Dayton proposal on waterway buffers

[Walleye Guy]

I am not a big Governor Dayton fan but I do have to give the guy some credit on this one. This is long overdue. Now if we can just stop mowing roadside ditches the pheasants may have a chance.

From the Star Tribune:

Gov. Mark Dayton will propose to the Legislature this session that all waterways in the state be buffered with strips of grass or other cover perhaps 60 feet wide — a plan he knows will be opposed at the Capitol by some farm groups and landowners.

Speaking to the annual Department of Natural Resources Roundtable on Friday in Brooklyn Park, Dayton said his proposal would provide 125,000 acres of additional habitat for pheasants and other wildlife, while also helping to clean the state’s waters.

The lack of river, stream and ditch buffers accelerates erosion and washes silt and farmland chemicals downstream, experts have said.

As much as 98 percent of the state’s farm country belongs to farmers and other individuals, Dayton said, “But the water belongs to all of us, and to all who will follow us.’’

The governor’s proposal was unexpected, and Department of Natural Resources Commissioner Tom Landwehr indicated he learned of Dayton’s decision only recently. Dayton had not informed the Farm Bureau or other agriculture groups of the plan prior to his announcement.

Any cost of the proposal, Dayton suggested, would be covered by levied fines.

“To my mind, the strength of the proposal is in its simplicity,’’ Dayton said. “I will propose that the buffer requirement . . . be enforced by the DNR through aerial and other inspections . . . with escalating fines for non-compliance,’’

In December, at a Pheasant Summit the governor and the DNR convened in Marshall, about 300 people attended, and a major complaint was the lack of enforcement of the state’s waterway buffering laws, particularly in southern and western Minnesota, which generally are administered by counties and townships.

Following Dayton to the roundtable lectern, Landwehr said the DNR will convene a committee comprising state and federal agencies, soil and water conservation districts and conservation group leaders to develop a pheasant restoration program by spring.

The plan will incorporate Dayton’s proposed waterway buffer changes, assuming approval by the Legisalture.

“There are also a lot of private landowners who think we need to do a better job,’’ of habitat development, Landwehr said, suggesting not everyone in farm country will oppose Dayton’s initiative. “We will be working very closely with agriculture’’ on this project.

Success of Dayton’s proposal and any pheasant initiative will be measured by the amount of additional habitat established in the state’s pheasant country, Landwehr said, adding that pheasant habitat restoration is important even to Minnesotans who don’t hunt.

“Why should someone in the Twin Cities care about pheasants?’’ Landwehr said. “The pheasant is the ‘canary in the coal mine.’ This is about quality of life in Minnesota.’’

Meanwhile, Dayton said his agriculture commissioner, Dave Frederickson, who previously has suggested existing waterway buffer laws and rules be abandoned, given the lack of compliance to them, will soon issue a statement, or be available to the media, to clarify his comments.

Dayton said Frederickson’s job is to represent agriculture, and that he welcomed his input on waterway buffers.

[Tom7227]

Since enforcement is up to local authorities there is no means by which any of these ideas will be effective. The county attorney's who have to prosecute the cases are elected. The county commissioners who have some control over the folks who do the work to bring these cases forward are elected. Why would they take steps that result in alienating the voters?

[creepworm]

Since enforcement is up to local authorities there is no means by which any of these ideas will be effective. The county attorney's who have to prosecute the cases are elected. The county commissioners who have some control over the folks who do the work to bring these cases forward are elected. Why would they take steps that result in alienating the voters?

You know a lot more about the legal system than I ever will, but in the article it says enforcement would fall on the DNR if this passes. Would this make a difference?

[delcecchi]

Needless to say, the Corn Growers Association said this isn't needed, that the farmers can take care of the pollution in other ways.

[Tom7227]

It would depend on what the details are.

If CO's were placed in charge of finding the cases and bringing them forward the problem is that the CO's already are spread thin.

If somehow state officials were in charge of prosecuting the cases the problem of local county attorney's is removed. But that is probably costly to haul lawyers around the state to do that. And you still have local elected judges in the mix.

I think that a criminal case would likely be a misdemeanor. The penalties possible under that system are not very significant.

Maybe the change in the law could result in civil cases being brought with the ultimate issuance of a court order requiring compliance and some stiff financial sanctions possible.

Another thing that needs to come out is that I am pretty sure that there are funds available to assist in building the buffer strips. A friend worked with the local ag office and got some financial help paying for the seed and maybe something to help pay for the work. There may even be some sort of annual payment for the acres set aside but I am not sure of that.

[candiru]

Des Moines Water works threatens to sue counties over water pollution from Ag runoff.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/m...wsuit/21929897/

[Bureaucrat]

I'm afraid this is going to drive a wedge between farmers and pheasant advocates. Don't ask me what the answer is. I don't think any movement can be made now without someone losing. That is unless some cash gets spent on the existing WMA lands to improve them. Beyond that, it's going to be a tug-a-war.

[PurpleFloyd]

This is already being done in Blue Earth county. I have relatives who have already done the buffers on their land for a few years. The enforcement is not difficult and is already being done by satellite.

As a pheasant Hunter I like the concept but as a libertarian I don't want the government mandating that the farmers do it. If they are polluting then by all means prosecute them but the land is theirs and they should be able to do with it as they wish.