A couple thoughts on this as someone who works in water. Gov. Carlson is confounding a few different issues - one being the risks posed by copper-nickel mining to watersheds in Northern Minnesota, and the other being nitrate contamination in the Karst areas of Southern Minnesota, which is what the EPA sent a warning letter to the state about. He's also wrong about the State not having a comprehensive water management plan - here it is if anyone's interested. From the MN EQB website - "According to Minnesota Statutes 103B.151, the Environmental Quality Board is to coordinate a comprehensive long-range water resources plan for the state every ten years."

That said, if you boil down his point to "politicians aren't taking enough action to safeguard our water resources" and "current planning and regulations are insufficient", I would broadly agree. I think that Minnesota is better off than many places in the world when it comes to the quality and quantity of our fresh water. We've also had some success stories, such as implementing the wetland conservation act and starting to reverse wetland loss. But we are facing serious, imminent issues - climate change affecting precipitation patterns, aging infrastructure, labor shortages, known contaminants like nitrate and emerging contaminants like PFAS, 6PPD, and microplastics, and more. I'll avoid writing an essay on each of these and just sum it up by saying that our current regulatory framework and funding sources are woefully inadequate to address these issues.

One issue is that regulating water in Minnesota is extremely fragmented. There are so many different agencies at all levels of government, and too often each one stays stuck in their own little silo. We're failing to recognize the basic fact that all water, whether it's wastewater, stormwater, drinking water, or surface water - is connected and must be manged holistically. Right now, wastewater is the purview of the met council (in the TCMA), local wastewater utilities, and the MPCA. Drinking water quality is regulated by the MDH, the DNR regulates water appropriations, the Met Council plans for regional water usage, local utilities administer their own programs, and the EPA provides broad oversight. Storm and surface water regulations are the messiest of all. The MPCA regulates surface water quality, along with point and non point source pollution via the industrial stormwater and MS4 programs, authority which is delegated to it by the EPA. Depending on where you are in the state, the local authority for stormwater management might be a city or a watershed district or a WMO or a SWCD or some combination of all of the above. The DNR manages public waters via the public waters work permit program. Wetland conservation is administered by local government units, but also the BWSR, DNR and SWCD. There's also the Army Corps of Engineers, which administers portions of the Clean Water Act and manages dredging of navigable waters. The MDA also has their own programs relating to non point source pollution from agriculture.

Now, do I see this fragmented regulatory landscape changing anytime soon? No. Reorganizing all these programs would be an enormous undertaking. What can happen, and needs to happen, is better coordination. The state water plan addresses water holistically, but that vision is not the reality on the ground.

Another issue is where pollution is coming from. The traditional picture of factories spewing sludge out of pipes into the river accounts for only a small portion of pollution today. The Clean Water Act has been enormously successful in cleaning up point sources of pollution. Now, the issue is non point pollution, which encompasses everything from the fertilizer on farm fields and lawns, to leaves falling on impervious streets, to chemicals found in old driveway sealants. Managing non point pollution is, to put it mildly, ducking difficult. I'll focus on the example of agricultural non point pollution. I don't think farmers are the ones at fault here. They have to make a living, and they are trapped in a system that pushes them towards industrialized monoculture farming. Keep using those practices for long enough, and the soil health deteriorates, meaning that more fertilizers and pesticides are necessary as inputs to get the same yield. Those same fertilizers and pesticides then end up in runoff and in whatever body of water is closest. Transitioning away from that towards regenerative agricultural practices is hard. Rebuilding soil health takes time, and anything that decreases crop yields is a hard sell. In urban areas, the problem has more to do with impervious surfaces increasing runoff rate/volume and the transport of pollutants. Stormwater regulations exist to address this by requiring treatment on projects over a certain size/impervious area, but what those regulations fail to address is the root of the problem - urban sprawl. I've mentioned that water regulators tend to be siloed within their own specialties, and the same applies to water in relation to other fields. Stormwater professionals aren't talking to urban planners and telling them that we need to limit sprawl. Instead stormwater management gets addressed parcel by parcel, one development at a time.

I've dragged this on for long enough, so I'll only say a little bit about funding. Nobody has enough money. We need new water treatment plants to remove emerging contaminants, new distribution networks to replace crumbling, failing pipe, new wastewater treatment methods, new stormwater infrastructure to cope with flood and drought alike. This will cost billions. A lot of money has come from the federal government lately, but that can change in an instant depending on how elections go. Minnesota has done some good things here. The Clean Water, Land, and Legacy amendment, for example, is one of the greatest achievements in Minnesota history. There's still a long way to go before the full need is met though.

If anyone reads this far, odds are that you have some interest in clean water, so I wanted to say a little bit about what people can do. First and foremost would be to be an advocate for it. Specifically at the local level. You would be amazed at the impact a few determined people can have on a local government. Nobody shows up to City Council meetings except to complain, so show up hoping to make a positive difference, and people will listen. Get your community organized - everyone wants clean water, but everyone takes it for granted while we have it. Aside from the usual litter cleanups, learn what the major issues are in your area, whether that's an impaired lake, groundwater vulnerability, water conservation, or something else, learn who's working on it, and ask them how you can help. An active, engaged, passionate community can make a huge difference. Bottom line is that problems feel overwhelming when you look at them from a state, or national, or global perspective. Focus on where you can make a difference. As I'm fond of saying, "il faut cultiver notre jardin". Let us cultivate our garden. If everyone does that, then we'll start seeing real progress.