Earlier this year Governor Pawlenty announced a broad new initiative to address an issue near and dear to the hearts of many Minnesotans: the water quality of our lakes, rivers, and streams. The initiative is called The Clean Water Legacy Act, more mundanely known in the Minnesota House of Representatives as House File 826 and in the Minnesota Senate as Senate File 762.
The objective of the Clean Water Legacy Act (CWLA) is to improve the quality of our lakes, rivers, and streams. It is an environmental protection bill. The CWLA seeks to bring Minnesota into full compliance with the federal Clean Water Act of 1972. I don’t know why we are not in full compliance with a federal law adopted in 1972, but I’m told that we’re in about the same stage of compliance as most of other states.
It will come as no surprise to anyone that this bill is getting a lot of attention in the Minnesota Legislature this session. Minnesota is second only to the state of Alaska in the total number of miles of shoreline in our state. Clearly, the issue of clean water touches many of us. And although you won’t find an opposing force lobbying for “dirty waters” at the Capitol, you will find this bill is not going to sale through the House and Senate without debate or question.
The central focus of the CWLA is that it raises about $80,000,000 to fund environmental protection projects around the state which will produce tangible improvements to the quality of our public waters. That’s the deal. As I said, no reasonable person or organized group is opposed to cleaning up public waters. So what are they debating?
Who should pay?
One of the current principles of environmental law in this state is that the polluter pays for the clean up of the pollution that he or she created. The CWLA moves away from that principle by interjecting the government into the paying role. And by government, I mean taxpayers, because you are the ultimate source of our money.
How should the cost burden be distributed?
If the government is going to pay for environmental clean up, and pass the costs for the clean up along to taxpayers, how should that cost be distributed among various kinds of taxpayers? Should farmer who farms 2,000 acres pay more than one farming 400 acres? Should a city resident connected to a sanitary sewer system pay more than a rural resident connected to a septic tank? Should a carwash pay more than a manufacturing factory? Should a rich person pay more than a poor person? How exactly should this all be done? What’s fair?
Where should we start?
Where the clean up efforts begin? This is a huge question because it involves the flow of public money into certain projects which will benefit certain cities, counties, lakes, property owners, etc more than others. Right now, there is suspicion among metro interests that the majority of the money will be spent in Greater Minnesota. Among Greater Minnesota interests, they are pretty sure that all the money will go to the metro. Deciding what projects get funded will be a difficult political process to watch.
How should the money be collected?
This is the question that is causing Minnesota city officials some heartburn. The CWLA is the Governor’s proposal. I would suggest he put the word “legacy” in the title of the act for a reason. And no one should begrudge him that prerogative. This is a very worthy and important piece of legislation for our state.
That being said, the funding mechanism for the CWLA is objectionable to cities. The CWLA shifts the objectionable part of the whole environmental clean up process (i.e. - the part where the government has to collect the money from the taxpayers) to cities and counties, but allows the desirable part (i.e. - spending the money) to be handled by the state government. The funding mechanism within the CWLA directs cities to charge each utility account an annual fee; to collect that fee; and then to turn over the money to the State. The size of the fee varies. It’s proposed right now at $36/year for residents. For businesses, there is sliding scale from $120-$520/year.
What’s objectionable about the funding mechanism is that cities are being asked to assess and collect a fee that we neither control the size of or have any voice in determining how it is spent. If a citizen objects to the paying the fee, there is no discretion on our end to compromise or negotiate a settlement. City employees cannot answer questions accurately about how the amount of was computed or when it might change in the future. We merely charge you, collect your money, and send it on to the State.
There are other ways to fund CWLA that have no impact on cities. The best way, and the easiest way for the State is to assess a user fee on state income tax forms. Another way would be for the State to bill the cost to taxpayers directly. They should still have that address data base from the “Jesse Check” days. Remember those days?
The Clean Water Legacy Act is important for the future of our state. If it’s an important part of the legacy of the Governor and the State Legislature, then let’s ask the Governor and the State Legislature to find a more appropriate way to provide funding for it. A good test of any funding mechanism is that it clearly and directly connects those paying for the clean up projects of the CWLA - taxpayers - to the clean up projects themselves. Using city governments as the tax collector for the CWLA doesn’t meet this test.





















