Editorial: Water quality bills are out of touch

Star Tribune Editorial

Minnesota voters did something extraordinary in 2008.

In the teeth of a deepening recession, they resoundingly voted yes for the Legacy Amendment, which called for a sales tax increase to restore the state's lakes, rivers, streams and groundwater.

Funds also support wildlife habitat, parks and trails, and the arts.

Yet two years later, two bills that would undermine state water quality have made surprising and disappointing progress in the Minnesota Legislature.

The first bill, SF161, is a clumsy attempt to allow wastewater treatment plants to circumvent the historic effort underway to clean up Lake Pepin, the Mississippi River's beautiful but endangered bend through southeast Minnesota.

The second bill, SF196, would place a two-year moratorium on water-quality or water-resource rulemaking by state agencies such as the Minnesota Department of Health, the Department of Natural Resources and the Pollution Control Agency (PCA).

Freshman state Sen. John Pederson, R-St. Cloud, is the lead author of both pieces of legislation.

While Pederson's intentions are decent -- he wants to reduce water treatment costs for cities and cut red tape for businesses -- the reality is that these bills are completely tone-deaf to the high priority Minnesotans place on clean water.

The rulemaking bill also is likely to have a number of unintended consequences.

For example, it could prevent state officials from implementing rules to better protect drinking water or react to new threats from invasive aquatic species.

It also could stymie changes required by new laws -- such as the one Gov. Mark Dayton signed last week to streamline environmental regulations, a bill widely supported by businesses.

The Lake Pepin bill deals with water standards for phosphorus, which is linked to algae blooms. Phosphorus is found in human and animal waste, which is why wastewater treatment plants are one key source of this pollutant.

There are 568 permitted wastewater treatment plants in the vast Minnesota watershed draining into Lake Pepin. There are 56 in Wisconsin.

Efforts are already well underway in Minnesota and Wisconsin to scientifically determine a healthy phosphorus load for Lake Pepin -- a process that is transparent, working well and leaves ample opportunity for input from the public and stakeholders such as wastewater plant operators.

Why Pederson's bill is needed, and what exactly it would do, is unclear. It directs state officials to work with Wisconsin and advocate for a seasonal phosphorus standard from June to September.

The PCA is already working closely with Wisconsin on this issue. The agency is also proposing a seasonal standard during the warmer months, when algae blooms happen.

It's clear from testimony at legislative hearings that bill supporters believe a seasonal standard would save wastewater plants money -- presumably by letting them release more phosphorus during the other eight months of the year.

The reality is that phosphorus released in cooler months isn't magically all swept downstream by the time the weather warms.

The PCA is aware of this, which is why phosphorus discharges through the whole year would be reviewed during permitting so that summer phosphorus goals would be met.

The Pepin bill would not do what its supporters believe it would. It isn't needed, and the intentions behind it are alarming. Those who support this bill and the rulemaking moratorium are badly out of touch with Minnesota values.

Dayton should veto both if they land on his desk.

* * *

Readers, what do you think? To offer an opinion considered for publication as a letter to the editor, write no more than 250 words to opinion@startribune.com. Include your name and the city where you live.

Follow us on Twitter @StribOpinion