House Environment and Natural Resources Policy and Finance Committee 3/27/18

House Environment and Natural Resources Policy and Finance Committee  3/27/18


>>I LIKE TO CALL THE POLICY AND FINANCE MEETING P>>I LIKE TO CALL THE POLICY AND FINANCE MEETING TO ORDER. BEFORE US WE HAVE THE MINUTES FOR MARCH P>>I LIKE TO CALL THE POLICY AND FINANCE MEETING TO ORDER. BEFORE US WE HAVE THE MINUTES FOR MARCH 22. REPRESENTATIVE CLARK JOHNSON WOULD YOU MOVE THE MINUTES; PLEASE?>>REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: I MOVE THE MINUTES FOR MARCH 22.>>CHAIR: ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS ON THE MINUTES? HEARING NONE ALL IN FAVOR; AYE. OPPOSED? THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED. FIRST UP TODAY WE HAVE HOUSE FILE 3153; REPRESENTATIVE LOONAN IS HERE AND I WILL MOVE THAT HOUSE FILE 3153 BE REREFERRED AND SENT TO GOV OPS.>>I WANT TO THANK YOU AND THE COMMITTEE FOR HEARING THE BILL. A OVERVIEW THE BILL; WHAT IT DOES IS MODIFYS THE RECYCLING GRANT PROGRAM CURRENTLY ONLY COUNTIES CAN APPLY FL KBRANT I WE WANT TO BROADEN TO SOME OF THE OTHER USERS FOR POTENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR RECYCLING SITUATIONS.>>CHAIR: WOULD YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF AND PROCEED?>>PAUL NELSON THE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICE PROGRAM MANAGER FOR SCOTT COUNTY AND WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR IS FLEXIBILITY IN THE LANGUAGE NOW THAT IS THE LANGUAGE IN LAW LIMITS MATCH FOR THE STATE GRANTS TO BE SOLELY PROVIDED BY COUNTIES SO ONLY THE COUNTY CAN PROVIDE THE DOLLAR AMOUNT MATCH. I HAVE LOTS OF LOCAL PARTNERS IN TERMS OF THE TRIBAL COMMUNITIES; PRIVATE BUSINESS AND CITIES AND SO FORTH THAT ALSO COULD BE PROVIDING THIS MATCH. REACHING THE NEW 75 PERCENT RECYCLING GOUL WILL BE A CHALLENGE AND I NEED TO BRING IN MORE PARTNER JZ MORE RESOURCES AND THIS IS A WAY WE THINK QUEE CAN DO THAT SO WE ARE ASKING YOUR FLEXIBILITY JUST BROADEN WHO CAN PROVIDE THE MATCH. THATS ALL I HAVE; I STAND FOR QUESTIONS.>>REPRESENTATIVE CLARK JOHNSON: THANK YOU MR. CHAIR AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. I’M CURIOUS HAVE YOU ENCOUNTERED ANY PRIVATE ENTITIES HELPING WITH THE MATCH?>>MR. NELSON: YES; WE HAVE SOME BUSINESSES THAT ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO RECYCLING THEMSELVES AND PUTTING IN THE INFRASTRUCTURE BINS OR ENCLOSURES. WE ALSO HAVE DEM CON LANDFILL WHO STARTED A EDUCATION PROGRAM THAT WOULDN’T BE ELIGIBLE NOW BUT THOSE ARE THE TYPE OF THINGS WE CAN DO.>>REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: REPRESENTATIVE LOONAN; WOULD THIS BILL ALLOW FOR PRIVATE MATCHES ALONG WITH OTHER PUBLIC ENTITIES?>>REPRESENTATIVE LOONAN: ONE OF THE EXCITING THINGS WE HAVE GOING ON I REPRESENT THE RIVER SOUTH AREA WHICH IS SHAKOPEE; WE HAVE CODA ENERGY AND WHAT THEY DO IS THEY TAKE STORM DEBRIS FROM THE HENNEPIN COUNTY AND SCOTT COUNTY AREAS AND TURN IT INTO A EQUIVALENT OF A BIO MASS FUEL. WE GET DOWN THE ROAD WHERE WE CAN DO CARBON CAPTURE ON SOME OF THIS; YOU WILL HAVE A CARBON NEUTRAL ENERGY SOURCE; YOU WILL HAVE A CARBON NEGATIVE ENERGY SOURCE BECAUSE THE TREES TAKE CARBON OUT OF THE ATMOSPHERE; WHEN THEY DIE AND DECAY THARELEASE METHANE. WE HAVE PRIVATE ENTITIES THAT ARE VERY VERY INTERESTED JOINING IN ON THIS THEY JUST LIKE A LITTLE NUDGE.>>REPRESENTATIVE WAGENIUS: I THINK ONE THE PROBLEMS WE ARE RUNNING INTO WITH NOT HAVING ENOUGH MONEY IS WE ARE USING THE SOLID WASTE MONEY NOW TO PAY FOR OTHER PEOPLES FEES AT THE PCA; SO THE MONEY THAT SHOULD BE ALLOCATED TO COUNTIES ISN’T GOING TO COUNTIES AND THAT IS A REASON WHY YOU HAVE THE OVERALL SHORTAGE OF MONEY AND ONE THING WE SHOULD BE RESOLVING ON YOUR BEHALF IS MAKING SURE THAT PEOPLE WHO WANT A WATER PERMIT FEES PAY THEIR OWN FEES INSTEAD OF HAVING SOLID WASTE PAY IT. THAT IS A ISSUE I’M A METROPOLITAN COUNTY PERSON AND ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE–>>CHAIR: MR. NELSON; I’M CURIOUS ON THE 75 PERCENT RECYCLING GOAL WHERE DOES THAT COME FROM?>>MR. NELSON. THAT IS STATUTORY.>>CHAIR: OTHER QUESTIONS; MEMBERS?>>REPRESENTATIVE SUNDIN: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR AND TO THE REPRESENTATIVE LOONAN; I’M JUST WONDERING ABOUT IF YOU ARE HANDING OUT GRANTS TO PRIVATE ENTITIES THE RECYCLING COMPANY OR WHATEVER; SHOULD BE REREQUIRING SOME KIND OF FINANCIAL STATEMENT; SOME KIND OF GUARANTEE OF THEIR FINANCIAL VIABILITY LET’S SAY I’M LOOKING FOR LIKE A HISTORY OF WHAT THEY ACCOMPLISHED OR WHAT THEY PROPOSED BEFORE WE START HANDING OUT STATE FUNDS TO THEM.>>REPRESENTATIVE LOONAN: THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION; REPRESENTATIVE; ACTUALLY THIS IS A MATCHING SITUATION SO THERE IS SOME OF THAT INCORPORATED. I ASSUME MY TESTIFIER CAN SPEAK TO THAT BETTER THAN I CAN BUT EARLIER DEM CON WAS MENTIONED AND THEY HAVE NOT WAITED; THEY HAVE TAKEN THE INITIATIVE TO GO THROUGH RIGOROUS RECYCLING PROGRAM AND EVEN GONE SO FAR AS TO CREATE A EDUCATIONAL FACILITY AND I’M HAPPY TO TAKE YOU DOWN AND SHOW ON THE RECYCLING THEY DO DOWN THERE. IT IS FASCINATING BLEND OF PHYSICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE.>>REPRESENTATIVE SUNDIN: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR AND REPRESENTATIVE LOONAN; I THINK I CAN SUPPORT THIS BUT I DO HAVE A AMENDMENT AT YOUR NEXT COMMITTEE STOP I BELIEVE.>>REPRESENTATIVE LOONAN: THANK YOU REPRESENTATIVE; WE CAN CERTAINLY TALK.>>CHAIR: OTHER QUESTIONS? NEXT I LIKE DAVE BINKY TO COME DOWN FROM MPCA. GOOD MORNING; WELCOME.>>GOOD MORNING MR. CHAIR; MEMBERS; DAVE BINKY RESOURCE MANAGER AT THE PCA. WE HAVE TAKEN A LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE AND THINK IT IS A NEW ANGLE ON SOME OF THE RECYCLING GRANTS THAT COME OUT OF THE PCA. THIS ONE IN PARTICULAR IS DEDICATED TO THE 7 COUNTY METRO AREA. THE ABATEMENT ACCOUNT GENERATES THE FEE USED FOR THIS GRANT FUNDING AND ONLY THE 7 COUNTY METRO AREA COULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR IT. LEVERAGING ADDITIONAL PARTNERS TO REACH THE 75 PERCENT GOAL IS A GOOD IDEA AND A COUPLE CHANGES WE OFFERED AND INCORPORATED IN HERE AND THANK THE AUTHOR FOR THAT WE CAN SEE HOW THIS LOOKS GOING DOWN THE ROAD.>>CHAIR: QUESTIONS FOR MR. BINKY; MEMBERS? VERY GOOD. I RENEW MY MOTION TO REREFER HOUSE FILE 3153 TO GO TO GOV OPS. ALL IN FAVOR; AYE. THOSE OPPOSED? THE MOTION PREVAILS. YOU ARE ON YOUR WAY. YOU GUYS GET YOUR BEARDS TAKEN CARE OF HERE NOW. LOOK WHO’S BACK! LOOK AT THAT. [INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] GOOD MORNING. WELCOME. I’M GOING TO MOVE 2 REREFER HOUSE FILE 3210 TO GOV OPS COMMITTEE. BEFORE US TODAY TO GO THROUGH HOUSE FILE 3210 IS REPRESENTATIVE LOONAN.>>REPRESENTATIVE LOONAN: HOUSE FILE 3210 DEALS WITH STORM WATER MANAGEMENT AND TRIES TO CREATE EQUITY BETWEEN THE 7 COUNTY AREA AND OUT-STATE. WHAT THIS BILL DOES THIS IS A IMPORTANT BILL TO THE OUTER RING OF THE METROPOLITAN AREA WHERE YOU IS UNINCORPORATED AREAS. NOW THE COUNTIES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ACTIVELY BE INVOLVED OUT IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA WHERE OUT-STATE THEY HAVE A HIGHER INCIDENCE OF THAT AND WE ARE FINDING PROBLEMS AND I WILL FERN IT OVER TO MY TESTIFIER TO JUST WALK THROUGH THIS.>>CHAIR: GOOD MORNING AGAIN; MR. HANSON AGAIN; OR NELSON.>>MR. NELSON: THANK YOU MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS. WHAT WAS INTERESTING TO ME WHEN I LOOK AT THIS IS THINK WHY WERE METRO COUNTIES EXCLUDED IPTHE FIRST PLACE AND AS I LOOK BACK AND THINK ABOUT IT STORM WATER MANAGEMENT WE ARE TRYING TO KEEP WATER ACCUMULATING ON ROADS; MOVE SAFELY THROUGH COMMUNITIES AND NOW WE ARE ALSO ADDING WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS TO THAT. THAT DOES MAKE MORE SENSE IN A URBAN ENVIRONMENT AND IN CITIES WHERE WE HAVE MORE DENSITY AND MORE PEOPLE LIVING AND MORE THINGS IN HARMS WAY; AND SO MAKES SOME SENSE ORIGINALLY COUNTIES WERE NOT IN THAT ROLE IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA BECAUSE WE ALSO HAD THE METROPOLITAN SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT ACT THATMANIDATE WATERSHED AUTHORITIES THROUGHOUT THE METROPOLITAN AREA. MOST OF THE WATERSHED AUTHORITIES WERE WATERSHED DISTRICT OR JOINT POWERS WATERSHED ORGANIZATIONS BETWEEN MUNICIPALITIES. MUNICIPALITIES HAD THAT AUTHORITY FOR STORM WATER UTILITIES; NOW BACK IN 2000 OR SO; SOME OF THOSE MUNICIPAL BASED JOINT POWER ORGANIZATIONS WERE DECLARED NON-IMPLEMENTING BY BOARD OF WATER AND RESOURCES AND WHAT AROSE IS COUNTY BASED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION. THE JOINT POWER ORGANIZATION THEPOERS GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL ENTITIES. COUNTIES DON’T HAVE THOSE AUTHORITY EVEN THOUGH IN SCOTT WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION; CARVER AND VERMILION RIVER JOINT POWERS WATERSHED ORGANIZATION WHICH COVERS NOW PROBABLY A THIRD OF THE METRO AREA COUNTIES ARE THE ONEWISE THE WATERSHED AUTHORITY. IT HASN’T BEEN A ISSUE FOR ME TILL RECENTLY; WE HAVE BEEN SLOWLY ACCUMULATING THE STORM WATER FACILITIES BUT I LOOK TO THE FUTURE AND IT IS GOING TO BE A ISSUE FOR US IN TERMS OF MAINTAINING FACILITIES THAT WE ARE ENABLING TO THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ROLE OR PERMITTING ROLE WHEN WE HAVE TO DO PERMITS UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT THAT REQUIRES TO PUT IN SOME SORT OF STORM WATER FACILITIES SO WE ARE ASKING FOR SOME OF THE SAME AUTHORITIES OTHER WATERSHED STORM WATER RESPONSIBLE TYPE ENTITIES HAVE. WITH THAT; I STAND FOR QUESTIONS.>>CHAIR: QUESTIONS; MEMBERS? OKAY. VERY GOOD. WITH THAT; ANY FINAL COMMENTS ON YOUR BILL?>>REPRESENTATIVE LOONAN: YES; THE STENTH OF THE BILL IS THE FACT IT IS PLOACTIVE IN NATURE AND NOT REACTIVE IN NATURE. WAITING UNTIL THE PROBLEM WE KNOW THE PROBLEMS THAT WILL BE AHEAD OF US UNLESS WE ACT AND WE ARE JUST ASKING FOR THE AUTHORITY TO DO THATD.>>CHAIR: THANK YOU. I RENEW MY MOTION TO REREFER HOUSE FILE 3210 TO GOV OPS. ALL IN FAVOR; AYE. OPPOSED? PREVAILS. THANK YOU REPRESENTATIVE LOONAN AND MR. NELSON. NEXT UP WE HAVE HOUSE FILE 2858; THE CHAIRS INTEENGZ LAY THIS BILL OVER. HOUSE FILE 2858 IS AUTHORED BY REPRESENTATIVE SWEDZINSKI.>>REPRESENTATIVE SWEDZINSKI: HOUSE FILE 2858 IS A STRAIGHT FORWARD BILL. UNDER CURRENT LAW IT IS ALLOWABLE TO USE HAND HELD LIGHT AND SHOT GUN TO HUNT COYOTE AND FOX. THIS BILL WILL BRING COMMON SENSE MPTD SHOOTING A TWO HANDED GUN USING A HAND HELD LIGHT THIS ALLOWS OTHER LIGHT METHODS OTHER THAN HAND HEAD SOMETHING ATTACH TODAY THE FIRE ARM AND IT BRINGS COMMON SENSE TO THE HUNTING OF THOSE PREDATORS THAT ALLOW YOU TO USE THE SAME GUN YOU USE DURING THE DAY WHICH IS POTENTIALLY A RIFLE OR WHATEVER GUN FITS YOUR NEEDS. UNDER CURRENT LAW THIS IS LOWABLE. YOU CAN ONLY USE SHOT GUN AND THIS ALLOWS TO ANY PARTICULAR FIRE ARM TO DO THIS WORK. I GOT A TESTIFIER HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS BILL.>>CHAIR: GOOD MORNING. IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD AND PROCEED WITH YOUR TESTIMONY.>>TY BROWER IN SUPPORTF THE BILL. THE INVEST. WE ARE DOING THROUGHOUT THE STATE AND ESPECIALLY SOUTH WESTERN MINNESOTA TOWARD HABITAT RESTORATION WE DO A LOT AND IT IS TOUGH TO SEE WHEN WE WALK THROUGH A FIELD YOU SEE A PILE OF FEATHERS FROM PREDATORS. I DO PREDATOR HUNT AND WITH THIS BILL WITH THE ARTIFICIAL LIGHT USE AND THE RIFLE IT WILL HELP VERIFY OUR TARGET A LOT BETTER AT NIGHT. WHETHER YOU USE A LIGHT OR NOT AT NIGHT THE BULLET WILL STILL TRAVEL AS FAR AS IT WILL BUT WITH THE USE OF LIGHT WE CAN VERIFY OUR TARGET BETTER AND IT IS ALSO LEGAL IN SUROUPDIC STATES SO IF WE GET ON BOARD IT WILL ASSIST US OTNIGHT AND DURING THE DAY AS WELL.>>CURIOUS IN YOUR TESTIMONY YOU REFERRED TO YOU DO A LOT OF WORK; CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT WORK YOU DO?>>I’M ACTUALLY THE CHAPTER PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL NATIONAL WILD TURKEY FEDERATION CHAPTER IN MARSHAL AND DO A LOT OF FUND RAISING FOR LAND HABITAT ENHANCEMENT; LAND PIRNS. WE PLANTED 8 THOUSAND TREES DONATE TODAY THE DNR LAST YEAR. WE ARE IN THE PROSPURCHASING 123 ACRES NORTH OF RUSTLE MINNESOTA. GREAT HABITAT FOR PHEASANT TURKEY DEAR AND COYOTES AND FOX. OUR HABITAT IS FOR ALL CREATURES BUT THE PREDATORS DON’T HAVE MUCH MORE PREDATORY THEMSELVES AS WELL SO HELP KEEP THEM IN CHECK.>>CHAIR: HOW IS YOUR SUCCESS IN TURKEY HUNTING IN THE SPRING?>>LAST SPRING AND HUNTED AND SCARED ONE BECAUSE I TRIED THE SPOT AND STOCK METHOD BUT I’M SELF TAUGHT AND GOT ONE SO FAR.>>CHAIR: THERE WAS A GUY THAT WANTED TO GO TURKEY HUNTING THAT COULD BE ARRANGED.>>I’LL TAKE YOU OUT.>>REPRESENTATIVE HANSON: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR AND REPRESENTATIVE SWEDZINSKI I JUST WENT THROUGH GUN SAFETY TRAINING WITH MY SON; AND PRIMARY COMPONENT WAS KNOW YOUR TARGET BUT ALSO KNOW WHAT IS BEHIND YOUR TARGET SO WATCHED AS HE WENT THROUGH SCENARIOS WITH THE INSTRUCTOR ON SHOULD YOU SHOOT OR SHOULDN’T YOU SHOOT BASED ON WHAT WAS BEHIND THE TARGET. SO; WITH THE RIFLE AT NIGHT HOW DO YOU IDENTIFY WHAT IS BEHIND YOUR TARGET?>>MR. CHAIR; CURRENTLY YOU’RE AT THE MERCY OF THE MOONLIGHT; SO HUNT ERS HUNTING AT NIGHT ARE ONLY HUNTING THREE DAYS BEFORE FULL MOON AND THREE DAYS AFTER. I NEVER HUNT BEYOND THAT STRETCH BECAUSE IT IS TOO DARK AND MORALLY NOT RIGHT SO WITH ARTIFICIAL LIGHT USE YOU CAN VERIFY YOUR TARGET AND WHAT IS BEYOND. I’M A FIRE ARM SAFETY STRUCTURE AND START IN MARSHAL NEXT WEEK SO THAT IS COMPONENT WE TALK ABOUT.>>REPRESENTATIVE HANSON: WELL; I HEAR ALL THE TIME BUT ONE SIZE DOESN’T FIT ALL AND THERE IS A LOT OF DEVERSETY IN THE TOPOGRAPHY THE STATE AND I KNOW A AREA WHERE I TURKEY HUNT AND THERE IS A LOT OF CIP; THE IDEA OF RIFLE FIRING ON THE HILLS AND THE VALLEYS THAT SCARES ME. I DONT WANT THAT AT NIGHT AND I KNOW THAT I’M SURE YOU ARE A ETHICAL HUNTER AND PEOPLE ARE; BUT WITH THE RIFLE IT IS DIFFERENT THAN A SHOT GUN; AND THOSE BULLS CAN GO A LONG WAYS AND YOU CANT VERIFY YOUR TARGET OR IF STHRA COW OR HORSE OR IF THERE IS A KID. I JUST CAN’T SUPPORT THIS. I APPRECIATE PEOPLE DOING CONSERVATION AND HABITAT WORK; BUT SWITCH ING TO THE RIFLE I REALLY HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT AT NIGHT.>>MR. CHAIRMAN JUCS TO CLARIFY IT IS LEGAL TO USE RIFLE AT NIGHT NOW; IT ISN’T LEGAL TO USE ARTIFICIAL LIGHT WITH THE RIFLE. IT IS LEGAL TO USE SHOT GUN AT NIGHT AS WELL AND YOU CAN USE ARTIFICIAL LIGHT WITH THE SHOT GUN SO TO HUNT WITH A RIFLE NOW THERE IS NO ARTIFICIAL LIGHT SO TO VERIFY YOUR TARGET IT IS THE FULL MOON. IF WE CAN USE ARTIFICIAL LIGHT WE HAVE A BET R SOURCE OF LIGHT TO VERIFY THAT TARGET AT NIGHT THROUGHOUT THE SEASON OF JANUARY 1 THROUGH MARCH 31.>>CHAIR: WALK ME THROUGH WHAT YOU USE FOR A LIGHT? I KNOW WHAT I HAVE; CAN YOU TELL WHAT YOU USE AND HOW MANY CANDLE POWER; IT SHINES AND YOU CAN IDENTIFY YOUR TARGET.>>I DON’T VALIGHT NOW BECAUSE IT ISN’T LEGAL BUT THERE IS A LOT OF HIGH POWER LED LIGHTS THAT ATTACH TO THE RIFLE AND THEY CLAIM THEY CAN-YOU CAN SEE OUT TO 800 YARDS THROUGH THE SCOPE AND VERIFY YOUR TARGET OUT TO 300 YARDS. IN PREDATOR HUNTING IT IS RARELY YOU HUNT OUT THAT FAR. MOST OF THE TARGETS ARE WITHIN THAT 200 YARDS SO THAT IS WELL WITHIN THEIR CLAIM THAT YOU CAN EASILY VERIFY YOUR TARGET AT 300 YARDS.>>REPRESENTATIVE BECKER FINN: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR AND I NOTICED THAT THE DNR IS ON DECK SO THINK MY CONCERN HAD TO DO WITH HOW THE DNR WILL BE ABLE TO ENFORCE POACHING WHEN YOU GOT PEOPLE SIGN SHINING AND NOW WE HAVE PEOPLE WALKING AROUND WITH DEER RIFLE JZ LIGHTS AT NIGHT BUT MAYBE THE DNR CAN SPEAK TO THEIR ABILITY TO ENFORCE.>>CHAIR: ANY COMMENTS ON THAT?>>WITH CURRENT LAW NOW WITH SHOT GUN YOU HAVE TO BE 70 YARDS AWAY FROM A HOUSE OR THE ROAD SO WHEN PEOPLE ARE SPOTLIGHTING OR IF THEY SPOTLIGHT IT IS USUALLY OFF THE ROAD SO IF THE DNR IS IN THE AREA AND SEE SOMEBODY ON THE ROAD IF IT IS LEGAL FOR PREDATOR HUNTING IF YOU SPOTLIGHT OUF THE ROAD IT IS STILL ILLEGAL. YOU HAVE TO BE OFF THE ROAD AND AWAY FROM THE VEHICLE AND A HOUSE TO DO THIS.>>REPRESENTATIVE BECKER FINN: RESPECTFULLY I THINK POACHERS WE HAD PEOPLE TAKE DEER ON OUR PROPERTY OUT OF SEASON OUT OF DAYLIGHT AND IT DOESN’T ALWAYS HAPPEN RIGHT OFF THE ROAD. I THINK WE ARE MAKING A BIG ASSUMPTION ABOUT PEOPLE WHO ARE POACHING BY ASSUMING THEY ALWAYS DO IT JUST OFF THE SIDE THE ROAD SO I WOULD STILL LOVE TO HEAR FROM THE DNR ABOUT HOW THIS WOULD EFFECT THEIR ABILITY TO DO THEIR JOBS.>>CHAIR: GOOD MORNING.>>COLONEL RODMAN SMITH DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT NATURAL RESOURCES. MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS; WE LIKE TO THANK REPRESENTATIVE SWEDZINSKI BRINGING THIS FORWARD. THERE IS SOMETHING THAT DOES NEED TO BE FIXED UNDRB LINE 1.9 WHEN IT TALKS ABOUT USING A HANDHELD ART IFICIAL LIGHT. THAT IS A POINT OF CONCERN FOR FOLKS; YOU CAN PUT A HEAD LAMP ON. WE LIKE TO WORK WITH THE AUTHOR TO FIND SOME TYPE OF LANGUAGE THAT WORKS WITH THE HANDHELD PORTION BUT WE DO HAVE SOME THE SAME CONCERNS REPRESENTATIVE HANSON BROUGHT FORWARD. ONE OF THE PRIMARY [INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] IS KNOW YOUR TARGET AND BEYOND AND WHEN THIS LANGUAGE WAS LOOKED AT SEVERAL YEARS AGO WE DID SETTLE ON A SHOT GUN BECAUSE A SHOT GUN PATTERN CAEPT TRAVEL AS FAR AS A RIFLE. RIFLE THEY CAN TRAVEL MUCH FATHER THAN WHAT THE LIGHT WILL ILLUMINATE SO WE HAVE THAT CONCERN ABOUT GETTING INTO RIFLE WITH THESE ARTIFICIAL LIGHT. TRADITIONALLY COYOTE HUNTER JZ TALK ABOUT MOON LIGHT; COYOTE HUNTERS IN A STATIONARY POSITION; FRESH MOON ON A FULL MOON AND CAN SEE WELL; IT IS LIKE DAYLIGHT. THEY ARE IN A STATIONARY POSITION; THEY CALL AND THE PREDATOR COMES IN AND HAVE A IDEA WHAT THE BACKGROUND IS AND WHEN WE START TO MOVE TO BEING ON FOOT USING A ARTIFICIAL LIGHT EVEN ON YOUR OWN PROPERTY YOU ARE MOVING FROM ONE AREA TO ANOTHER AND YOU ARE NOT REALLY SURE WHEN YOU ARE STATIONARY WHAT IS BEYOND YOUR TARGET AND YES THERE ARE LIGHTS AND VERY BRIGHT LIGHTS BUT THE LIGHTS WILL STILL NOT SHINE FARTHER THAN WHAT A RIFLE CAN GO SO BECAUSE OF THAT WE HAVE CONCERNED EXPANDING THIS PAST THE USE OF SHOT GUNS.>>REPRESENTATIVE SWEDZINSKI: THIS IS JUST A SEPERAL ISSUE BUT GOT A QUESTION FOR THE DNR OFFICER. I KNOW THE DNR USES THERMAL AT NIGHT TO JUST CHECK AND ENFORCE FROM A VERIFICATION STANDPOINT DO YOU THINK THERMAL WOULD ALLOW VERIFICATION OF A TARGET BETTER THAN A FLASHLIGHT? .>>MR. CHAIR AND REPRESENTATIVE; THE WAY WE USE THERMAL IS DIFFERENT THEN WAY HUNTERS USE IT; WE ARE LOOKING FOR HUNTERS AND NOT SHOOTING THEM HOPEFULLY SO WE HAVE CONCERNS WITH THERMAL AND NIGHT VISION BUT IT IS ABOUT ABOUT THE IDENTIFYING YOUR TARGET. WE DO HAVE ISSUE WITH THERMAL AND NIGHT VISION AND EXPANDING THAT. IT IS ALLOWED IN SOME OTHER STATES JUST BECAUSE IT IS ALLOWED IN OTHER STATES IT DOESN’T NECESSARILY NEED TO BE ALLOWED IN MINNESOTA. WE DO GET A LOT OF COMPLAINTS FROM PEOPLE THAT OUR PROPERTY OWNERS WHEN THEY SEE SPOTLIGHTS RUNNING AROUND IT MAKES SOME PEOPLE UNEASY THAT ARE LAND OWNERS AND SO EXPANDING-WHAT WE HAVE NOW SEEMS TO WORK AND I JUST HATE TO SEE US HAVE UNFONCHINATE INCIDENCE WITH SOMEBODY OVERSHOOTING WITH A RIFLE.>>CHAIR: COLONEL SXHITH WHEN YOU USE YOUR THERMAL HOW FAR CAN YOU IDENTIFY A HUMAN BEING?>>MR. CHAIR; I HAVEN’T USED THE NEW TECHNOLOGY SO NOT QUITE SURE HOW FAR THEY ARE SEE WITH THE THERMALS. I’M STUCK IN THE OFFICE.>>REPRESENTATIVE SUNDIN: THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. THINKING BACK TO THE DAYS WHEN I WAS PREDATOR HUNTING WE WOULD SIT ON THE [INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] AND SHOOTING DOWN SO IT WAS NEVER A CONCERN WHERE THE BULLET WAS GOING. WOULD IT GIVE COMFORT TO THE DEPARTMENT IF THE USE OF RIFLES WERE RESTRICTED TO A ELEVATED POSITION SO YOU ARE SHOOTING DOWN AND THE BULLETS ARE NOT CARRYING INTO THE NEIGHBORHOODS?>>COLONEL SMITH: MR. CHAIR; REPRESENTATIVE THAT WOULD HELP BUT AGAIN THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS HARD TO ENFORCE. I CAN SEE GETTING CALL UNDER TO REPRESENTATIVES OFFICE ABOUT WHAT IS A ELEVATED POSITION AND WHAT IS NOT A ELEVATED POSITION. BUT I AGREE.>>REPRESENTATIVE SUNDIN: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. 8 FOOT; 10 FOOT; WHATEVER.>>REPRESENTATIVE ECKLUND: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. COLONEL SMITH; YOU TALKED ABOUT IT IS LEGAL IN OTHER STATES; CAN YOU TALK ABOUT WHAT KIND OF POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE RAMIFICATIONS HAPPENED FROM A NEIGHBORING STATE WITH THIS TYPE OF LEGISLATION?>>COLONEL SMITH: MR. CHAIR; REPRESENTATIVE ECKLUND; I JUST HEAR ANECDOTALLY FROM OTHER STATES THAT THEY HAD INCREASES IN DEER POACHING WITH THE ADVENT OF THE USE OF THERMAL IMAGING; NIGHT VISION AND OTHER THINGS. NOTHING FORMAL; BUT JUST MORE ANECDOTAL.>>CHAIR: ANYTHING ELSE? CLOSING COMMENTS ON THE BILL?>>REPRESENTATIVE SWEDZINSKI: GOOD QUESTIONS WE APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION TO INCLUDE THIS; I DEFINITELY LIKE TO WORK WITH DNR STAFF FORMULATING THIS BILL TO BETTER GET THEIR APPROVAL BUT ALSO I THINK THIS IS A BIT ON THE COMMON SENSE SIDE. BEING THIS ALREADY EXISTS AND ALREADY HAPPENS WITHOUT THE EXISTENCE OF A LIGHT I THINK WE ARE ADDING TO IT AND MAKING IT SAFER. THANK YOU.>>CHAIR: REPRESENTATIVE SWEDZINSKI; I APPRECIATE YOU SHINE THE LIGHT ON PREDATORS. THIS IS SOMETHING WE NEED TO START TACKLING ACROSS THE STATE OF MINNESOTA WITH REGARD TO THE EGG EATING AND CHICK EATING MACHINES SKUNK AND RACCOONS AND COYOTES AND FOX. WE HAVE FAR TOO MANY WITH THE OTHER PREDATORS SO WITH THAT; THE BILL IS LAID OVER. THANK YOU. NEXT WE HAVE HOUSE FILE 3120 . HOUSE FILE 3120 IS ONE OF MY BILLS; AND I WILL MOVE TO REREFER TO GENERAL REGISTER AND WITH THAT I LIKE TO MOVE THE AUTHOR’S DE2 AMENDMENT TO GET THE BILL IN THE SHAPE I WOULD LIKE. MAKE SURE MEMBERS YOU ARE WORKING OFF THE DE2. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE DE2 SAY AYE. THOSE OPPOSED? THE AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING; MR. [INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD.>>MY NAME IS TONY QUILLS THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT POLICY AT THE MINNESOTA CHAIR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND APPRECIATE THE TIME TO TESTIFY ON HOUSE FILE 3120DE TWORKS AMENDMENT. SECTIONS 1 AND 2 OF THE BILL STEM FROM CONVERSATIONS THAT WE HAD HAD WITH THE BOARD OF WATER AND SOIL RESOURCES. IF YOU’LL LOOK ON SECTION 2 ON PAGE LINES 2.28 AS WE HAD THE WETLAND MITIGATION DISCUSSIONS OVER THE LAST COUPLE YEARS RECOLLECT IT WAS NOTED THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF TAPS DEALING WITH WETLAND REPLACEMENT PLANS AND IF YOU LOOK ON THE BILL ON 2.24 AND 2.25 WHERE IT SAYS NOT TO EXCEED 500; IF YOU LOOK AT 2.26 AND 2.27 NOT TO EXCEED A THOUSAND AND NOT TO EXCEED A THOUSAND; WE NOTICED THERE WAS NOT A CAP ON THE WITHDRAW FEE FOR CREDITS; SO OUR FIRST THOUGHT WAS TO PUT THE-SEEMS LIKE THE MAXIMUM CAP WAS A THOUSAND DOLLARS AND THAT WAS IN THE ORIGINAL BILL AND THEN IN SUBSEQUENT CONVERSATIONWISE THE BOARD OF SOIL AND WATER AND SOIL RESOURCES; YOU COULD SEE THE LANGUAGE THAT IS ON 2.29 THAT SAYS THAT THE BOARD MUST ESTABLISH FEES BASED ON THE COST TO THE AGENCY SO WE DIDN’T PUT A CAP THERE; WE JUST SAID WHATEVER THE COST TO THE AGENCIES WAS WAS WHAT THAT WILL BE THERE. DURING THOSE CONVERSATIONS; WE ALSO HAD IT CAME UP ABOUT HOW SOME THE BILLING THE BOARD DOES FOR THEIR ORGANIZATIONAL UNITS AND YOU CAN SEE THAT ON 2.12 TO 2.16 AND THEN AGAIN SOME OF THE WITHDRAWS FOR THE WATER AND SOIL CONNOISSEUR VAIRGZ STEWARDSHIP ACCOUNTS AND MITIGATION EASEMENT STEWERSHIP ACCOUNTS AND HOW THAT MONEY MOVES THROUGH FOR LEGAL COMPLIANCE COST; STRUCTURAL PRESERVATION AND COST DEALING WITH DATABASE AND UPGRADES AND REPAIRS SO THAT IS SECTION 1 AND 2 OF THE BILL; SOME OF THOSE ARE THE CAPS THAT WE STARTED THOSE CONVERSATIONS AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE BOARD OF WATER AND SOIL RESOURCES FOUND OTHER ISSUES THEY LIKE TO SEE ADDRESS JD THINK THEY ARE HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ON THAT; MR. CHAIRMAN. SECTION 3 DEALS WITH NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMITS AND EXEMPTIONS FROM THOSE PERMITS. IF YOU LOOK ON 3.23 TO 3.26; THAT IS NOT VERBATIM BUT VERY CLOSE TO FEDERAL EXEMPTION LANGUAGE DEALING WITH TRANSFERS OF WATER AND SO THERE IS NO-AS YOU NOTICE; IT DOESN’T DEAL WITH POLLUTED WATER OR TOUCHED BY INDUSTRIAL MUNICIPAL AND COMMERCIAL AND DOESN’T REQUIRE A [INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] AND IT IS A E EMPTION AND THERE ARE 503 PERMITS OVERTHE LAST 5 YEARS WE LOOKED AT AND I’LL GIVE A COUPLE EXAMPLES OF FOLKS THAT OBTAIN THIS EXEMPTION FROM THE MPDES PERMIT AND WHAT THOSE ACTIONS ARE. THOSE ACTIONS DEALT WITH CHANNEL EXCAVATION; CHANNEL CLEAN-OUT; PUBLIC WATER DAMS; TRAINAGE; TEMPORARY DRAW-DOWNS; EROSION OR PLOED FLOOD PREVENTION WATER AND CONTROL STRUCTURES AND PEOPLE THAT APPLY THE ENTITIES RANGE FRAUMP BRAINERD PUBLIC UTILITY; WILD LIFE DIVISION; U.S. FOREST; CITY OF ST. CLOUD; FARGO MOORE HP PP HEAD WATER; CITY OF CHAMPLEN; UNIVERSITY MINNESOTA DULUTH. IT IS A E EMPTION WHERE WE MOVE WATER FROM ONE BODY TO ANOTHER THROUGH EITHER A PUMP STATION; A CANAL; AQUEDUCT; A TUNNEL; A PIPE WHERE THERE IS NO POLLUTANT DISCHARGED; WE ARE JUST MOVING WATER AND AS YOU CAN SEE WE THOUGHT WE HAD THOSE EXEMPTIONS IN STATE LAW; WE HAD COPIED ALL THE EPA EXEMPTIONS BUT ONE AND THIS IS THE ONE THE WATER TRANSFER RULE SO PICKED UP THE FEDERAL EXEMPTION AND PUT IT INTO STATE LAW. SECTION 4 IS EXTERNAL PEER REVIEW OF WATER QUALITY STANDARD; WE HAD A LOT OF DEBATE OVER THE LAST COUPLE YEARS OVER NEW WATER QUALITY STANDARD IN THE STATE AND PEER REVIEW OF THEM AND WHO SHOULD DO THEM; SHOULD THE STATE AGENCY DO THEM; SHOULD IT BE A THIRD PARTY THAT LOOKS AT THEM? COMMISSIONER STEIN ADDRESSED THIS IN WHAT IS KNOWN AS THE JULY 14 DIRECTIVE TO HIS EMPLOYEES DEALING WITH NEW AND REVISED NUMERIC WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND ARINLINALLY IN THE BILL WHEN WE TOOK THE WHAT I CALL THE STEIN MEMO AND PUT IT INTO THE BILL; WE FORGOT TO INCLUDE NUMERIC AND POINTED OUT BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY SO A GOOD CATCH ON THEIR PART AND WHY PART THE DE PUTS THE NUMERIC PROVISIONS IN THERE. ALSO WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT LAST NIGHT IN THE LEGISLATIVE WATER COMMISSION THIS WAS I THINK THERE ARE 4 [INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] I THINK THIS WAS PROVISION NUMBER 2THALITY IS RECOMMENDED BY THE LEGISLATIVE WATER COMMISSION. TFS DISCUSSED LAST NIGHT IN THE WATER COMMISSION BY MR. STARK. SUBDIVISION 5; MR. CHAIRMAN IS YOU HAVE SEEN BEFORE IT IS HOUSE FILE 2802 ON THE GENERAL REGISTER WAS AUTHORED BY REPRESENTATIVE LUECK DEALING WITH 16 YEAR PERMITS FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS. THE DIFFERENCE HERE IS ON 5.17 AND IT ALSO INCLUDES INDUSTRIAL ALONG WITH MUNICIPAL. SAME WITH SECTION 6; MR. CHAIRMAN; IS REPRESENTATIVE BLISS’S HOUSE FILE 2940 ON THE GENERAL REJTER WE HAD THE DISCUSSION I THINK ON THURSDAY OF LAST WEEK; DEALING WITH LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL OF FEES FOR THE WATER FEES AT THE POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY AND FINALLY AGAIN MR. CHAIRMAN; SECTION 7 IN THE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE BOARD OF WATER AND SOIL RESOURCES; WE TALKED ABOUT IN LIEU FEE PROGRAM AND STARTING TO GO THROUGH AND SEEK APPROVAL ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL FOR ONE OF THOSE DEALING SPECIFICALLY WITH THE RED RIVER BASEGEN THE GREATER THAN 80 PERCENT COUNTIES; SO NORTHERN MINNESOTA AND DOWN A ALONG THE WESTERN BOARDER FOR THEM TO START A PLANNING FRAMEWORK AND THIS IS SIMILAR TO WHAT THEY ARE DOING NOW ON THE ST. CROIX RIVER SO THIS ALLOWS THEM TO START THAT PROCESS AND THEY OBTAIN FEDERAL APPROVAL THEY WOULD REPORT BACK TO YOU AND OTHER COMMITTEES WITH JURISDICTION OVER ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES. WITH THAT; MR. CHAIRMAN; I STAND FOR QUESTIONS.>>REPRESENTATIVE HANSON: THANK YOU MR. CHAIR AND MR. QUILLS. I’M TRYING TO KEEP TRACK WHAT WAS CHAMBER BILL 1.0 LAST YEAR AND CHAMBER BILL 2.0; SO WHAT IS DIFFERENT -I KNOW THERE WERE THINGS THAT MOVED LAST YEAR AND DIDN’T HAPPEN AND IS THIS JUST ANOTHER BITE AT THE APPLE? ARE THESE NEW CHAMBER PROPOSALS?>>MR. QUILLS: MR. CHAIRMAN; REPRESENTATIVE HANSON; TRYING TO THINK WHAT DIDN’T MAKE IT LAST YEAR THROUGH DISCUSSIONWISE WITH THE POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY AND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES; MOST OF THESE HAVE BEEN CONVERSATIONS THINGS THAT HAPPENED OVER THE INTERIM.>>REPRESENTATIVE HANSON: QUESTION A COUPLE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ON 3.23 CONVEYING OR CONDUCTING WATER OF THE STATE; SO WOULD THAT EXEMPTION APPLY IF YOU HAD A CONTINENTAL DIVIDE AND YOU WERE MIXING WATERS FROM DIFFERENT WATER SHEDS; WATER BASINS? WE HAVE FLEA CONTINENTAL DIVIDES; HERE; IF THERE WAS A DITCHING PROJECT MOVING WATER; THAT WOULD BE EXEMPTED FROM THE MPDS PERMIT?>>>>MR. SWILL IS: I NOTEDSED MR. LOTHAMMER IS BEHIND ME ON THE TESTIMONY AND IF I COULD I LIKE TO PHONE HER AS A FRND TO ANSWER THAT BECAUSE I DON’T WANT TO-I THINK SO; BUT SHE WOULD BE BETTER ANSWERING THAT THAN ME.>>CHAIR: MRS. LOTHAMMER AND IF ANGIE BECKER COULD BE ON DECK AS WELL. GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.>>MY NAME IS SHAN AN LATHAMMER ASSISTANT COMPLIGZ FOR WATER AT THE PLUNGZ CONTROL AGENCY AND I HAVE TESTIMONY FOR THE BILL AS A WHOLE; BUT SPECIFIC TO THE QUESTION ABOUT LINES 3.23 THE DELETE EVERY AMENDMENT. THE PROPOSED CHANGE IN THIS BILL AS MR. SWILLS TESTIFIED ALIGNED MINNESOTA LAW WITH A FEDERAL REGULATION THAT EXCLUDES WATER TRANSFERS FROM FEDERAL NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. MANY OF THESE ACTIVITIES DO HAVE PERMITTING THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES. SOME OF THE ACTIVITIES THAT FALL INTO THIS KIND OF CATEGORY ARE PERMITTED THROUGH DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES THROUGH THE WORK IN PUBLIC WATERS PERMITS AND OTHER PERMITS THAT THEY HAVE. THERE WAS A RECENT MINNESOTA COURT DECISION THAT REQUIRED MPDES PERMITS FOR WATER TRANSFERS BECAUSE MINNESOTA HAD NOT SPECIFICALLY ADOPTED THAT FEDERAL EXEMPTTION THAT EXISTS ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL. I SHOULD KNOW THAT FEDERAL EXEMPTION WAS CHALLENGED IN FEDERAL COURT AND THE COURT UPHELD THAT FEDERAL REGULATION EXEMPTION LAST YEAR; SO THAT HAS BEEN ADDRESSED ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL THROUGH THE COURT SYSTEM. IN MINNESOTA BECAUSE WE DIDN’T HAVE THAT SPECIFIC EXEMPTION MPDS PERMITS WERE IDENTIFIED AS BEING REQUIRED BY THE MINNESOTA COURTS. THIS BILL THEN WOULD ADDRESS THE FACT THAT FEDERAL EXEMPTION IS MISSING FROM MINNESOTA STATUTES AND RULES. THE POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY HAS NOT HISTORICALLY ISSUED MPDES PERMITS FOR WATER TRANSFERS LIKE THIS; SO THIS WOULD NOT CHANGE EXISTING PRACTICE. AGAIN; MANY OF THESE TYPE OF ACTIVITIES ARE COVERED BY DNR PERMITS. THE DNR THROUGH THEIR REGULATIONS IS ALREADY PROHIBITED ISSUING A PERMIT THAT WOULD CAUSE WATER QUALITY OR POLLUTION ISSUE JZ THE PCA PROVIDES TECHNICAL EXPERTISE AND REVIEW WHEN WATER QUALITY CONCERNS ARE RAISE BIDE THE DNR OR THIRD PARTIES FOR THOSE PERMITTED ACTIVITIES THE DNR IS CONSIDERING SO THIS BILL LANGUAGE FACILITATE LAKE AND STREAM MANAGEMENT TO ADDRESS WATER QUANTITY ISSUES WITH WITHOUT THE INTRODUCTION OF [INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] FOR EVALUATING ANY POTENTIAL WATER QUALITY CONCERNS TO MAKE SURE THOSE RUVOIDED AND FOR THAT REASON THE LANGUAGE IS ACCEPTABLE TO THE POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY.>>REPRESENTATIVE HANSON: THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. ON LINES 4.27 AND THINK A COUPLE WEEKS AGO I RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT PURPOSE STATEMENTS AND THE PURPOSE OF PURPOSE STATEMENTS AND THE PURPOSE OF EXTERNAL REVIEW IS EVALUATE WHETHER SUPPORT DOCUMENT BASED ON SOUND SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE. COULD YOU DESCRIBE SOUND SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE METHODS AND PRACTICES?>>MR. QUILLS: I WILL ASK SHANA TO GO THROUGH IT AGAIN ALSO BUT THINK LITERALLY WE PULLED OFF OF-IT WILL TAKE TIME TO FIND IT BUT THINK WE PULLED OFF -TRYING TO FIND IF IT IS DEFINED IN THE STEIN MEMO IN THE PACKETS DATED JULY 14.>>LOT PM HAMMER: IN THE MEMO THE COMMISSIONER ORDERED THE COMMISSION ISSUES LAST SUMMER IF YOU LOOK ON THE SECOND PAGE IT IS THE 1; 2; 3; 4TH DARK BULLET AND THE THIRD OPEN CIRCLE BULLET UNDER THAT AND THAT IS THE LANGUAGE THAT IS ALSO REFLECTED IN THE PROPOSED BILL AND THE PROPOSED BILL IS TAKING THE COMMISSIONERS ORDER AND PUTTING THAT INTO STATUTE. THE PCA IS SUPPORTIVE OF THAT PROPOSAL. THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT THE TYPE OF REVIEW IS ACTUALLY COMES FROM THE FEDERAL PEER REVIEW MANUAL THAT IS ISSUED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY THROUGH BOTH THE FEDERAL ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AGENCY AND THEN THERE IS A MEMO FROM OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. THEY DO RECOMMEND WHEN THERE IS SIGNIFICANT NEW SCIENCE OR NEW METHODS THAT BE SUBJECT TO INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW BEFORE THAT INFORMATION IS USED IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A REGULATION OR THIS CASE A WATER QUAELT STANDER. THE POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY RELIED ON PEER REVIEWED SCIENCE WHEN WE DEVELOP AND UPDATE WATER QUALITY STANDARD. WHAT THE INTENT OCH THE COMMISSIONER ORDER WAS AND STATED IN THE ORDER ITSELF IS TO ADD ADDITIONAL CLARITY AND TRANSPARENCY TO THAT PROCESS BY EXPLICITLY ISSUING A DRAFT TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT; PUT IT ON PUBLIC NOTICE AND THROUGH THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS. SO; THAT PROVIDES THE OPPORTUNITY FOR FURTHER PUBLIC NOTICE AND PARTICIPATION IN THAT PEER REVIEW PROCESS BY SEEING THE TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT AND PROVIDING FEEDBACK ON THE PEER REVIEW AND THEN THE GREATER TRANSPARENCY HOW PEER REVIEW IS CONDUCTED IN WATER KNAULT STANDARDS.>>REPRESENTATIVE WAGENIUS: MR. CHAIR; MRS. LOT THAMMER; YOUR CHOICE OF THE WORD SOUND [INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] SOUND SCIENCE 1990 IS GREAT FOR 1990; BUT NORMALLY PEOPLE WOULD SAY CURRENT SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE.>>MRS. LOTTHAMMER: WE USE THE MOST CURRENT AVAILABLE SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE. IN THIS CASE THE INTENT OF THE WORD SOUND AS I REMEMBER READING THE EPA MANUAL IS IT IS BASED ON GOOD PRACTICE FROM SCIENTIFIC BASIS THAT THE DATA THAT WENTD INTO THE DOCUMENT IS THERE IS GOOD QUALITY ASSURANCE AND CONTROL PRACTICE AND THE METHEDS USED FOR ANALYZING DATA AND STATISTICAL REVIEW ARE BASED ON ACCEPTABLE REVIEW PRACTICE; THAT IS THE INTENT OF THAT WORD SOUND BUT ABSOLUTELY WHEN WE DEVELOP AND UPDATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS WE RELY ON THE MOSTCURRENT AVAILABLE SCIENCE.>>REPRESENTATIVE HANSON: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. I UNDERSTAND IT TOOK THE LANGUAGE FROM COMMISSIONER ORDER; BUT IT APPEARS TO ME THE EFFECT OF ALL THIS IS WE HAVE PERPETUAL REVIEW AND NEVER HAVE A WATER QUALITY STANDARD EVER SET BECAUSE WHAT IT DOES IS IT INTERJECTS THE INTEREST INTO THE DECISION MAKING SO THAT YOU GET A DRAFT; PEOPLE COMPLAIN; CHANGE THE DRAFT; PEOPLE COMPLAIN; CHANGE THE DRAFT; PEOPLE COMPLAIN INTO INFINITY AND NOTHING WILL EVGET DONE. A LOT OF ECONOMMENT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE LEGAL TEAMS AND COMPILING THE EXPERTS; BUT THEN THE ENVIRONMENT SUFFERS BECAUSE WE NEVER GET TO A STANDARD; EVERYTHING WILL ALWAYS BE IN PERPETUAL REVIEW; SO I UNDERSTAND THE AGENCIES HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS. IT WILL LEAVE A LEGACY; MAYBE NOT THE ONE YOU ARE LOOKING FOR.>>REPRESENTATIVE TORKELSON: THANK YOU MR. CHAIR AND I’M NOT SURE WHAT STATE REPRESENTATIVE HANSON-GLOOM AND DOOM IS UNBELIEVABLE. THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS IS A IMPORTANT PROCESS THAT HAS BEEN UTILIZED IN PERMITTING FOR A LONG TIME; BUT WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST AND THAT HAPPENS AT THE VERY END OF THE PROCESS. REALLY IN MY MIND THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THIS WORK IS WE UTILIZE PEER REVIEW EARLIER IN THE PROCESS SO THE PROCESS CAN MOVE SMOOTHLY AND EFFICIENTLY RATHER THAN WAITING TO THE END AND MUCKING UP THE END OF THE PROCESS SO I APPLAUD THE COMMISSIONER AND THE AUTHOR OF THE BILL; I THINK IT IS A REALLY GOOD IDEA.>>REPRESENTATIVE HORNSTEIN: THANK YOU MR. CHAIR AND QUESTION FOR [INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] SECTION 3.23 TO 3.26. YOU MENTIONED IN THE TESTIMONY IT IS CLOSE TO BUT NOT VERBATIM OF THE FEDERAL LAW OR STANDARD; HOW IS THIS DIFFERENT?>>MR. QUILL IS: MR. CHAIRMAN I WILL ALSO ASK MRS. LOTT HP HAMMER BUT THINK THE FEDERAL EXEMPTION SAYS WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES AND THIS WILL SAY WATERS OF THE STATE.>>MRS. LOTTHAMMER: I DON’T HAVE THE FEDERAL EXEMPTION SO NEED TO COMPARE THE TWO.>>REPRESENTATIVE HORNSTEIN: IF IT ST. NOTHING SUBSTANTIVE THAT IS GOOD TO KNOW BUT SOMETIMEATHIZE SMALL ONE OR TWO WORDS CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE SO HELPFUL TO KNOW.>>CHAIR: THANK YOU.>>REPRESENTATIVE BECKER FINN: THANK YOU MR. CHAIR; AND I’M WONDERING IF THIS IS A QUESTION FOR MRS. L0TTHAMMER BACK TO THE PEER REVIEW SECTION->>CHAIR: WHAT SECTION?>>REPRESENTATIVE BECKER FINN: THE ADDITIONAL COST OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD; THERE IS STAFF AND TIME REQUIRED TO DO THAT; CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT.>>MRS. LOTT HAMMER… WE HAVE ESTABLISHED AS A BEST PRACTICE TO PUT OUT A DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT SO THERE ISN’T ANY ADDITIONAL COST ASSOCIATED WITH THAT COMPARED TO OUR BEST PRACTICE. WE HAVEN’T QUANTIFIED EXACTLY WHAT THE COST WOULD BE FOR THE PEER REVIEW PIECE BECAUSE IT IS VARIABLE DEPENDENT ON THE SCOPE OF THE PARTICULAR RULE MAKING. I THINK WITH A VERY SMALL RULE MAKING THAT DOESN’T HAVE A LARGE TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT IT WOULD BE POTENTIALLY AS SIMPLE AS SENDING OUT THEN THAT DRAFT TO TECHNICAL EXPERTS FOR THEIR REVIEW AND THINK THE COST WOULD BE NOMINAL; IT WILL BE BASED ON HOW MANY HOURS THEY NEED TO SPENLD. IF WE WERE TO GO FORWARD WITH A PANEL AND IN PARTICULAR IF IT WAS A PUBLIC PANEL LIKE WE DID VOLUNTARILY FOR THE WILD RICE RULE MAKING I THINK THE COST FOR THAT WE WORK WOULD A THIRD PARTY THAT TOOK CARE OF ALL THE ARRANGEMENTS AND THERE REMEMBER 5 REVIEWERS THAT TRAVELED TO MINNESOTA FOR THAT; I THINK THE TOTAL COST WAS ABOUT $120 THOUSAND FOR BUTT PERSONALLY HAVING BEEN INVOLVED IN THAT I THINK THOSE RESOURCES WERE VERY WELL SPENT BOTH TO ENHANCE THE TRANSPARENCY OF THE PROCESS AND WE ACTUALLY GOT VERY SIGNIFICANT TECHNICAL INFORMATION AND FEEDBACK FROM THAT PROCESS THAT REALLY DID IMPROVE THE FINAL PRODUCT THAT THEN WENT FORWARD THROUGH THE RULE MAKING PROCESS.>>REPRESENTATIVE BECKER FINN: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. I GUESS TO THAT OBVIOUSLY THRANZ PAERNS IS GOOD; THE PUBLIC HAVING OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT IS GOOD. I AM LOOKING AT LINE 4.22 THAT ALL THE COMMENTS MADE WILL BE AVAILABLE TO THE EXTERNAL PEER REVIEWERS SO IF THE PEER REVIEWERS ARE LOOKING AT THE SCIENCE REVIEWED HOW DO YOU IMAGINE-I READ THROUGH WHAT PUBLIC COMMENTS CAN LOOK LIKE AND TRYING TO FIGURE HOW YOU THINK THAT WILL-IF YOU CAN SPEAK HOW THAT WILL GET US TO A BETTER RESULT.>>MRS. LOTTHAMMER: THE WAY THIS WORKED OUT; THIS IS MODELED AFTER BOTH WHAT’SEN THE EPA PEER REVIEW HANDBOOK AND THE PROCESS WE FALLOWED FOR THE PEER REVIEW OF THE PRELIMINARY INFORMATION AROUND WILD RICE BUT FOR PEER REVIEW AND THIS IS LAID OUT IN THE EPA HANDBOOK REFERENCED IN THE LEGISLATION; THE STEPS ARE TO IDENTIFY THE INDEPENDENT EXPERTS THAT HAVEN’T BEEN INVOLVED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SCIENCE TO CONDUCT WITH REVIEW AND DEVELOP A CHARGE WHICH IS A SERIES OF QUESTIONS POSED TO THE PEER REVIEWERS SO THEY HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS THEY ARE RESPONDING TO AND THE QUESTIONS REALALLY SPEAK TO THE UNDERLYING SCIENTIFIC BASIS PART THE TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT. SO; IN THE EXAMPLE OF INWILD RUSE RULE MAKING WE HAD ABOUT A 3 OR 4 PAGE DOCUMENT THAT WAS SENT TO THE PEER REVIEWERS INDEPENDENT REVIEWERS THAT ASKED QUESTIONS LIKE; DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS ABOUT THE WAY THAT THE LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS WERE CONDUCTED ORE THE AGENCY IS PRELIMINARY DRAWING CONCLUSIONS OR PUTTING THIS INFORMATION TOGETHER; DO YOU THINK THAT IS A REASONABLE APPROACH BASED ON THE SCIENCE? THEN WE ALSO HAD PUBLIC COMMENT THAT WERE PROVIDED ABOUT THE CHARGE AND ABOUT THE TECHNICAL DOCUMENT AND WE ALSO INCLUDED THAT IN THE PACKET THAT WENT TO THE PEER REVIEWERS; THEIR CHARGE IS STILL FOCUSED ON THE QUESTION AND WE PROVIDED THAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IF THEY WANTED TO LOOK AT THAT SO THAT THEY HAD AT THAT THEIR DIZ POSAL FROM A TRANSPARENCY STANDPOINT AND EVALUATING THE COMMENTS SO THEY HAVE THE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS THEY RESPOND TO; THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDES CONTEXT AND TRANSPARENCY.>>REPRESENTATIVE BECKER FINN: IT IS INTERESTING YOU ARE TALKING SO MUCH ABOUT THE WILD RICE RULE MAKING AND THE PROCESS THAT YOU USE AND IT ALL SOUNDS GREAT AND I APPRECIATE THE SCIENCE BASED RESULTS THAT WE CAME TO; BUT THEN AS YOU KNOW; THE MAJORITY THE LEGISLATORS HERE REJECTED THE RESULT OF ALL THAT WORK AND TRANSPARENCY AND PUBLIC COMMENT AND SCINE AND SO MY CONCERN IS THAT IF WE ARE GOING TO PASS THIS BECAUSE WE THINK WE ARE GOING TO GET GOOD RESULTS; THEN WE AS A LEGISLATURE AND MEMBERS NEED TO-IF WE ARE GOING TO GO ALL IN ON THIS PROCESS THEN WE NEED TO RESPECT THE OUTCOME OF THAT PEER REVIEW AND THAT SCIENCE AND THAT TRANSPARENCY AND PUBLIC COMMENT; SO AGAIN; WHILE I APPRECIATE THE PROCESS THAT WENT INTO THAT; UNFOCHINATELY IT DIDN’T GET US TO A GOOD OUTCOME IN THE END AND SO THAT IS MY BIG CONCERN IF WE-I UNDERSTAND IT IS BEST PRACTICE; THAT’S GREAT; BUT IF WE ARE NOT VALUING FOLLOWING THE BEST PRACTICE I DON’T SEE WHAT THE POINT IS OF FORCING THIS PROCESS FOR EVERYTHING.>>CHAIR: REPRESENTATIVE BECKER FINN; THE ALG WAS INVOLVED IN THIS AS WELL. THAT WAS WHERE THE REJECTION OF THE RULE CAME FROM.>>REPRESENTATIVE BECKER FINN: ARE YOU HAPPY WITH INRESULT?>>CHAIR: THAT ISN’T THE POINT BECAUSE YOU SAID THE LEGISLATURE DID THAT.>>REPRESENTATIVE BECKER FINN: I SEE REPRESENTATIVE LUECK NODDING HIS HEAD; I THINK WE ALL KNOW WHERE FOLKS STANDS ON THAT.>>CHAIR: THANK YOU.>>REPRESENTATIVE TORKELSON: THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. I SEE THIS MEMORANDUM IS DATED JULY 14; 2017; SINCE THE COMMISSIONER ISSUED THE MEMORANDUM HAS THE AGENCY BEEN ABIDING BY THIS MEMORANDUM AND THE WORK?>>MRS. LOTTHAMMER: YES; WE HAVE NOT. WE HAVE NOT PUBLIC NOTICED ANY WATER QUALITY STANDARD BUT ARE IN THE PROCESS OF WORKING ON THE NUMERIC WATER QUALITY STANDARD AND PUTTING TOGETHER THE DETAILS ABOUT THE NEXT PROPOSED STANDARD THAT IS PUT ON PUBLIC NOTICE SO WE ARE REEDY TO START MOVING FORWARD TO MAKE SURE WE INCORPORATE THE PEER REVIEW DIRECTIVE FROM THE COMMISSIONER INTO THAT.>>REPRESENTATIVE TORKELSON: AND THE LANGUAGE IN THE BILL; DO YOU FEEL IT ACCURATELY REFLECTS THE MEMORANDUM?>>MRS. LOTTHAMMER: YES; I DO.>>REPRESENTATIVE TORKELSON: WE ARE PUTTING INTO STATUTE WHAT THE COMMISSION ALREADY PUT INTO FORCE BY THE MEMORANDUM.>>MRS. LOTTHAMMER: THAT IS THE CASE AND I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT WE RECOGNIZE DOING SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEW WON’T NECESSARILY TAKE AWAY THE CONTROVERSY OR CONCERNS OR QUESTIONS AROUND WATER QUALITY STANDARD DEVELOPMENT BUT THAT IS WHY THERE IS A THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT THAT INCLUDE PUBLIC COMMENT AND ADMIN STRAISIVE HEARINGS AND REPORT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE; THE INTEPT OF THE COMMISSIONERSORD ORDER IS PROVIDE ADDITIONAL TRANSPARENCY AND ADDITIONAL ASSERTION OR CLARITY TO MINNESOTANS THAT THE SCINE UNDERLYING THIS RULE MAKING PROCESS HAS BEEN REVIEWED INDEPENDENTLY. OFTEN THERE ARE MANY OTHER THICKS THAT GO INTO RULE MAKING SUBJECT TO CONCERNS AND COMMENTS AND THAT STILL REMAINS BUT THE REST THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS IS DESIGNED TO ADDRESS THAT.>>CHAIR: THANK YOU.>>REPRESENTATIVE WAGENIUS:>>CHAIR: YOU LOOK PRETTY ANXIOUS REPRESENTATIVE WAGENIUS.>>REPRESENTATIVE WAGENIUS: MR. QUILLS THERE SEEMS TO BE ASSUMPTION IN THE ROOM THIS IS THE MINNESOTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BILL; IS THAT CORRECT?>>MR. QUILLS: REPRESENTATIVE WAGENIUS IT IS REPRESENTATIVE FABIANS BILL AND SPEAKING IN SUPPORT ORPHHOUSE FILE 3120.>>REPRESENTATIVE WAGENIUS: IS IT WHOLLY SUPPORTED BY THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE?>>MR. QUILLS: REPRESENTATIVE WAGENIUS; MR. CHAIRMAN; YES; ALONG WITH THE POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY AND BOARD OF WATER AND SOIL RESOURCES.>>CHAIR: COMMISSIONER LOTTHAMMER YOU HAVE A COMMENT?>>REPRESENTATIVE WAGENIUS: I WANT TO LOOK AT SECTION 5 OF THE BILL AND I AM REPRESENTING FOLKS WHO DRINK MISSISSIPPI RIVER WATER; BUT THERE A LOT MORE THAN MY CONSTITUENTS THAT DO THAT; THERE ARE A MILLION MINNESOTANS THAT DRINK RIVER WATER; SPECIFICALLY A MILLION MINNESOTANS THAT DRINK RIVER WATER FROM THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI BASIN; AND SO THEY ARE FROM MINNEAPOLIS; ST. PAUL; LOTS OF SUBURBS AND ST. CLOUD; SO ABOVE THE DRINKING WATER SYSTEMS OF INTAKES OF MINNEAPOLIS AND ST. PAUL; SUBURBS; THERE ARE 203 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS. HOW MANY INDUSTRIAL BECAUSE YOU ADDED INDUSTRIAL PLANTS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS ARE THERE IN THIS UPPER MISSISSIPPI BASIN?>>MR. CHAIRMAN; REPRESENTATIVE WAGENIUS; BEFORE I ATTEMPT TO ANSWER REPRESENTATIVE WAGENIUS’S QUESTION I DON’T WANT TO IMPLY THE POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY AND BOARD OF WATER AND SOIL RESOURCES SUPPORT EVERYTHING ING THIS BILL. I THINK THAT IS WHERE MRS. LOTTHAMMER [INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] MR. CHAIRMAN; REPRESENTATIVE WAGENIUS; I DON’T KNOW; I CAN PROBABLY ASK THE POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY IN THAT WATERSHED NORTH OF THE TWIN CITIES HOW MANY OF THOSE ARE INDUSTRIAL AND HOW MANY MUNICIPAL. I CAN’T ANSWER THAT QUESTION BUT BET THEANCY AND BREAK IT OUT.>>REPRESENTATIVE WAGENIUS: THE 203 ARE MUNICIPAL IN ADDITION TO THAT THERE ARE INDUSTRIAL; SO IF YOU DON’T KNOW THE NUMBER THEN I’M ASSUMING YOU ALSO DONT KNOW HOW FAR UPSTREAM EACH OF THESE ARE FROM THE DRINKING WATER INTAKES FOR ST. CLOUD OR MINNEAPOLIS OR ST. PALM; DO YOU KNOW THAT?>>I DO NOT KNOW THE DEPTH OF EVERY SINGLE MPDES PERMIT FOR A INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE AND DISTANCE FROM A MUNICIPALITY; NO.>>REPRESENTATIVE WAGENIUS: I’M SORRY I THINK YOU FORGOT MY QUESTION; I’M LOOKING AT INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGERS; SO THE FIRST QUESTION ARE; HOW MANY ARE THERE UPSTREAM FROM DRINKING WATER INTAKES. THE QUESTION ONE AND APARNTLY YOU DON’T KNOW THE ANSWER; SO I’M ASSUMING YOU ALSO DON’T KNOW THE ANSWER TO HOW FAR UPSTHREEM ARE EACH OF THESE FACILITIES UPSTREAM FROM OUR DRINKING WATER INTAKES. IS THAT TRUE?>>MR. QUILLS: MR. CHAIRMAN; REPRESENTATIVE WAG NES; YES; I’M NOT FAMILIAR WITH EVERY DISCHARGE PERMIT IN THE STATE SO CAN’T COMMENT ON HOW MANY THERE ARE; BUT I CAN GET THAT INFORMATION. I’M SURE THE POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY HAS THAT AND WHAT THEIR EXACT DISTANCE IS FROM DRINKING WATER FACILITIES IN THE STATE I CAN’T COMMENT ON THAT; I WOULDN’T HAVE THAT INFORMATION.>>REPRESENTATIVE WAGENIUS: IF YOU DON’T KNOW THE NUMBER OR HOW FAR THEY ARE; YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT ADDITIONAL POLLUTANTS WE WILL GET IN OUR DRINKING WATER.>>MR. CHAIRMAN; REPRESENTATIVE WAGENIUS; THERE ARE A PROCESS THAT MRS. LOTTHAMMER TOUCHED ON ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT; FIRST OF ALL THE KEY HERE IS IN IT BOTH LUECK’S BILL AND THIS BILL TO THE EXTENT ALLOWABLE UNDER FEDERAL LAW; SO IF THE FEDERAL LAW DOESN’T ALLOW IT; WE CAN’T DO IT; AND IF WE APPLY FOR A PERMIT AND SOMEBODY DOESN’T-SOMEBODY OBJECTS THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PROCEDURES FOR THEM TO FOLLOW THROUGH THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD; A PUBLIC HEARING; A CONTESTED CASE TO CHALLENGE THE PERMIT AND NONE OF THOSE GO AWAY I THAT IS ESTABLISHED IN LAW.>>CHAIR: THAT IS IN THE BILL ON LINE 5.16; MEMBERS.>>REPRESENTATIVE WAGENIUS: YOI ARE MAKING THE ASHUMPTION THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS PROTECTING OUR DRINKING WATER. I DON’T THIS CAN THERE IS PERSON IN MINNESOTA RIGHT NOW THAT WOULD MAKE THAT ASSUMPTION THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS PROTECTING OUR DRINKING WATER; SO WHAT I’M LOOKING AT AND UNFORTUNATELY THEY ARE NOT; SO THAT DOES NOT GIVE ME ANY COMFORT SO THE QUESTION IS; WE NEED TO KNOW NOT ONLY HOW MANY-THAT IS THE SMALL ISSUE; HOW FAR THEY ARE NORTH OF OUR DRINKING WATER INTAKES; THAT IS A BIGGER ISSUE BUT EVEN BIGGER IS WHAT ARE THE POLLUTANT THAT ARE DISCHARGED BY THESE INDUSTRIAL PLANTS; AND WHAT THIS DOES IS PRECLUDE ANY NEW REGULATION; SO FOR EXAMPLE; I KNOW THAT THE PCA HAS DONE RANDOM TESTING OF PHARMACEUTICALS IN OUR WATER BODIES INCLUDING OUR DRINKING WATER BODIES; AND FOUND THEY ARE OUT THERE IN HIGHER NUMBERS THEN PEOPLE WOULD HAVE EXPECTED; SO YOU ARE SAYING WITH THIS PROPOSAL THAT NOBODY SHOULD LOOK AT WHAT PHARMACEUTICALS ARE COMING INTO HAD DRINKING WATER AND SAYING LET’S NOT PROTECT KIDS AND THAT’S WHAT I’M WORRIED; LET’S NOT PROTECT KIDS FROM ADULT PHARMACEUTICALS; SO I’M REALLY DISAPPOINTED TO HEAR THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IS MAKING THIS PROPOSAL WITHOUT KNOWING ANY CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT THIS PROPOSAL WILL MEAN.>>REPRESENTATIVE UGLEM: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. MY QUESTION IS FOR THE CHAMBER HERE. GOING BACK TO THE STEIN MEMO ABOUT PEER REVIEW AND EVERYTHING ELSE; AND IT IS CODED THE SAME; THE GOAL OF PEER REVIEW IS OBTAIN INDEPENDENT REVIEW THE PRODUCT FROM EXPERTS WHO HAVE NOT CONTRIBUTED TO THE DEVELOPMENT. MR. QUILLS; DOES THAT ACTUALLY PRECLUDE INDUSTRY AND THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE DEVELOPED THE PRODUCT FROM CONTRIBUTING THEIR KNOWLEDGE BECAUSE THEY HAVE DONE ALL THE RESEARCH I EVERYTHING; DOES THAT RECLUDE THEM ENTERING INTO THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS?>>MR. QUILLS: I DON’T THINK SO; I THINK THE INTENT IS IF YOU ARE A ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT AND YOU HAVE GONE THROUGH TO HELP DEVELOP THOSE STANDARDS YOU ARE A ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER OR CONSULTANT AND GO GONE THROUGH YOU WOULD IN MY OPINION EXCLUDE FROM THE PEER REVIEW. I DON’T THINK IT EXCLUDES [INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] PUBLIC INPUT BUT THINK IF YOU A ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT TO HELP ESTABLISH A STANDARD THAT EXCLUDES YOURSELF FROM THE PROCESS.>>REPRESENTATIVE UGLEM: THAT IS FINE.>>REPRESENTATIVE METSA: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR; AND I GUESS ONGOING CONCERN I HAD I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE A GOOD PEER REVIEW PROCESS; BUT I HAVE A LITTLE DIFFERENT IDEA OF WHAT PEER REVIEW MEANS; I THINK THAT STEIN SHOULD BE ABLE OTO BE REPLICATED AND GUESS MY QUESTION IS IS THAT PROVEN THROUGH THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS?>>MRS. LOTTHAMMER: WE ARE BASING THE PEER REVIEW ON THE EPA AND OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET GUIDANCE AND THAT IS FOCUSED ON IS THERE IS A SOUND TECHNICAL BASIS. IT DOESN’T NECESSARILY MEAN HAS THE STUDIES BEEN REPLICATED EXACTY BUT HAVE THEY BEEN DONE USING SOUND SCIENTIFIC PRACTICE; ARE THE ANALYTICAL METHODS ACCEPTED PRACTICE; THOSE KIND OF THINGS AND THAT IS THE DEFINITION INCLUDED AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL AS WELL.>>REPRESENTATIVE METSA: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. SO; DOES THAT MEAN IF THERE WERE TWO CONFLICTING SCIENTIFIC REPORTS ON THE SAME INFORMATION I GUESS; WHAT DOES THE AGENCY DO AT THAT POINT IF ONE GROUP OF SCIENCE SAYS THIS IS THE OUTCOME WITH THE SAME PROCESS AND ANOTHER SAYS INTERNAL OUTCOMES IS DIFFERENT; WHAT HAPPENS THEN?>>MRS. LOTTHAMMER: IF YOU ARE ASKIC IF THERE ARE TWO EQUALLY PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFICLY VALED PATHWAYS OR RESULTS IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AGENCY AS THE DESIGNATED CLEAN WATER ACT IMPLEMENTER AND WITH OUR REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE FEDERAL CLEAN WATER ACT TO ADOPT WATER QUALITY STANDARD TO THEN MAKE A DETERMINATION AS TO WHICH OF THOSE BEST REFLECTS THE REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT OF PROTECTING THE BENEFICIAL USE OF THE REASON WE ARE ADOPTING A STANDSERED IN THE FIRST PLACE AND MOVE THAT FORWARD THROUGH THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS AND THAT IS WHAT THE ADMINISTRATE RFB PROCESS IS SO IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT PROVIDES THE INPUT TO WEIGH IN ON THE BENEFICIAL USE BECAUSE THERE ARE TIMES WHEN THERE IS SCIENCE IN CONFLICT AND IT IS CREDIBLE SCIENCE BUT KPIGZS NEED TO BE MADE ABOUT WHAT OF THAT SCIENTIFIC BODY SORT OF IS THE BEST REFLECTION OF WHAT IT IS THAT WE ARE CHARGED WITH ACCOMPLISHING AND THERE IS NOTICE AND PUBLIC COMMENT AROUND THAT.>>CHAIR: REPRESENTATIVE FISHER.>>REPRESENTATIVE FISHER: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR; FOR MRS. LOTTHAMMER; WHEN THE MEMO IS ISSUED HOW MUCHCHANGED THE CURRENT PRACTICE OF THE AGENCY?>>MRS. LOTTHAMMER: THE MEMO WAS PUTTING SOLIDIFYING A BEST PRACTICE EMERGING THROUGH THE AGENCY. AGAIN; WE ALWAYS RELIED ON PEER REVIEWED SCIENCE; BUT OFTEN THE WAY WE HAVE DONE THAT IS THROUGH SUBMITTING JOURNAL ARTICLES FOR PUBLICATION IN PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS; SO THOSE ARTICLES GO THROUGH REVIEW BEFORE THEY ARE ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION. WE HAVE ALSO RELIED ON EPA IN THEIR OVERSIGHT AUTHORITY OVER OUR WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ADOPTION DOING PEER REVIEW BEFORE THEY THEN DECIDE TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE A PROPOSED STANERED BUT WE HAVE DIN DEVELOPING THIS PROCESS NOW OF DWEMING A TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT AND MAKING THAT AVAILABLE BEFORE MOVING INTO THE FORMAL RULE MAKING PROCESS. WHAT THIS DOES IS IT SOLIDIFIES THAT PRACTICE AND REQUIRES THAT WE PUBLIC NOTICE THAT NOT JUST PUT IT ON THE WEBSITE BUT DO A PUBLIC NOTICE AND THEN ALSO THAT WE EXPLICITTY CONDUCT THAT PEER REVIEW AT THAT TIME. AGAIN; THAT DOES A COUPLEAL OF THINGS; IT REINFORCE THE TRANSPARENCY AND MAKES SURE THE PEER REVIEW HAPPENS WITH THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO FOLLOW IT AND ALSO IT HAPPENS EARLIER IN THE PROCESS THEN FOR EXAMPLE IF IT IS EPA PEER REVIEW THAT HAPPENS BEFORE WATER QUALITY STANDARD PROPOSAL IS APPROVED OR DISAPPROVED SO ADDS THAT TRANSPARENCY; IT ADDS THAT EARLIER FEEDBACK; IT RECOGNIZING WHERE WE ARE MOVING TOWARDS AS A BEST PRACTICE BUT REALLY KIND OF PUTS THAT MORE SOLIDLY IN PLACE.>>REPRESENTATIVE FISHER: THANK YOU MR. CHAIR; THAT HELPS; SO JUST MAKING SURE I RESTATE IT PROPERLY; AS I’M HEARING YOUR EXPLANATION THIS IS THE DOCUMENT FINALIZE THE EVOLUTION OF WHAT THE AGENCY WAS GOING THROUGH INCREASING TRANSPARENCY AND MAKING CLEAR TO PEOPLE HOW WE ARE DOING THIS PROCESS ACROSS THE LAB. THANK YOU; THAT IS VERY HELPFUL. I GOT ANOTHER QUESTION IN ANOTHER SECTION AND NOT TOO SURE HOW TO DIRECT THIS TO. THIS GOES TO SECTION 105 THE AFFLUENT LIMIT PART AND AS I LOOK AT THIS; THIS FEEL AS LITTLE LIKE THE LUECK BILL WE SAW EARLIER; AND I’LL JUST EXPRESS MY CONCERN I HAD BEFORE ON THAT ONE; IS I HAVE CONCERNS GIVING THE 16 YEAR FOR THE MUNICIPALTIES AND OPEN TO THE POINT AND LOOKING AT LANGUAGES SAYING IF WE REQUIRE 16 YEAR WE HELP PAY AND WORK WITH THE MPCA TO FIGURE THAT OUT SO I DO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THAT SECTION OF THAT ONE THERE.>>CHAIR: TO THAT POINT THIS IS THE LUECK-THAT IS STATED HERE; BUT TESTIFIERS.>>MRS. LOTTHAMMER: I WONDER IF IT MAKES SENSE TO FINISH OUT THE REST THE TESTIMONY FROM THE AGENCY SINCE IT WILL TOUCH ON THAT PIECE? I WANT TO POINT OUT THE AGENCY IS-WE SUPPORT THE LANGUAGE IN SECTION 3 ABOUT THE WATER TRANSFERS EXEMPTION AND SUPPORT THE LANGUAGE IN SECTION 4 ABOUT THE EXTERNAL PEER REVIEW AND THEN MOVING TO SECTION 5 WHICH IS THE AFFLUENT LIMIT COMPLIANCE I DO WANT TO NOTE THAT AS DISCUSSED THE LANGUAGE IS SIMILAR TO LANGUAGE PASSED LAST YEAR AND THE POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY WAS NEUTRAL ON THAT LANGUAGE LAST YEAR AND WE ARE NEUTRAL ON THIS LANGUAGE WITH THE ONE EXCEPTION WE DO OPPOSE THE INCLUSION OF INDUSTRIAL PERMITEES IN THE LANGUAGE. THAT LANGUAGE WASN’T OR THE PREVIOUS LANGUAGE FROM LAST YEAR DIDN’T INCLUDE INDUSTRIAL PERMITEES. THE REASON THE AGENCY HAS CONCERN ABOUT INDUSTRIAL PERMITEES IS BECAUSE UNDER THE FEDERAL CLEAN WATER ACT LOOKING AT AFFORDABILITY CONSIDERATIONS THERE ARE DIFFERENT TOOLS USED AND GUIDANCE PROVIDED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY FOR LOOKING AT PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS; MUNICIPAL PERMITEES COMPARED TO INDUSTRIAL PERMITEES SO WHILE WE FEEL VERY COMFORTABLE WE ARE ABLE TO IMPLEMENT THE LANGUAGE CONSISTENT WITH THE CLEAN WATER ACT FOR MUNICIPAL PERMITEES; WE DO HAVE MORE CONCERN WITH INDUSTRIAL PERMITEES AND THEREFORE THAT IS WHY WE OPPOSE THAT INDUSTRIAL INCLUSION.>>CHAIR: WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCE IN THE STANDARDS BETWEEN INDUSTRIAL AND MUNICIPAL?>>MRS. LOTTHAMMER: THE WATER QUALITY STAPDERED IS THE SAME; THE DIFFERENCE IS THE TOOLS THAT ALLOW TO CONSIDER THINGS LIKE AFFORDABILITY FOR MUNICIPAL PERMITEES IT IS STRAIGHT FORWARD BECAUSE WE LOOK AT THINGS LIKE MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND DEBT SERVICES LOAD THAT A MUNICIPALITY IS UNDERTAKING IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY. IT ISN’T THE CASE WE CAN’T LOOK AT THOSE THINGS FOR INDUSTRIAL PERMITEEATIZE IS JUST MORE COMPLICATED SO THE 16 YEAR TIMEFRAME BECOMES POTENTIALLY MORE CHALLENGING IN THAT ENVIRONMENT SO THAT IS THE BASIS OF OUR CONCERN.>>CHAIR: PROCEED.>>MOVING TO SECTION 6 WHICH IS REGARDING PERMIT FEES; AGAIN THIS LANGUAGE IS SIMILAR TO LANGUAGE IN A SEPARATE BILL MOVING THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE. THE AGENCY DOES OPPOSE THE LANGUAGE REGARDING PERMIT FEES FOR TWO KEY REASONS. FIRST OF ALL; THE COMMISSIONER BELIEVES THE LEGISLATURE DOES HAVE EFFICIENT OVSITE OF THE AGENCY ALREADY; BETHEREARE MANY TASKS IN EXISTING FOR LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT INCLUDING COMMITTEE HEARINGS RKSS APPROPRIATION; REPORTING REQUIREMENTS; AUDITS BY THE LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR AND ALSO DIRECT COMMUNICATION. AND THEN SECONDLY; OUR WATER PROGRAM FEES HAVE NOT BEEN COMPREHENSIVELY ADDRESSED SINCE 1992. THERE IS DISCUSSION ABOUT OVER THOSE YEARS BUT IT HAS NEVER BEEN COMPREHENSIVELY RESOLVED OR ADDRESSED. DURING THAT SAME TIME WE HAVE SEEN NEW REQUIREMENTS PLACED ON THE AGENCY AROUND WATER AND ALSO OUR GENERAL FUND DOES A PERCENTAGE OF OUR OVERALL FUNDING FOR WATER TESTS HAVE STEADILY DECLINED AND RECEIVED NO INFLATIONARY INCREASE OF THE WATER FEES SINCE 1992; SO ALL OF THIS HAS ACTUALLY LED THE COMMISSIONER TO REACHING OUT THIS PAST SUMMER TO STAKEHOLDERS WITH PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS ABOUT WATER FEES. WE RECEIVED A LOTF COMMENT AND LOT OF INTEREST IN THIS; AND AS A RESULT AND RESPONSE TO THOSE COMMENTS THE COMMISSIONER DIRECTED OUR STAFF TO SET UP A ADVISORY COMMITTEE WHICH IS THE WATER FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE UNDER CHAPTER 14.101 TO ADVISE ON HOW BEST TO ADDRESS THE STRUCTURAL IMBALANCE AND CONCERN WITH WATER FEES. THAT GROUP HAS BEEN MEETING REGULARLY MONTHLY SINCE JANUARY. THEY HAVE A CUCHAL MORE MEETINGS SCHEDULED AND THE COMMISSIONER WILL CONSIDER THE RECOMMENDATIONS. JUST A EXAMPLE OF HOW WE ARE TAKING STRIDES TO GET INPUT ON THE PERMIT FEES AND CONSIDER THOSE BUT WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE LANGUAGE IN AND IN OPPOSITION OF THE LANGUAGE IN SECTION 6. WITH THEN I CONCLUDE MY COMMENTS AND HAPPY TO RESPOND TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.>>CHAIR: THANK YOU. I LIKE TO GO TO MRS. CUDEL CUCOME DOWN AND GET BACK TO REPRESENTATIVE WAGENIUS AND HANSON. WHILE YOU STEP AWAY I WANT TO GO BACK TO IN 15 WHEN THE ISSUE OF WATER FEES CAME TO THE LEGISLATURE AND PCA SAID WE DONT HAVE THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND NOW YOU ARE SAYING WE DO SO TRYING TO CLARIFY THINGS AND SURE THE DISCUSSION WILL CONTINUE. GOOD MORNING; IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD.>>ANGIE BECKER ASSISTANT DIRECTOR WITH BOARD OF WATER AND SOIL RESOURCE. THE DE2 ADDRESS THE CONCERN OF THE AGENCY INCLUDING SECTION 103B AND G. NOW THAT THE BILL READS IN A WAY THAT SUPPORTS THE WET LAND BANKING PROCESS TO KEEP THE PROGRAM FUNCTIONING SO PUBLIC AND IVROOT WET LAND USERS HAVE ACCESS TO THIS PROGRAM. FURTHERMORE; SECTION 2 POIDS DIRECTION TO THE AGENCY ON AGENCY COSTS; OUR BOARD WET LAND COMMITTEE MET ON MARCH 19 AND RECOMMENDING A METHODOLOGY FOR HOW TO BASE COST TO HAD AGENCY AND THAT IS MOVING FORWARD TO OUR FULL BOARD THIS WEEK. SO; THE DE2 ADDRESSES AGENCY CONCERNS. THANK YOU.>>CHAIR: GOOD. WE COULD GO TO WET LAND BANK ISSUES HERE TOO; BUT WREEL RR TALK OFFLINE. WE ARE GOING BACK TO REPRESENTATIVE HANSON.>>REPRESENTATIVE HANSON: THANK YOU MR. CHAIR AND I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT FOR MINNESOTANS TO PAY ATTENTION TO HOW REGULATORY CAPTURE OCCURS. BILL BY BILL; ACT BY ACT FOLLOWING UP ON REPRESENTATIVE UGLEM; SO I WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO SUPPORT THIS IF IT ACTUALLY HAD INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW; IF THE UNIVERSITIES BY PUBLICLY FUNDED SCIENCE THAT COULD BE USED TO EVALUATE; BUT OFTEN THE SOUND SCIENCE THAT WAS ALLUDED TO EARLIER IS THE SCIENCE PEOPLE AGREE WITH OR THE SCIENCE THAT INTERESTS PAY FOR AND SO INTEGRATING THAT AND I UNDERSTAND THE AGENCY SUPPORT THIS AND UNDERSTAND THE PRESSURE THEY ARE UNDER; BUT IT SEEMS IN BILL AFTER BILL WE INTEGRATE IN STEPS TOWARD REGULATORY CAPTURE WHERE THE OUTCOME REPRESENTATIVE TORKELSON; IT IS DOOM AND GLOOM; LOOK AT THE STATE OF OUR WATERS. HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF PUBLIC MONEY SPENT T IS ALWAYS THE PUBLIC THAT HAS TO PAY THE CLEAN-UP COSTS; AND SO WE TAKE ACTION AND ACT AS IF IT HAS NO CONSEQUENCES; THAT PUTTING IN THESE PROCESSES HAS NO EFFECT ACCEPT TO MAKE PEOPLE HAPPY THAT-LET ME NOT SAY PEOPLE; INTERESTS HAPPY THAT THEY ARE INVOLVED AND CAN CONTINUALLY BE CAMPED OUT AT THE AGENCIES WORKING ON CHALLENGING EVERY TIME THERE IS A PROPOSAL MADE TO PROTECT PUBLIC WATERS; PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH; THERE IS ALWAYS A COST LIKELY TO COMMERCE AND COMMERCE DOESN’T LIKE THAT. WE USED TO FUND SIGNIFICANTLY OUR PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES; BUT NOW OUR PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES ALSO HAVE TO GO TO PRIVATE INTEREST TO GET FUNDING AS WELL; SO EXTERNAL PEER REVIEW CAN MEAN ONE THING OR IT COULD MEAN ANOTHER AND THE PRACTICAL IMPACT IS THAT THE PEOPLE WITH RESOURCES WILL BE THE PEOPLE THAT CAN PROVIDE THE EXTERNAL PEER REVIEW AND THE PEOPLE WITH RESOURCES MAY NOT HAVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST; THEY MAY HAVE THE PRIVATE INTEREST INVOLVED AND THERE IS A BALANCE IN TERMS OF MAKING SURE WHAT IS PERFECT OR WHAT IS RIGHT OR WHAT’S SOUND FOR MINNESOTA OR THE COUNTRY. I’M NOT CONFIDENT WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BEING THE BACK-STOP ON WATER QUALITY PROTECTION WITH THE WRECKAGE THAT WILL BE DONE BY THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.>>CHAIR: OKAY.>>REPRESENTATIVE WAGENIUS: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU FOR YOUR WISE REMARKS; REPRESENTATIVE HANSON. FROM MRS. LOTTHAMMER’S TESTIMONY; SHE SAID THAT WITH REGARD TO WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS AND DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF COST TO MUNICIPALITIES AND I THINK YOU FIND CONSENSUS AROUND THIS TABLE THAT WE ARE ALL CONCERNED ABOUT THE COST TO MUNICIPALITIES; AND ALSO CERTAINLY I CAN ONLY SPEAK FOR MYSELF WILLINGNESS TO PAY AND TO SET ASIDE MONEY UP FRONT TO HELP WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS THAT MAY NEED TO BE UPGRADED BECAUSE OF NEW REGULATION. THAT’S FINE; BUT WHAT I DID NOT HEAR MR. LOTTHAMMER SAY AND SURE SHE’LL CORRECT ME IF I’M WRONG BUT WHAT I DID NOT HEAR HER SAY IS THAT SHE KNEW WHAT ADDITIONAL POLLUTANTS GO UNRUGULATED; WHICH ADDITIONAL POLLUTANTS WOULD GET INTO OUR DRINKING WATER BECAUSE WE THE MILLION MINNESOTANS DRINK MISSISSIPPI RIVER WATER. THERE ARE 203 WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS NORTH OF THE INTAKE; SO WE DON’T KNOW; SO I AM JUST AS I AM WORRIED ABOUT THE SAME THINGS REPRESENTATIVE HANSON IS WORRIED ABOUT; IT DOES SEEM TO ME THAT PRACTICLY SPEAKING WE CAN COME TO CONSENSUS AROUND THE TABLE WHAT TO DO WITH THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM BECAUSE IT IS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY. SO; I WOULD HOPE SINCE THIS IS YOUR BILL; MR. CHAIR; THAT YOU WOULD SOLVE THAT PROBLEM BEFORE THIS BILL GETS TO THE FLOOR.>>CHAIR: THANK YOU. JUST A COUPLE QUICK COMMENTS BECAUSE IT IS DIRECTED TOWARD ME. THE IDEA THAT THIS IS JUST ABOUT BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL; NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. I HAD MANY MANY MANY CITIES; MAYORS COUNSM RR PEOPLE COME TO ME OVER THE LAST 2 TO 4 YEARS TALKING ABOUT PEER REVIEW AND USING GOOD SCIENCE; AND TALKING ABOUT COST BENEFIT. SPENDING $52 MILLION IN ONE CITY TO REDUCE WHAT IS GOING OUT BY A VERY VERY SMALL FRACTION. DOES IT GET TO THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEMS? WE ALL CARE ABOUT WATER; WE ALL CARE ABOUT COSTS; WE CARE ABOUT GOOD SCIENCE AND THIS IS JUST ANOTHER STEP ALONG THAT PATH TO TRY TO GET TO A BETTER PLACE FROM MY PERSPECTIVE AND I RESPECT THE OPINIONS OF PEOPLE AT THIS TABLE AND IN THE BUILDING AND ACROSS THE STATE OF MINNESOTA; BUT I HAVE LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS OF PEOPLE COME AND TALK TO ME ABOUT WHAT’S GOING ON WITH REGARDS TO HOW WE GET TO A WATER QUALITY STANDARD AND HOW MUCH WILL IT COST AND HOW MUCH BENEFIT WILL WE GET OUT OF THAT AND WE HAVE TO FACE THEERALTY AS MY FORMER REPRESENTATIVE [INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] USED TO SAY THERE ISN’T ENOUGH MONEY IN THE STATE DO DO WHAT SOME WANT TO DO SO WITH THAT WE’LL GO TO REPRESENTATIVE CLARK JOHNSON.>>REPRESENTATIVE CLARK JOHNSON: I’M TRYING TO DECERTAIN THE TESTIMONY FROM BOWSER AND MPCA WITH RELATE D TO THE FEES AND COST OF THEIR WORK AND WHAT STRUCK ME WAS THAT BOWSER WAS ABLE TO WORK WITH THE PEOPLE THEY WORK WITH AND IN THE BILL THEY ARE CERTIFIED SATISFIED IF I HEARD THIS CORRECTLY WITH THE FEE STRUCTURE. I ALSO HEARD MPCA HAS HAD THEIR FEES ADDRESSED SINCE 1992. I SAT ON THIS COMMITTEE A NUMBER OF YEAR JZ IT IS CLEAR THEY ARE CHALLENGED FINANCIALLY. I ALSO HEARD THEY ARE WORKING WITH A GROUP MAYBE WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THAT GROUP TO COME TO A RESOLUTION OF THIS. I THINK THE REALTY IS IT IS PRETTY CLEAR THEY ARE SHORT ON FUNDING AND SO MY QUESTION IS REALLY FOR YOU REPRESENTATIVE FABIAN AND WORK WITH THEM TO FIND A WRAY SO THEY CAN BE FUNDED AND DO THE WORK? MINNESOTANS WANT CLEAN WATER; NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT AND THE MPCA IS DIRECTLY INVOLVED WITH THAT; MY FEAR WHEN WE GET INTO LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT WE HAVE SEEN POLITICAL [INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] THAT IS EXPERIENCE OVER 6 YEARS AND MULTIPLE ANGLE JZ ONCE WE GET THERE THERE ST. THE RISK OF MPCA NOT ABLE TO LOOK FORWARD TO THE SORT OF FUNDING THEY NEED TO DO THEIR WORK; SO AGAIN; MY QUESTION FOR YOU; HAVE UYOU LOOKED AT A WAY TO MANAGE THIS DIFFERENTLY IN THE BILL SO THE MPCA HAS THE FUNDING TO DO THE PUBLIC WORK?>>CHAIR: A QUESTION FOR YOU IS HOW LONG IS THIS PERCEIVED SHORTAGE OF FUNDING BEEN IN EXISTENCE AT THE MPCA?>>[INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] ALL I KNOW IS FOR 6 YEARS IS I HAVE HEARD THIS FOR 6 YEARS AND IN PARTICULAR THE LAST 4 YEARS.>>CHAIR: I RECOGNIZE WE ARE IN A OFTEN TIMES IN A POLITICAL PLACE BUT IN 2013 CHAIR WAGENIUS WAS IN CHARGE OF THIS COMMITTEE AND THINK THAT POTENTIAL WAS THERE. WHAT I ASKED FOR FROM MPCA IS JUSTIFICATION FOR RACING THE FEES AND QUITE FRANKLY AND R-Y HAVEN’T SEEN THAT AND IF OTHER MEMBERS HAVE THAT WOULD BE NEWS TO ME. WE ARE LOOKING FOR SOUND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AT THE MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY AND WE TRY TODAY WORK WITH THEM ON A VARIETY OF ISSUES AND IF THEY WANT TO COME INTO MY OFFICE AND TALK ABOUT THE THINGS OR STAND IN THE HALL WAY SO PEOPLE CAN LISTEN TO THE CONVERSATIONS I’M OKAY WITH THAT TOO.>>REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: THANK YOU; REPRESENTATIVE FABIAN; I WOULD SAY I ENCOURAGE YOU TO RECONCILE THAT AND ALSO ON A LARGER ISSUE WHAT I FEEL WITH THIS BILL IS THERE A NUMBER OF PROVISIONS IN HERE THERE IS AGREEMENT FOR; WE HEARD THAT FROM THE AGENCIES; AND IT SEEMS TO ME I ASSUME YOU GET THE E-MAILS I GET FROM CONSTITUENTS THEY LIST ONE BILL AND ONE CONCEPT AT A TIME. THERE MAY BE A EXAMPLE THEY AREBRIING TOGETHER ISSUES WITH PUBLICLY SUPPORTED ISSUE CREATES A PROBLEM FOR THE BILL. HAVE YOU CONSIDERED SPLITTING THE BILL UP SO IN THE AREAS WHERE THERE IS AGREEMENT-I THINK WE SHOWED ON THE FLOOR YESTERDAY WE CAN ACT PAST FAST ON THE HOUSE FLOOR WHERE THERE IS AGREEMENT AND HAVE YOU CONSIDERED THAT?>>CHAIR: UP TO THIS POINT I HAVE NOT; NO.>>WE HAVE ANOTHER PERSON TO TESTIFY.>>REPRESENTATIVE CLARK: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIRMAN. I THINK MAYBE MRS. LOTTHAMMER SHOULD COME UP. THANK YOU PLRKS CHAIRMAN. I WONDER WHEN YOU SAID ONE THE IMPORTANT DISTINCTIONS WITH THE FEDERAL STANDARDS VERSUS WHAT IS PROPOSED HERE IS THAT THE FEDERAL ECS PA STAPDARDS DOES THE TOOL THEY USE ALLOWS FOR LOOKING AT THE HOUSE HOLD INCOME AND TAX BASE AND THIS WOULD NOT; DID I UNDERSTAND THAT CORRECTLY?>>MRS. LOTTHAMMER: WHAT I WAS SPEAKING TO IS THAT WHEN WE ARE EVALUATING HOW QUICKLY FACILITY NEEDS TO COME INTO COMPLINETS WITH NEW STANDARDS THE TERM IS THE FEDERAL TERM IS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE; AND UNDER EPA GUIDANCE ONE THING WE CAN CONSIDER WHEN WE LOOK AT THINGS LIKE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO GET FINANCING IN PLACE AND DEVELOP PLANS AND SPECK FRZ A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT AND WHEN YOU ADDRESS A FACILITY ONE QUESTION IS LOOKING THAT DEBT LOAD TO THE COMMUNITY AND AFFORDSABILITY OR IMPACT OF THAT DEBT LOAD. THAT IS WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO QUH I WAS SPEAKING TO THIS PART HOF BILL.>>REPRESENTATIVE CLARK: IF I REMEMBER THE EARLIER DISCUSSION A REASON FOR THE BILL IS SO THE LOCAL FOLKS CAN DEAL WITH THE COST OF A UPGRADE. I’M SURE YOU WOULD CARE ABOUT THAT; SO IT SEEMS TO ME WE MIGHT WANT TO REVISIT PUTTING SOMETHING LIKE THAT BACK IN INTO THE BILL IF IT IS OUT AND THINK IT IS BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE COST TO THE LOCAL COMMUNITIES. THAT WAS A BIG THING. ONE OF THE THINGS ABOUT THE OTHER QUESTION S I HAVE IS WHAT IS SPECIAL ABOUT 16 YEARS; WHY IS THAT ENOUGH TIME FOR A LOCAL COMMUNITY? IS THERE A REASON FOR THAT NUMBER?>>CHAIR: I’M GOING TO DEFLECT TO REPRESENTATIVE LUECK; THAT IS HIS BILL.>>REPRESENTATIVE LUECK: THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. TWO REASONS; ONE; THERE IS A FUNDING ELEMENT THERE THAT HAS TO DO WITH 20 YEAR BONDS. THERE IS ALSO A ENGINEERING PROCESS THAT HAS TO DO WITH DESIGNING A SYSTEM TO FUNCTION WITHOUT MAJOR OVERHAUL OR REPLACEMENT FOR APPROXIMATELY 20 YEARS SO YOU HAVE TWO ELEMENTS THERE. YOU BUY A NEW CAR GET 100 THOUSAND MILE WARRANTY WITH IT; THAT WE TRY TO BUILD THINGS WITH THAT SAME MANNER ONLY ATTACH IT YEAR OR HOURS OF OPERATION TO IT; SO YOU GOT TWO ELEMENTS THERE. ONE; THAT DEBT URFBS AND WHAT IT COST; HOW LONG IT TAKES THE PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY TO PAY FOR THAT BEFORE YOU GOT TO CHANGE IT AGAIN; AND THE OTHER IS; WE LIKE NOT TO BUILD THINGS AND THEN IMMEDIATELY HAVE TO REPLACE THEM. WE LIKE TO GET THE USEFUL LIFE OUT OF THEM.>>IT SEEMS TO ME THIS COMES BACK TO THE QUESTION OF PAYING ATTENTION WHAT THE COMMUNITY CAN AFFORD WHICH I KNOEYOU ARE ATTUNE TO AND ASSUME REPRESENTATIVE LUECK IS ALSO BUT THINK DISCUSSION HAPPENED HERE ABOUT HELPING COMMUNITIES AHEAD OF TIME; HAVING ENOUGH MONEY IN THE FUND SO WE ARE DEAL WG THE FOLKS IT SEEMS THEN WE DON’T HAVE A WHOLE GENERATION WAITING FOR CLEAN WATER AND I GUESS I ASK AS YOU GO FORWARD WITH THIS BILL TO LOOK AT THAT BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ME THAT’S REALLY IMPORTANT. IF SOME OF WHAT IS GOING ON IS WE ARE NOT WILLING ENOUGH MONEY TO INVESH MONEY UP FRONT FOR A SMALL COMMUNITY IS BURDENED FOR 20 YEARS WE OUGHT TO CHANGE THAT AND OUGHT TO LOOK AT A DIFFERENT WAY TO UNDERSTAND HOW WE CLEAN UP THE WATER.>>CHAIR: THERE ARE SOME MEMBERS THAT THINK SMALL COMMUNITIES ARE GOING TO GO AWAY COMPLETELY. [INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] WOULD YOU PROCEED.>>GOOD MORNING; MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE. I’M MARK TIN IKE; FROM MINNESOTA ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCACY FOUNDED IN 1974 TO PRESERVE THE STATE’S ENVIRONMENT AND [INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] WE APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY TODAY AND WE APPROXIMATE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE DE AMENDMENT; PARTICULARLY THE PROVISION ON WATERSHED CREDIT EXCHANGE DISCUSSED AS TRADING. OUR ORGANIZATION HAS A FAIRLY LONG HISTORY OF BEING INVOLVED IN TRADING AND BELIEVES IT HAS GREAT PROMISE FOR THE FUTURE; IT NEEDS A LITTLE MORE DISCUSSION I THINK AND THERE ARE OTHER BILLS MOVING AND I THINK SOMETHING WILL COME OF THIS BUT WE ARE HAPPY TO SEE IT REMOVED FROM THIS BILL. HAVING SAID THAT; WE DO OPPOSE 3120 FOR SEVERAL REASONS; MANY OF WHICH IS DISCUSSED AND WON’T GO FL TO THEM DETAIL. FIRST IN SECTION 3 THAT OVERTURNS THE COURT OF APPEALS CASE ALLOWING WATERS TO BE TRANSMITTED FROM ONE WATER BODY TO ANOTHER WITHOUT A PERMIT. ALLOWING WATER TRANSFER WITHOUT A PERMIT IS POOR POLICY. NOT ALL WATERS OF THE STATE ARE THE SAME AND IN SOME CASES THE WATER CHEMISTRY OF THE TWO WATERS IS SO DIFFERENT THE WATER ITSELF A POLLUTANT SO WE HEARD ABOUT THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF TRANSFERS HERE TODAY SOME BY DNR; SOME TRAN SNDING WATERSHED BOUNDARIES. WE JUST THINK THIS NEEDS MORE THOUGHT BEFORE WE PROVIDE A BLANKET EXEMPTION; POSSIBLY SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE FOR NEW DISCHARGES; MAYBE EXISTING CONNECTIONS AND TRANSFERS BUT WE NEED TO THINK MAYBE A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT NEW TRANSFERS. IN SECTION 5 THERE IS A FAIR AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS WITH REFERENCE TO REPRESENTATIVE LUECK’S BILL; WHICH WAS HEARD EARLIER THIS SESSION. THIS EXPANDED TO INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES AND WE DISCUSSED THAT AT SOME LENGTH HERE. MCA HAS CONCERNS [INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] SECTION OF THE BILL. FINALLY; ON THE PCA FEES; MUCH OF WHAT WE HAVE-WHAT YOU HAVE IN TESTIMONY HERE IS DISCUSSED; BUT I POINT OUT ONE THING; THERE IS A FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT BACK-LOG OF PERMITTING AT THE PCA. PCA NEEDS RESOURCES TO CATCH UP ON THAT PERMITTING AND TO DO A EFFICIENT JOB GOING FORWARD; SO THIS SORT OF BOTTLENECKS ON THE PCA FEES. IT IS A ANTI-STREAMLINING MEASURE SO IF YOU VIEW THE CHAMBER BILLS OVER THE YEARS IT HAS STREAMLINING BILLS THIS IS ONE PIECE THAT DOESN’T QUITE FIT IN THAT NICHE. THANK YOU. STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS.>>CHAIR: THANK YOU.>>REPRESENT ATIVE JOHNSON: I LIKE TO REFER TO THE PART ON 3.23 TO 3.26; IF I RECALL TESTIMONY THIS MORNING IT WAS REFERRED TO AS THE DNR ISSUE. WE HAVEN’T HEARD FROM THE DNR ON THIS; I WOULD INVITE THEM TO GIVE US THEIR TESTIMONY. WE HEARD FROM MPCA BUT I BELIEVE MPCA ACKNOWLEDGED THIS IS MORE A DNR PERMITTING ISSUE.>>CHAIR: ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER. HOP ON DOWN ON THAT GIMPY KNEE.>>MR. CHAIR; BOB MYERS A[INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON CAN YOU REPEAT MY QUESTION?>>REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: I’M REFERRING TO SECTION 5 THE NEW LANGUAGE IN SECTION 5. IF I RECALL THE TESTIMONY EARLIER WAS THAT FROM THE PCA WAS THAT THESE ARE REALLY DNR PERMITS. TRANSFER OF WATER->>CHAIR: I THINK YOU ARE REFERRING TO SECTION 3; SUBDIVISION 5 IS THAT CORRECT? GIVE US THE LINES; PLEASE; CLARK.>>LINE 3.23-3.26.>>MR. CHAIR AND REPRESENTATIVES RECOLLECT MAYBE TO CLARIFY THE COMMENTS I PROVIDED EARLIER; SO THIS PROVISION IS BASICALLY WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT PERMITS SO THE DNR ALREADY PERMITS A LOT OF THE WATER TRANSFER ACTIVITIES ARE COVERED BY DNR PERMITS. WHAT THIS WOULD DO IS EXEMPT FROM ALSO REQUIRING A NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT FROM THE PCA; SO GO WITH JUST ONE PERMIT RATHER THAN REQUIRING BOTH THE DNR AND PCA. THERE ARE A FEW ACTIVITIES NOT COVERED BUT THE AGENCY HAS OTHER TOOL TOOZ USE IF THERE IS A CONCERN ABOUT WATER QUALITY THAT DOESN’T REQUIRE A [INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] PERMIT.>>CHAIR: WHICH GOES TO WHAT [INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] WHAT HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT; THOSE ARE NOT WELL FOUNDED BECAUSE WE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT AGENCIES HERE THAT DO REGULATE THE MOVEMENT OF WATER BETWEEN TWO BODIES.>>REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: THANK YOU FOR PL CHAIR AND THANK FRZ THE CLR FIICATION. MY FOLLOW UP THOUGH-REPRESENTATIVE HANSON RAISED ISSUES ABOUT TRANSFER OF WATER ACROSS THE CONTINENTAL DIVIDE. THAT IS SIGNIFICANT IN MY MIND. DO EETH OF THE AGENCIES HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THAT AND HOW ARE IS THAT SITUATION CURRENTLY ADDRESSED IF THERE IS MULTIPLE PRANCE BY THE DNR; HOY IS THAT PROTECTED NOW?>>CHAIR: TO THE TESTIFIERS.>>MRS. LOTTHAMMER: IF THERE IS A PUBLIC WATER WORK PERMIT REQUIRED FROM HAD DNR THERE ARE PROVISIONS IN THERE AND I’M NOT EXPERT ON THEIR RULES BUT MAKING SURE THERE ISN’T CREATED A WATER QUALITY OR NATURAL RESOURCES ISSUE BECAUSE OF THAT TRANSFER AND THEN UNDER THE-IN ANY CASE THE WATER QUALITY STANDARD ARE ALWAYS APPLICABLE AND UNDER THE POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY LEGISLATION AND STATUTE THERE ARE TOOLATHIZE AGENCY CAN USE IF THERE IS A VIOLATION OF WATER QUALITY STANDARD OR IMMINENT THREAT THAT WOULDN’T REQUIRE A PERMIT OR WE COULD STEP IN A PARTICULAR SITUATION BY SITUATION AND ISSUE A PERMIT; SO THE REASON THE AGENCY IS SUPPORTIVE OF THIS LANGUAGE IS BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER MECHANISMS IN PLACE TO ADDRESS THE CONCERN ABOUT WATER QUALITY.>>REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: THANK YOU MR. CHAIR; JUST TO BE CLEAR THE ISSUE OF INVASIVE SPECIES; WOULD YOU REPEAT-ARE YOU ALSO SATISFIED IN THAT REALM?>>MR. CHAIRMAN; REPRESENTATIVE [INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] THERE ARE RULES AND STATUTES IN PLACE IN RULE [INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] THAT CAUSE WATER POLLUTION WHICH INCLUDES IMPAIRMENT [INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] THAT WILL COVER THAT INVASIVE SPECIES CONCERN. OBVIOUSLY IT IS IS A CASE BY CASE BASIS DEPENDENT ON THE POLLUTION AND SITUATION BUT WE ARE DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN TO MAKE SURE THERE ARE WATER TRANSFERS THAT IT IS NEEDED AND DONE THE RIGHT WAY.>>CHAIR: ANYTHING ELSE?>>REPRESENTATIVE HANSON: THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. IS THERE A FISCAL NOTE REQUESTED AFTER THE DE?>>CHAIR: I BELIEVE THERE IS. YES.>>REPRESENTATIVE HANSON: I GUESS I ASK FOR ONE. I WOULD ASK FOR ROLL CALL. I HAVE A SECOND QUESTION THOUGH. DO YOU HAVE ANY INDICATION OF TARGETS; ARE YOU GETTING ANY TARGETS? I KNOW THAT REPRESENTATIVE METSA HAS A BILL FOR RESEARCH OR [INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] BE ADDITIONAL MONEY; ANY INSIGHT AS TO TARGETS FOR THIS COMMITTEE ?>>CHAIR: I DO NOT HAVE A TARGET BILL. MEMBERS; ANYTHING ELSE?>>REPRESENTATIVE HORNSTEIN: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. QUICK QUESTION. I’M BOTHERED BY THE ADDITION OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGERS AND PUT TO REPRESENTATIVE WAGENIUS QUESTION; I DON’T KNOW IF IT IS MRS. LOTTHAMMER OR MR. QUILLS BUT I LOICK SOME EXAMPLES OF WHAT-WHO ARE SOME OF THESE INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGERS? WHAT WOULD BE EXAMPLES OF THEM? I KNOW WE HAVE THE [INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] NORTH OF US THAT DISCHARGES WATER SO WHAT ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF THE->>MR. QUILLS; MAYBE MRS. LOTTHAMMER. WE HAVE TO GET WRAPPED UP.>>MR. CHAIRMAN RECOLLECT REPRESENTATIVE HORNSTEIN IT IS ANYONE THAT HAS A WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT SO ANY MANUFACTURER OR AGCULTTURAL OR AGRICULTURE PROCESSING FACILITY.>>DO YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC ONE?>>NOT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD; BUT I’M GOING TO ALSO INQUIRY THE AGENCY BECAUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE WAGENIUS QUESTION OF THE NUMBER AND DISTANCES FROM–>>CHAIR: THANK YOU. OKAY. WITH THAT; JUST MAKING SURE-GOOD. WITH THAT; ROLL CALL REQUESTED I WILL RENEW MY MOTION TO REREFER HOUSE FILE 3120 TO THE GENERAL REGISTER AS AMENDED. THE CHAIR VOTES AYE.>>HEINTZEMAN; AYE. HANSON; [INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] BACKER [INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] BECKER FINN; NO. BLISS; YES. CLARK; NO. ECKLUND; AYE. [INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] PASS. GREEN; AYE. HOPPE; AYE. HORNSTEIN; NO. JOHNSON; AYE. JOHNSON CLARK; NO. LAYMAN; YES. LUECK; [INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] METSA; AYE. NEWBERGER; AYE. POSTON; AYE. SUNDIN; NO. SWEDZINSKI; AYE. TORKELSON; AYE. UGLEM; YEP. WAGENIUS; NO. 16 AYE AND 7 NAYS THE BILL IS PASSED.>>REPRESENTATIVE METSA: I JUST DID WANT TO COMMENT EARLIER THIS YEAR WE DID HEAR A BILL THAT GIVE FUPD TOOG THE DNR AND MPCA TO WORK TOGETHER AND FUNDED IN 13/14 AND I APPRECIATE THAT HEARING BUT JUST TO THE GENTLEMEN WHO TESTIFIED EARLIER WE HAVE BEEN WORKING BIPARTISANLY ON THOSE ISSUE IN REGARD TO MAKING SURE [INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] I THIPG WE COULD BE DOING MORE AND HOPEFULLY WHEN WE GET OUR TARGETS WE CAN DO SOMETHING BUT WANT TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD.>>CHAIR: GOOD POINT. THANK YOU. WITH THAT; WE ARE ADJOURNED; MEMBERS. [MEETING ADJOURNED]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *