnesota's work on pesticides, global warming and the clean energy economy, Lake Superior Day events, the Clean Water Restoration Act, and the Healing Our Waters Conference.

Green Stimulus Funding Strengthens Minnesota Water Projects
Even in these tough economic times clean water has proven to be a priority that won't be given up. On February 16, 2009, President Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. The $787 billion bill included $6 billion for water infrastructure projects through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF).

Will Munger: A Passion For Making Duluth Better
State Representative Roger Reinert may have said it best: "Will Munger does not live in the shadow of his father's legacy. He has spent his life building his own. He is an outspoken and highly respected activist and community leader who brings stakeholders together who doesn't always share the same agenda. The result is moving issues forward that many of us care about deeply."

Minnesota Member Spotlight: Christopher Sullivan
This past February, Clean Water Action member Christopher Sullivan joined two Clean Water staff members, Deanna White, Program Director, and Jenna Garland, 1Sky Organizer, at an in-district meeting with Congressman Erik Paulsen, who represents Mr. Sullivan in Washington.

For California Woman, Protecting A River Can Cost You A Job
Heather Wylie traded her job for a river. And, given the choice, she'd do it again.

During the summer of 2008, Wylie joined a handful of protestors for a canoe and kayak trip down the LA River, earning the wrath of her employers and the attention of a nation. Why? At the time, Wylie was a biologist with the US Army Corps of Engineers. The agency had just declared the LA River as not navigable--a designation that put the watershed at risk and would have set a.dangerous precedent. Wylie and her compatriots were making their voyage to prove the Army Corps wrong. If their fleet could make the journey, they reasoned, then the LA River must be in-fact navigable, a critical first step in retaining Clean Water Act safeguards for the LA River system.

Restoring the Clean Water Act Must Top Congress' Agenda
Restoring the ability of the Clean Water Act to protect water resources must top Congress' water agenda. Supreme Court and agency decisions put at risk Clean Water Act protections for headwater, intermittent and ephemeral streams that supply drinking water systems that serve more than 110 million Americans. In total, 59 percent of the nation's waterways and millions of acres of wetlands are currently at risk.

What You Won't See In Those 'Clean Coal' Ads: Dirty Air, A Wall of Sludge, Poisoned Rivers
Surely you've seen the ads. They are scattered around the internet and splashed across our newspapers and magazines. Their commercials interrupt our favorite television shows and invade our local radio station's airspace. Yes, the ads are everywhere. But that doesn't make them true.

No PR campaign, no matter how well executed, can make coal clean. It's simply not possible.

Advocates for "clean" coal argue that technology exists-almost-that will allow coal-fired power plants to capture their carbon emissions and store the climate-changing gas deep under ground. Technically, this is true. Realistically, this would be extremely expensive, and wouldn't even begin to address most of the impacts felt by water. From mines to power plants, the process of wresting energy from coal is dirty and unhealthy for our waters, our communities and ourselves.

How Safe is Your Bath Tub?
Children's bubble baths should be clean, safe and fun. But No More Toxic Tub, a report published in March 2009 by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics in partnership with Clean Water Action and other organizations, found contaminants and other hazardous ingredients in numerous popular shampoos, soaps and body care products marketed to babies and children.

Get this issue of Minnesota Clean Water Currents as a PDF (pdf, 558 kb)

You will need to have the Adobe Acrobat Reader properly installed to view PDF documents. You can get it free from Adobe.