So what is $90 million a year going to get us?

[deerminator]

Or rather the approximate amount from the tax hike each year that will go to habitat projects? Is that one wetland or one WMA? Does anyone have any examples recently that would show what we might expect to see? I'm actually looking for examples here to determine if it will help a lot or just fund a couple of projects. Not a debate on whether or not it should have been passed.

[BobT]

I guess you're right. A debate about whether it should have passed or not has been rendered pointless.

To answer your question though, all I can say is go to the other threads where it has been discussed at great length for some time now.

Bob

[Mark Christianson]

So who is aware of this?? I know I wasnt aware this is how it is going to work.

This is some info I got from a friend in the MN DNR:

Now the amendment deal here in MN.....It actually does not go directly to the DNR at all!!! This is a sticky deal for sure.. IT goes to PROJECTS not to the agency.... Huge difference... The DNR will be competing for the same money that Lake associations, watershed districts and other coops do.... through a grant process.... The original intent (almost 10 yrs ago) was more doe, rae, me directly to the DNR for funding (Like MO has it)..... But this bill was entirely different....

[CNCMike]

The Mn DNR HSOforum has a nice breakdown of the bill , where the money will go, how much to which areas, so on and so forth. Explains it quite nicely, IMO.

I don't know what the dollar amounts will cover. How much bang per buck we will get. But anything is better than nothing...

[CodyDawg]

It will be handled similarly to the LCMR from my understanding. The way it is set up, there will be less bureacracy...straight to the projects. I like it. I do wonder about how the commission is chosen, anyone know that?

[jbell1981]

I do wonder about how the commission is chosen, anyone know that?

My understanding is the 12 person committee will be selected as follows. Please correct me if I am wrong.

4 appointed by the governor

2 appointed by the senate

2 appoainted by the house

Those 8 can not be members of the house or senate.

The other 4 are 2 members of the house and 2 of the senate. I am not sure how they are selected.

[kobear]

Why give money to the DNR??? They waste a tremendous amount. I'd rather make everybody DU,PF,MDHA,DNR,BWSR,etc compete and whoever can get the best deal wins. DNR gets a grant and they take half for administration, DU gets a grant and they don't take any for admin.

Example of a good deal:

Leveraging federal WRP funds with state RIM money through the Soil and Water offices. For every $1.00 put in by the state the federal government put in $1.40. Bingo we more than double our money with very little administrative costs.

What we got, 94 wetland restoration projects each around 100 acres with upland buffers. These are permanently protected and remain in private hands so they keep contributing to the tax base.

Cost to MN was $1443 an acre.

Most DNR proposals discuss spending $3000-$4000 an acre plus $3800 a contract "in professional services".

http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/easements/Interim_Report-RIM-WRP_2008.pdf

[goblueM]

Its way better to have people compete thru a grant process. Much more oversight, lets you micro-manage the money more.

90 million is a TON of money. Keep in mind that WMAs are almost always fairly undesireable land for farming or development, partly why they are WMAs in the first place. You could buy many decent sized chunks of land at 4 or even 5000 per acre. However, there is a huge backlog of work to do managing existing WMAs...

[CJH]

I agree. I would much rather have the money used in the most efficient matter, regardless of the group and/or agency. The legislature and the DNR have had a long time to right the ship and haven't been able to. I have confidence in the DNR officers in the field, but not in the leadership/management, especially after the DNR convention debacle.