The document discusses efforts in Minnesota to monitor and improve water quality through the Clean Water Legacy Act. It provides background on the act and the process of identifying impaired waters, developing restoration strategies, and implementing projects. While millions have been spent, understanding impacts at different scales remains difficult. Key uncertainties include estimating natural recovery potential, constraining uncertainty, measuring effects of management actions, and determining the best ways to implement treatment trains. Long-term monitoring at sentinel sites is needed to better understand impacts and continue making progress on the goal of cleaner water.

1. MN Clean Water Land & Legacy:
is the water getting cleaner?
Joe Magner, Professor
Dept. of Bioproducts and Biosystems Engineering
University of Minnesota

3. 2006 Clean Water Legacy (State)
•Legislation that created a new water program to
address “Impaired” waters
•Impaired waters are waterbodies not meeting water
quality standards
•The Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), Section 303(d)
requires a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study

4. How was the Legacy story told?
•The CWA requires states to test all (perceived)
surface waters (“Condition”)
•The State estimated around ~10,000 waterbodies
that will NOT be unable to meet water quality
standards
•If TMDLs are not completed, the CWA restricts any
new or expanded pollutant discharges – NO NEW
GROWTH!

5. Building the Legacy legislation
•Policy Work Group (G16)
•Broader Partners Group (G40)
•Broad citizen engagement (NGOs)
•Minnesota Environmental Initiative managed and
organized the stakeholder process
Today: Clean Water Council that provides guidance to
the Governor

6. 10 year Intensive Watershed Monitoring
Schedule
*The 10 year schedule runs from 2008 to 2017. In 2018, the Snake, North Fork Crow
and Pomme de Terre watersheds will be revisited; the first intensive watershed surveys
on these watersheds were completed in 2006 and 2007.
*
Legend
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
17
17
17
17
17
17
16
16
16
16
16
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
13
13
13
13 13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
09
0909
09 09
09
09
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
07
07
06

7. River Continuum Concept (RCC)
Vannote et al., 1980
•Model for predicting clinal riverine ecological
response (has been observed over time).
•Assumes a continuous gradient (W, D, Q &
entropy gain) from headwaters to mouth.
•Longitudinal gradient of physical conditions
controls biotic response (upstream feeds
downstream)

8. Riverine Ecosystem Synthesis (RES)
Thorp et al., 2006
•Adds new insight into RCC: scale dependent
complexity with partial predictability,
•Hydrogeomorphic Patches: scaled geomorphic
features that may be repeatable,
•Heuristic approach: includes 4 river dimensions,
•Acknowledgement of the role of unique geologic
and hydrologic “lateral patches”

9. An Investment
in Minnesota
On November 4, 2008 Minnesota voters approved the
Clean Water Land and Legacy Amendment to the state constitution
The Amendment increases the sales and use
tax rate by 3/8th of 1% on taxable sales,
starting July 1, 2009 and continuing through
2034.
Dollars are dedicated to four funds:
 Clean Water
 Outdoor Heritage
 Arts and Cultural Heritage
 Parks and Trails
From Peterson, 2017

10. Clean Water Fund
Goals:
• Protect, enhance, and restore
lakes, rivers, streams, and
groundwater
• Protect drinking water sources
$228 million in 2016-2017
From Peterson, 2017

11. Step 1. Monitor water bodies
and collect data
•Two-year intensive water
monitoring to identify
impairments (lakes & streams)
Outcomes:
•Monitoring & Assessment Report
•Stressor Identification Report
Step 2. Assess the data
•Identify impaired waters (do not meet standards).
•Identify stressors affecting aquatic life.
•Analyze data with water quality models and maps.
Step 3. Develop strategies to restore and
protect the watershed’s water bodies
•Summarize details on water quality issues.
•Determine reduction goals for impaired or protected
water bodies. Outcomes:
•Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
•WRAPS Report
Step 4. Conduct restoration and protection
projects in the watershed
•Civic engagement and public participation.
•Prioritize, target and measure the
implementation of restoration and
protection projects.
Outcomes:
•One Watershed One Plan
•Treatment Trains
“Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy (WRAPS)”
MN Water Management
Framework
From Peterson, 2017

12. Cropland
groundwater
30%
Cropland tile
drainage
37%
Cropland
runoff
5%
Wastewater
Point
Sources
9%
Atmospheric
9%
Urban
Stormwater
1%
Forests
7%
Septic
2%
Feedlot
runoff
<1%
Statewide: Surface Water Nutrient Sources
Cropland
37%
Wastewater point
sources
17%
Atmospheric
10%
Urban & road
runoff
8%
Forest & prairie
8%
Septic/feedlots
6%
Streambank
erosion
14%
Nitrogen Phosphorus
*MPCA, 2014. Minnesota Nutrient Reduction Strategy
Minnesota
From Peterson, 2017

13. Moving from Assessment to Action
Prioritize – what are the problems?
Target – where?
(Tailor) – social negotiation
Measure – Response
From Olm, 2015

14. A work in Progress….
“Drill down to the scale of Implementation”
Sentinel Watersheds, Magner & Brooks, (2008)
TWAIM: Systems Thinking Approach, Magner (2011)
One Watershed One Plan

15. Is the water getting cleaner?
• Is the end point compliance w/WQS?
• Is complete restoration possible?
(Recovery Potential, Norton et al. 2010)
• How do measure the cause-and-effect response to
management actions?
• What is the Impaired Water Response Time to
management action? (Meals et al. 2010)

16. What can we conclude after a decade?
1) Millions of dollars have been spent,
2) Minnesota has a lot of data – (but needs to be analyzed),
3) Understanding pathway and process across SCALE is very difficult,
4) Estimating Buffer Capacity (system resilience and/or recovery
potential),
5) Constraining uncertainty…..easier said than done,
6) Does Biological (IBI) data tell us something?
7) Communicating System Understanding,
8) Human Dimension constraints,
9) Implementation action? Needs more direction,
10) Stacking or treatment train design is still a mystery
11) Measuring – what best tells the story?
12) Why we need Sentinel data collection (10+ years of data)