All right. Call the uh Tuesday, May 27th, 2025 uh uh joint power board meeting to order. Um first uh thing I just want to do before public comments is uh maybe do some quick introductions here just with
some newer faces in the crowd just so everybody knows who everybody kind of is and then also thank everybody. I think this is the first meeting we've had outside of Elba in >> a while, >> eight years. I don't remember the last time I've been on this board. How long?
Almost 10 years, I think. Actually, I think 10 years I've been on this board. So, I don't ever remember having one outside of I can't come up with one in 10 years. >> There were there were some meetings that we had here and I can't remember what was going on at the park where nobody
was. >> Didn't we have one in maybe I missed that one, but wow. Yeah, I was going to say I can't I was thinking about that coming in this morning. So, um, go ahead if you want to, uh, start, James. >> Uh, James, um,
I want mute this here. Actually, I try this phone. I'm not sure why don't text messages. Uh, so I'm Josh Elsing, Winona County Commissioner. I've sat uh on this board, like I said, at least 10 years, I think. Uh, was former soil and water
conservation district officer. Um and uh chaired the board for three years, four years, three years, something like that. So >> Bob Was uh Wash County Commissioner. I've been on the board for 5 years.
>> Andy Draw Bush from Winona County Supervisor Philosophy. The second meeting I went to here, not here, but I mean always trust water conservation district >> and uh and David Sandson County Board
and uh first meeting. >> So >> it's good to be here. >> Yeah, it's going to be interesting. >> Yeah. So, a little little highlight, you know, obviously with the three counties coming together. They've uh a lot of our conversations is just, you know, clearly
it's the co-mingling and how we exist in the different watersheds and our part into it and we're heavily influenced with agriculture and just bluff lands and and things like that. So, it's been interesting to see how this board has changed and things over the
last decade plus that I've been on it. um and the different people come and really appreciate all the different involvements. So, good to have you on the board. So, um we still got a call even though there's nobody here. Do we have any public comments? Second time. Do we have any public comments? Third and final time. Do we
have any public comments? Hearing none, we'll move to line item three. Approval of minutes February 20, 2025. We have a motion. >> So, move second. >> All right. Motion by Bob, second by Lynn to approve the February 2025 minutes.
All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Those motion carries. All right. Approve the agenda. No, no amendments. >> Um, just one edit under 7C for the whitewater well sealing grant. I've got three sub agreements to approve. I think
another thing that needs to be added is that um the board uh within the con um parameters of the grant to be able to let me um pre-approve um well sealing contracts uh in the in
between meetings. Um, and then that would fit with what's in the sub agreements >> and to just so do you want to add that on to like a line item four or do you want to do you think we Okay.
>> So we can add that on to preapproval and we can discuss that separately. >> Yep. So, we'll put that under line item C. Number four, pre-approval of well agreements. >> Yep, that will work. >> Because I'm new. >> Is that just You're doing it for just
Winona County. >> This is the entire Whitewater. >> Okay. >> For what's under the watershed district, any any funding that I was wondering is if we had to do the same thing for the water person from each of the counties or do you got control of all of these
these? They're all um they're all identical sub agreements for each of the S SWCDs in the Whitewater. >> Okay. You're you're discussing one through three. Is that correct? >> Is that what she was asking? Yeah.
>> And when we get to four, we'll kind of have the conversation of Sheila and I had a little bit about, you know, why we might want to look at that and and potential thoughts. So, okay. So we do have uh an amended agenda for uh line
item C number four. Uh with that we have a motion to approve that agenda. >> So move second. >> Motion is uh made by Andy and second by uh James. All those in favor signify by saying I.
>> I motion carries. All right. Approve consent items. Any changes in the consent? Uh for consent items, we have um three payments. One is for um Winona
County for my time and um also we've got a website uh charge and then um Peterson Company, the auditor we had from last year. Um there were some charges for preparing the 1096 at the end of the
year. We're going to have a conversation about our audit costs today. >> Yep. That is on the agenda. >> All right. Uh any discussion on the consent items? Hearing none. We got a motion to approve.
>> Second. >> Motion by Dave, second by Bob to approve consent items. All in favor sign by saying I. I. >> I. Carries. All right. Board reports. Uh Dave, this is just opportunity that we go around and we kind of just discuss what's happening uh some of the ins and
the outs and the various things that we're into. So kind of just move our way around. So you want to start us off, James? >> Uh yeah, well we had our monthly meeting, SWCD meeting last week. um a
lot of action, but um there were a number of uh new contracts that were approved. Um couple grass water and four wells. So, which uh a lot of them
are still dealing with or nocomp water. services for the city residents. And so it's about $200,000 grant for assisting our elder residents to
fill their seal their wells since that's part of the requirement for getting water. >> Okay, that's about it. Thanks, James. >> Washers County, let's see, last week we gathered first
projected budget numbers with the kind of a shot in the dark. We found a state budget and cuts and everything, but running about 12% increase, levy increase the way it looks.
kind of quiet. Quiet is good. Don't have too much. >> So, at our last meeting, we approved uh we had quite a project quite a few projects going on the ground. Um
last week I think it was an alternate fort river one watershed plan. And as you know with these plans after 10 years you have to have a what they call it comprehensive >> comprehensive plan update. >> Yeah.
>> Or amendment or depending on which route you go >> statute to review it minimum minimum to review 10 years. >> Exactly. So anyway, um from what I was told afterwards, the county was
there was a couple ways of doing it. One was to have each county, you know, do their own part of it. Um Houston Engineering offered to do the whole thing for an estimate of $86,000.
Um it's crazy. It's very time consuming and to my understanding the county itself is supposed to undertake the expense of this and I don't know if Marsha can do that. That's what >> that I don't know about that. >> So I don't know that that's what I was
gathering anyway from a com some of the comments that I heard that the county was supposed to pay for this. But anyway, after a large long discussion I made the motion. Um, I should add that Bowser,
you know, this all goes to Bowser. They seen the importance of it, the complications of it, time consuming part of it. They offered to put $75,000 of that $86,000. So, I made the motion that we accept
that offer from Bowser and put it towards the $86,000 engineering estimate. And then that that didn't pass. And I I think that just affects Homemstead County from Homestead County does.
That's not what you shot doesn't have anything in the river, right? >> No, just >> just Homestead this part of it. Yeah. >> So I guess that's all I >> Our tree sales went really well.
>> It' be interesting. Um, you know, I don't know if you anticipate being on the board in 10 years, but for somebody Hey, we got to open it back up for public comments. >> How you doing? >> You're in the hot seat. >> Yeah, right there. >> It'd be, you know, one of the things
that I would fear is that it sets precedent so that another 10 years now all of a sudden it's, well, we did this 10 years ago. We need to do that. And a lot of these reviews, just like comp brand for the county, there's stat there's it's a statute that says you
need to review it, but there's no statute that mandates the change. Meaning that it's just it's it's arbitrary. You you don't have to do anything. You just say, "Nope, business as usual, right?" But what tends to happens if the private sector gets in or something, you know, you have to do it.
And then that's when the check gets written out. So, I hope somebody notes it that says, "Hey, if we like where we're going or what we're doing, we don't necessarily have to make a change." And that's the way I always understood things. So, does that make sense?
>> Well, with the with the root because >> it was a pilot. It was the very first plan in the state that was approved, >> right? >> Um there was >> there were a lot of unknowns. I mean, the contractor was Houston engineering
and this was their very first plan. Bowser didn't have an idea of exactly what things should be doing and we certainly didn't. Yeah. Um, so there was a lot of unknowns and when that plan was put together,
everything was put in there because there was a fear that if you didn't if you forgot to put something in there, then then that would mess things up later. So, so it was an an over influx of information and a lot of
>> in that whole plan and it's very >> difficult to go through because everything's in there. it's not streamlined. It's not prioritized and it's um effectively. And so then after that plan was written, Bowser
came up with another set of recommendations. This is what needs to be in the one watershed one plans. And lo and behold, it was different than the set of criteria that you know. So every there's been an evolution over time and
now the plan as is probably doesn't fit the way it should be. >> No. And my fear is and and I'm thinking that's why Bowser probably put the money up. He did exactly because they know it's not the way they should. My fear is in 10 years we're going to lose sight of
that and then they're going to push the cost under the local people and say, "Well, you did this before. Now we have to come up and that'sc's got to come up with this money that you know because it set the precedent and we don't understand that the severity and that's a lot of money for ancient.
>> I don't think the money is as much of an issue as the time it takes to do this. >> Oh yeah. >> Our staffs are fully loaded already take on something to do this again. Yeah. >> You know, you you're overburdening our staff >> and now you're saying, "Well, we need more staff, which is money." And that's
why I'm saying we need to push it back on the state. The state's going to require it. The state needs to pay. >> Well, I don't next time around though, it's not going to be such a massive job because they're basically rewriting our one wonders plan to to coincide with the new
>> the new criteria. Yeah. It >> Let's hope. >> Yeah. So, good. J at the Wshaw SWCD. We
always have things going on, but we spent a lot of time on a wage scale review to help and a wage scale. >> I thought they said weight scale. >> Okay. Yeah. Sorry. >> Along with the firm that the county had and also your
>> person the county helped too. So we kind of combine our efforts and so we got you know uh competitive when we hire new people and advancement is uniform pathway for people to take and changed a
few things and it wasn't too bad. I mean we weren't weren't disastrously off the mark at least. So now at least we got that to go forward. So that's uh Homestead uh like every county in
Minnesota is obviously concerned about cost ships and uh and and I think it probably sort of falls pretty equally across but I mean just if if things go like they go I there's a 5 to 7% uh just
kind of across the board levy increase just based on cost shift and then you've got uh normal county inflation if if you will, labor contracts and if you want to add an employer to it in certain areas why you all of a sudden
it gets up to like you know 11 to 13% pretty quickly. So so the board will have a lot of work I don't think we're going to go to the public with that kind of a of a proposed levy increase and so um we'll see what happens at St. fall,
but the uh the uh the board, I think, irrespective is has sort of made up its mind that that maybe at this point maybe it it is a good time to kind of look into the the box a little bit and find out where
where and uh and what we got going on and if there are some opportunities where we can make some, you know, cost savings within the the framework, the government. The other thing, and I don't know if this relates or not, but uh we we've been doing just a lot of work in
St. Paul in this nine county soil health thing and uh and uh $9 million proposed bill. It's not in the egg bill. It didn't make it, but u I think it was a noble effort. We would keep keep certainly going. We did write a letter
in support of the U higher education committees. We're going to cut the what called Minnesota Geologic Survey. I don't know if you know anything about that or not, but but that's pretty important to southeast Minnesota in particular. Um that that survey is kept
uh far as I'm aware, it's kept together by the University of Minnesota and maybe through the the extension service. I'm not quite sure on that one, but nonetheless, it's a higher ed bill and there was a proposed to eliminate the thing and it's a pretty important
document, my understanding of planning. Then the other one, the county health department did release a first quarter, sorry, not the county, the state health department on on all this well testing.
I don't know if you guys know anything about that or not, but uh that you know that might be of interest to the committee at a future meeting cuz most of the samples were taken in in Winona. most well known to counting was by far way out in front of the number of soil
samples and uh and waves and I think that actually probably had the least samples taken away but nonetheless and we were stuffing that water about 10 no I think it was 14% of the wells were bad
for the test but but I don't know if that's of interest to this group or not but it is an indicator of what's going on in groundwater water southeast Minnesota. >> We actually did that program. >> Did you? >> Okay.
>> And we did get a reverse osmosis system cuz we had >> 12.5 >> and then afterwards we had a meeting where Kevin spoke >> and he had that diagram. >> On that diagram it says that if you got
a well at 280 ft you're going to have nitrates. That's exactly where our well was at. So uh what he was speaking about what he's been studying all these years >> it's a interesting statistic that since well
documents have been mandated um meaning that wells are drilled properly the amount of non-compliance wells is less than 1%. >> Really? So what you're seeing is the old we drill until the water
>> till we get water or the water isn't brown. So a lot of these are substandard wells that were put in years ago >> that are still in use today. >> Um and so they were never actually really properly put in and that's what seeing. So I believe it's.3 I believe is
what Ross Dunmar he's the head of our department um he says.3 out of all the wells that are actually in compliance and have records are actually out or that that have been put in with proper documentation are out of compliance. So it's really what we have
is a issue of old wells that were not put in correctly. Sandpoint wells, shallow wells, things that were should have never should have gone down further but cost stopped them from doing it. You know, nobody wanted to spend more than they had to and they chose to drink that
water. So most of it is just uh is that situation. So the we try to make it known to the public that these are non-compliance type wells that are really causing these issues. So, but nonetheless, getting the information out there so people know and they can make
the right. So, uh Dave, was that everything or did you have anything else? >> No, I think that's I mean everything else just nothing standard in county board that >> just the kind of stuff we all wallow in.
Yeah, I'll piggy back on the wealth thing. Winona County, one of the things that got brought up for us um was uh making it mandatory that for a real estate purchase that a well test is disclosed to the to the buyer um and or
at least have the opportunity for the well test to be done. So, uh, what we're finding out though is that really for the most part, uh, because there's so few private private transactions that are outside of like in like family transaction type scenario is
that, hey, we put another statute, another government regulatory thing, and most of it's already happening to begin with through the realtors and the banks that are requiring those types of things. So, you know, there's a little bit of push back that just simply the the precedent of government getting more
involved. It goes back to what guys that ever been on this board, people that have been on board for years, I said is education over regulation. We don't need more government. We need less government. And in my opinion, and and hey, let's educate people rather than regulate. So, um you know, that is on
the docket for one of the things with wells right now. Um so, uh what else? comp plan today. We're our comp plan for Mona County. Um, you know, we had a lot of opposition from the townships and myself included saying,
"Hey, I don't think we need to spend all this money on a comp plan. You know, we don't have any major big things coming up." But it did get voted in 3 to2. So, we are there and we're trying to get the right community members uh involved. Um um you know we struggle Winona County
getting people involved uh in these boards and different various positions. So and getting the right people involved. So we've got a diverse mix of of inputs. So uh that's one of the things coming up that we're talking about. Of course we're still discussing
our LEC center um you know opportunities with Winona city Winona to team up uh you know what those numbers look like. we know we got to do some project cost for a remodel and my stance is hey as we keep having these free opportunities to look at cost let's take a look at what
we have so um so that's still on the docket I would say those are probably a couple of more major ones that we've had uh some different funding of local uh uh local housings and things like that and then of course we've got a new planning
and zoning uh Ross has taken over that position as well potentially and also uh some of the feed lot stuff that they're dealing with with a new feed lot officer coming in. So uh I'm going to say that's probably us in a nutshell right now.
>> When was the last time the comp plan was reviewing? >> It was 10 years and 14 years. Um I think it was a 10ear span 14ear span. Um you know there's nothing glaring. we see
a little rise in what I'm going to say um non- urban commercial but nothing major that you know to spend $150,000 and a lot of staff time and public time to revisit um you know unfortunately Winona County is not like Homestead
County we're not growing in fact we're predicted to decline so you know to keep the uh the attractiveness of being Winona County one of the bigger things I said when I was mayor of Aluras is part of the attractiveness that we have is
our cost of living to keep people wanting to be here and why do we attract people from home state county etc. So, uh, if we don't keep that on our wraps, which it hurts because now we have to look at outside funding and what can we give? What what's government
philanthropy look like? And, um, so it's it's a bit of a catch22 to try to figure out how to fund things on a on a population that's decreasing or projected to decrease um, but yet still keep these services. So, uh, for us, uh, we don't have that growth factor like
other counties do. So, it makes it a lot more of a challenge. Yeah, I know >> you you would you probably know that challenge, too. >> Yeah. And you know, we've talked about updating the comp plan. It's been a long time since we've done it. It's
just it's really nothing glaring in our county either. It's just something that should be done on. >> Yeah. Well, and it was, you know, one of the things that got brought up with the initial kind of what to say the function
of this new comp plan, what to focus on, there was a couple glaring things that were missing when it was presented and a lot of it had to do with small business development outside of mun major municipalities. Um, and the a sector was really missing. So those are things that
I said we really need to put these as part of the scope of the a comp plan because it my comment was this if this if I was on the board for the city of Winona this would be a perfect comp plan the message and I said but we're more than just the city of Winona. So um you
know that's so we they um and and and people agreed. So we got that changed as to what the scope was but I I I couldn't find anything glaring you know to change but others saw it differently. So, okay. Um, more discussion and action
items. Let's move on to our financial update. Anything else in the board reports? >> All right. We'll move on to seven. Uh, line item a financial update. Sheila. >> Okay. So, in your packets, I have the financial summaries for three months. It
be February, March, and April. And uh for each of them our our balance of um checking and money market once the um uh funding that the unincurred funding
is pulled out um we have 121,630 um and that's and then it goes up a little bit by the time we get to April 200 $121,717 $17. Um, we did get our payment back from the
Whitewater drinking water grant. So, that is all done. And I guess I'll touch base on that later in the agenda. Okay. Any thoughts on the
update just you know 30 not even 30 seconds of education. So the individual counties u I should know this for hopes county but exposing myself. So uh like for instance we put in like $8,000 into this. Okay.
>> Yep. >> That's how it works. Okay. >> Yeah. And each of the counties does it a little bit different. I might get a one check. I think Winona and Homemstead, I just get one check for the entire year.
But Wabasha County, I'll get two checks and then lots of little checks in between because they tie theirs with the tax assessment. So if somebody is late in paying their taxes, we don't receive that portion until they pay it. So then
we'll get a check for $30 or something in the interim between those two payments. >> I asked that question and that's the answer I got. Okay, >> it's paid based on the >> right >> property tax. >> So it it comes when it comes and I don't
for you it we are heavily grant based. I mean that's a lot of what we do. So Sheila Spence, she's a wonderful grant writer. She should be hired just to write grants. That's what I just what you want to do. No, I'm just
kidding. Uh, so that's a lot of where it comes from multiple levels and you know, so Sheila Winnow submit an update. >> Um, nothing on that >> audit proposals.
Um so draft audit proposals we have as you recall at our last meeting uh I had a an engagement letter from Peterson company and somebody noticed that the monetary value for the proposed cost was
$5,000 and that's appears to be more than what we've done in the past. So, we held off on signing that. And um and so you can see this is a separate sheet of paper from your packet. Um this
is um what we've paid Peterson since 2017 for each of the audit years. So each year goes up a little bit. And then so I have the increase from the previous year, the dollar amount, and then in the final column is the percentage increase
from that previous year for that audit for that year. And we were quoted $5,000. Um, so I connected with Samantha to find out, is this an error?
Um, no, it wasn't an error. Um, but she did meet with Michael Peterson and they decided that they wanted to do a baseline cost for everybody that they work with, whether
it's an SWCD or a joint powers board or whatever. And that base base number was 5,000. Um and so I but after talking with with him, they decided to give us a break and give us a quote for 4500.
Um and so that's how that came down. So that was the second proposal that I got and that's the one and that's in your packet. That's still a 40% increase from last year. So, I called around uh and I
got from Wanda Anderson uh Katie Jacobson who does some audits and so I asked for a proposal letter from her as well. And so she gave me a letter and
that's also in your packet from and she gives a gave a range 2500 to 3500. And this is after I gave her a description of how many checks we do in the course of the year and what our entity does. And so this is what she quoted us for.
And so that's what we have today to consider. But she said it would not exceed the 3500. and that depends on the amount of time it takes to uh review and collect the data that she needs to do the audit. Um
so that's kind of where we are at. >> So well you Sheila knows I've always kind of been nosy about these audit situations and actually when I was on the SWCD board uh even when I was mayor and different other positions um I would
always question this. So what are we what is the audit? what are we getting for this? And even the SWCD board when they've made a motion to not audit anything over 5,000 and under. And really, it's an evaluation of, you know, do you have a lot of small transactions, large transactions, you know, inventory.
I mean, when you look at any audit of my businesses or anything else, you know, what are you really focusing on? And I've always questioned this and Peterson was a value I thought for many years. But even on the SWCD board, I suggested going to Smith Schaffefer because we really when Wanda first came on, we really needed to get some things cleaned
up and Smith Shaver was much more in detail. So that's why Smith Schaefer is where you guys were using for a number of years and really helped get things cleaned up because Peterson I always felt was just an overview and Smith Schaefer really kind of dove into it, right? So when this came up, it was a
huge red flag and and just, you know, what are we getting for this? So I think for the simplicity of what we do as a board, I don't believe there's justification for the cost. This is just a well raise it if in my opinion, this
is just my humble opinion. Raise it if nobody barks, great. You know what I mean? It's it's a government agency and Peterson's known to do a lot of government agencies. So, I think we should take a look at somebody different. I I I don't believe we have any complexity that we really can't catch here.
>> No, I'm I'm not an employee of the board, so that there's a whole bunch of stuff that ties in with employees that makes it a lot more complicated. >> Yep. So my suggestion, you know, kind of being involved with this would be to
take a look at Miss Jacobson. >> I would agree. I mean, they're getting fewer and fewer auditors and prices are always going up, but it's hard to stomach, you know, that big of an increase in one year.
>> Yeah. And she did say that for this year you can have it for400 but next year. >> Yeah. So >> you want a motion on that? >> We'll need one to accept that. >> I would move to accept Katie Jacobson uh
audit opposing. >> Second. >> Motion made by Bob by Bob, second by Lynn to uh accept Miss Jackson for uh our audit or Jacobson, excuse me, for our audit proposal. I wasn't finishing what I was saying. I
>> hate to ask. Don't be discuss perfect, but I'm sitting here wondering. I mean, there's got to be a lot of hungry auditors out there. Maybe there's not, but they have to go to Wakonia or Slate to to find an auditor to come down
here. It seems like a long way away. But that with with that, I'm fine. >> Yeah. I can tell you that the um Stockton Rolling Stone Minnesota City watershed district they're having a hard time finding an audit. >> Is that right? So it's not the case that
>> there's you know as Bob alluded to there's just less and less >> I'm fine. Let's go ahead and vote. >> Okay. Um we'll revote on that. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I have a new auditor there.
>> What's that? We're in Sllayton is straight north of Worthington about a half hour. My grandparents were killed in Sllayton. The car crash 1989. Um
>> yeah, that was a bad deal. All four of them died. >> Did you say it once? >> My grandparents. >> Yeah. No. Um isn't it north of Wington? >> North of Worthington. Yeah. >> Yeah. I've been there once. Miller uh Schneider. >> Yeah. If you're on the main highway,
you're coming into town on the curb there. A lady sorted over. My great out uncle were in the car and my grandpa and grandma and she swerved over, killed all four of them. >> Blew the buttons right after she 260 mph
head. They were in a big old Lincoln. She She made it. She's still alive. She's a vegetable. But um she was 31. Um, okay. Uh, on the B, uh, local advisory team grant. >> We need a draft budget proposal. >> Draft budget proposal. I'm sorry. Excuse
me. >> Sorry. Okay. So, uh, >> I kind of jumped over that. Sorry. >> I've already submitted this. I had to accept one. Send one to Winona County. Um, but then I also received a request this past week for from Wabasha. Um, so
anyway, uh, put together a budget for the Whitewater using the grant with the local advisory team grant and this well sealing grant. Um, total budget for 2649,200.
Now, this would exclude any other potential grants that we might have an opportunity for. Um and uh total expenses 47,250
um a net of 1,950. This is uh very similar to the proposed um the budget that we had have for this year. >> One thing if I could ask you when we do these draft budgets, do you think we could lay in like what 25 and 26 were
next to it? >> That's a good idea. just so we can kind of see the differences. >> Yeah, >> that could >> that would help us out. It gives us >> It is similar to >> it is and then maybe like a red where it went up and black or you know or
whatever, you know, it gives us a little >> Having seen enough of these, it looks pretty close to what we normally see. Mhm. >> I don't know if we go back two years. Is that enough? Two, three years, something like that. Be pretty easy trans.
>> Yeah. >> Um, yeah, there's nothing really glaring on here, so pretty pretty simple. So, anything you should be aware of? >> Should we have a motion to accept the
draft budget then? >> I would so move to accept the grant budget as proposed. >> Second. >> Second. >> Motion made by Dave, second by Andy to accept the draft budget proposal. Uh, any discussion?
Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I >> I oppose. Motion also carries. All right. Now on to B. Sorry about that. >> That's all right. >> Local advisory team grants. >> Okay. So uh right now the local advisory
team grant this is to to support the groundwater protection rule the the working with the DWISMAS that are in level two. And um the grant we have right now ends at the end of June.
And so um working with Don uh got uh an amendment to that grant to continue for two more years. And you want to say anything more about that or um I guess I can just give a little
update of how things are going. Um so Elgen is so the level two Dismas down here are Elgen Utica and Alura and um
the Elgen local advisory team has been moving a little faster than Alura. Um they are likely to meet here this summer one time and probably approve the best
management practice list to go up to the commissioner. >> Quick second, can I jump in just Dave? Are you familiar with the Dismas and what kind of Don is talking about? And I can give you a quick 20 second run. >> No. >> Okay. So what's happening is that a
number of years back the state put a law into effect allowing them to create what they're called to the business and just picture an area that's put together that might be identified as a higher nitrate area based on that well testing and different things. The they have the
ability to come in and create these local groups that can sit down and they're composed of land owners, farmers, etc. that can come in and put in what they call uh BPMs, best practice management or BMPPS. There we go. Best management rights. There we go.
>> Welcome to the world of acronym acronyms. Um so it is a volunteer situation to come in and do this but it is a 50% mandatory uh state regulated situation that 50% of the people inside of this area have to manage their land a
certain way based on the practices that are come up with. So there's been an on so that's a state funded activity and there's been an ongoing series of these meetings put together with a professionals from the state county different joint boards. Um and then
obviously the land owners and such to say hey we're going to we're going to farm a certain way. We're going to do a land management practice a certain way. Um and then the idea is to uh implement that as broad scope as can in a minimum of 50%. Um if they don't get 50%
compliance, there is a rule already put into place that it can be forced. >> It's not 50%. >> Well, what is it? >> So there's part one of the groundwater protection rule and part two of the groundwater protection rule >> which goes up to >> part one is across the whole state of Minnesota which y >> is no fall application of nitrogen
fertilizer on vulnerable vulnerable soils. And so there's a interactive map that tells you, you know, if you have if your farm is got vulnerable soils or not. And um southeast Minnesota has a lot of vulnerable soils and it's been a
best management practices for decades to not apply fall nitrogen down here. I mean that's been a pretty common practice. Part two of the groundwater protection rule deals with the drinking water supply management areas. Those areas are delineated by the department
of health and their hydraologists. So like the city of St. Charles has an area delineated around it which is a drinking water protection area or a dwisma. And so that's the area that we're working
within in each of these level two um dismas. And they have to test over 8.4 to be a level two. 10 is a state statute. Is it okay? >> So the drinking Yeah. the health limit
is 10 milligrams per liter and so infants under 6 months of age, pregnant women and some high-risisk individuals, it it that's who it really affects. Um and so that's been a health limit for a
very very long time. Um so that's kind of the basis behind the groundwater protection rule in these drinking water supply management areas. We form those local advisory teams. They they are going to come up with a list of best management practices to follow. 80%
of the cropland acres excluding soybean acres need to adopt those best management practices within three growing seasons after that list has been approved by the commissioner. So, it's kind of a lengthy process as it goes through these different processes. If 80% of the crop land acres, including
soybean acres, don't adopt the BMPPS, it could go into a regulatory level. >> I was thinking it was only 50, but it's 80, I guess. Okay. And so, um, nobody in the state is that far yet as far as, um,
hitting the three growing seasons and going through that survey to see if 80% of the cropland acres have been adopting the BMPs. There are um dwismas with best management practice lists published that they are supposed to be starting to follow, you know, in
the next three growing seasons. Down here in the southeast, we don't have published lists yet. Elgen will likely be the first one. Um they are, like I said, getting to that point in the process where they're about
ready to probably finalize that list. Uh my counterpart Mike Cruz is leading the Elgen Dwisma and I lead the Elura and Udica one. Um Alura is a little bit behind. We what we do in these in this process is also some
modeling work and so we're just uh trying to finish up some of that modeling work in Alura and um before we come to like a final decision on the best management practice list and that the the groups those two the Elgen and
uh Elura groups down here they've been well attended by uh the farmers and crop adviserss in the area. Um, and they they seem to be pretty good groups and they always bring up lots of really good questions too as we go
through this process. Udica is a is on hold kind of they're drilling a new well and so in that process of drilling a new well the department of health hydraologist has to assess that new well
and um the the boundary for the drinking water supply management area could change a little bit depending on that. And so we're just we're just kind of on a little bit on a holding pattern there, but we're still doing education and
outreach in in that DWIMA. So in all three DWISMAS, we have uh some funding available through department of egg um for uh
like cover crops, some soil health. So there's a list of different things and it's the nitrogen incentive something. Oh my gosh, what happened? >> Welcome to the acronym game. >> The acronym game and we'll just Okay,
sorry. I have been on the road showing livestock with my kids since Friday. So, I'm still trying to recoup. >> I'm just curious. Do we have do we have municipal wells exceeding this eight eight part per million thresh? >> Yes. So, these level two dwismas have
tested over that >> 8.4 for in the last at least once in the last 10 years. Yeah. Um and so through this other incentive payment
program, I'm able to work with the the farmers in these Wizmas and I have um we we have contracts in place right now for some cover crops and delayed cover crop termination. And I expect this upcoming year to have more acres of cover crop
signed up. And uh we also have um a nutrient management plan grant for two two positions. One in Wabasha, one in Winona County, and then one in Filmer County, sorry, three
positions. And they write like nutrient manure management plans for farmers and stuff. So, we're actively working on education and outreach, kind of individual one-on-one work with farmers and stuff like that beyond just these local
advisory teams because I find it more efficiently to work one-on-one with farmers than in meetings. One of the missing this is I'm just going to chime in on this is so taking it to kind of a public perspective
having been a former mayor of a small town. I was former mayor of Alura. >> Um right now the focus has been on agriculture. Agriculture must be the problem, right? >> And you know a number of years back it was golf courses and lawns, right? So we took all the foss out of that. Well,
that didn't fix it. Now we're out of agriculture. But I do know coming from firsthand that part of the problem too is is the aging infrastructure of the municipalities and sewer ponds and piping and burst pipes and underground stuff and and so it's roaring. It's had
more ugly. You know, we can look at a municipality and say, "Hey, is there any more cows here around this area than what there has ever been and say, you know, there's the same amount of cows that have been there for 30, 40 years, but all of a sudden we have this problem. Well, why is it there today?" or you know we're still fertilizing the same land the same way the better for
how long. So what we have is we kind of have two parts coming in and the focus right now is on a um and you know I've kind of advocated come back and said hey we also have this focus on aging infrastructure and if there's monies from the state to help some of this aging infrastructure for these small
municipalities to update things and piping and underground and you know they got terri streets and everything else so to find some of these leaks that happen. So I've advocated that we don't just solely look at agriculture but we look at everything as a whole. So
>> other than the manure management plans what other best management practices are sticking out that have changed? >> So um it's the very the basic ones from the University of Minnesota that have been been in place for years. you know,
taking proper credits. Um, and that involves, you know, legumes, manure, fertilizer, all of it. Um, timing, placement of fertilizer. It your basic ones that we've been talking about for decades, right?
>> The biggest discussion revolves around rate, total nitrogen rate, which includes all the credits. There is going there is set rates for these DWISMAS that the the local advisory team comes into agreement for. Most of the lists
that have been published so far in the state have set it at the.1 MRT. So, if you're not familiar with the university's recommendations for nitrogen in the state of Minnesota for corn, um they have an end rate
calculator that that comes up with the proper nitrogen recommendations for corn. And so there's different levels within that. And um when I talk about the 0.1, it's the maximum return to nitrogen rate. So, um, there that that's
just a very basic overview for for you if you're not familiar with that. But, um, it gets really complicated. So, that's the next discussion point for Alura and, um, Elgen's kind of landing
on their final one for that. Uh, there's a lot of really good discussion around that. There's been a lot of good discussion around the modeling and all the research work that we have down here in the southeast. And so, you know, I continue to put in a lot of research
plots with the University of Minnesota down here with uh couple with another grant through Filmer SWCD. We have um onfarmm trials all over. And then the nutrient management initiative program that MBA runs. Um we have I think this
year I think I have like 27 or 28 trials in Southeast. So um so all that kind of gets brought into the discussion. Um which is always the biggest and longest discussion. Well, interestingly enough to piggyback on that, even us as a
company where, you know, a lot of discussion has been around how can I get more out of my manure and a lot of manure applied for nitrogen credits, not so much the phosphor potassium and it's, you know, obviously nitrogen being leechable. So, a lot of what we've been getting into is the industry standard
was nitroppy for stabilizing manure, which actually doesn't do anything to actually stabilize it. It's just a paralyzer to the to the bacteria that converts it. So, we've been doing a lot with biodegradable c-olymers and manure pits and applicators and injector systems that will actually act as a
physical barrier to hold that manure, meaning that we don't have to apply as much manure to gain the same amount of end credit if we can increase that by and these are very inexpensive things to do. So whether we're treating pits or treating injection sites or whatever um
and using existing applicators or health there whatever it is um coming up with these creative ways to help I would say predominately hog farmers and dairy farmers is what we do a lot of that with um but to come up with these moderate stuff and it's all under the pretense
that hey we're kind of under the microscope what can we do to fix this problem so >> so coming back to this board and the grant through this board. Sheila comes to our meetings and helps organize those
meetings and helps take note during those meetings and keeps me on task. She she has the local connection with everybody around here, too. It works really well to kind of just keep those run efficiently and smoothly.
So with the extension of this grant, that's just to continue to fund these meetings. Yep. >> Correct. Kind of the the the hall, the rental hall rental, the time for Sheila, the things like that. >> Um which is because of the three that we
have. Remind me again, are all three of those getting funded out of this the Yeah, >> they touch the >> They touch within the boundaries of Y1. Yeah. So anything that would be outside the boundaries of this >> fall on the STC's or county
>> I'd have to work with somebody else. So >> and I guess I just kind of sitting in in this meeting today and thinking about like grants in the future. I can I can see potential for this group with
maybe some future grants that be somewhat similar what we do with the Filmer SWCD, the drinking water protection grant. for um they have they're going to have to renew, you know, reapply for that to keep that one
going. But within that, that's the only grant down here that had incentive payments for following the university recommendation recommended recommended rate. And that is that grant is several
it is the southeast counties. It's all the high testing townships in southeast Minnesota. But I'm just wondering about how can we keep that one going and if could I don't know if you can partner on that or or if you if this group could
apply as well. But as far as working with producers to help incentivizing following the best rate that is the only grant down here in southeast Minnesota that I have access to and because there
are no other grants that incentivize following the proper rate. So, I'm just bringing that up because that's all I have to offer people. >> I know. And that's frustrating because I and I say this with the utmost
respect. It's frustrating because I can poke holes in that all day long with the university. And I've done that with Jeff and a few other people over the years saying, "Hey, you're doing these data sets on a certain soil type that doesn't correlate to our soil type." you know,
you can't what's good for one is a good for all type of a deal. So that I I wish we could I understand the direct relationship between the university and the state, but I think at some point there has to be a segregation because the idea to be
these local groups is to know your area. Well, we're going to know our area better than anybody else. And so how do we poke holes in that? And I would I would say that southeast Minnesota has one of the larger data sets for onfar trials. >> I would believe it just due to our topography and geography.
>> Since 2015, we have drastically increased the research grade ones and the regular ones to your work. >> Yeah. >> So what we're looking for here, anything else? Thank you so much, Tony, by the way.
>> So that's just kind of the sum of kind of what's been going on down here. I I would say as a whole I'm proud of the farmers down here for like wanting to work in our groups. I know it can be frustrating. We've had participation in
the these incentive payments within the Dismas for like cover crops and stuff like that. I want to keep it going. I want to keep that one-on-one work going and keep just trying to focus on the good things that people are doing down here. So, I hope to continue
um that engagement as we go forward. So, >> one of the biggest things that's going to help sell all of this stuff is I was talking with Sarah West one day and um for those that if you're not familiar with her, she's a >> waste management plan or
>> the nutrient management planner for >> Filmore County. Anyway, she wrote a plan where it was could actually save the farmer $40,000 in fertilizer, >> and that's for this year. Now, >> when harvest comes and they done what
she advises them to and yields have not dropped or maybe increased. >> Yeah, >> that is the quickest way to sell these programs to any >> we do it all the time. >> Yeah. So, >> we show all the time how we're applying fertilizer. It's for us it's easy when you own fertilizer plants and you're
literally saying, "Hey, don't buy as much fertilizer. Do this. Stabilize your end. Utilize it better. Spread it out over more acres." We do that all the time because it frees up dollars to go do something else now to move forward. You're going to put your dollar somewhere. >> Some of that planning can be scary for
some people. >> Oh, 100%. >> Yeah. >> And they get institutionalized. Well, if I don't do this, I don't get a credit. >> Yeah. >> I got to put all that in out there. I don't get a credit. We do a lot of I do a lot of education seminars now too showing the influence
of excess annion uptake in the cation uh um influence its influence in cation uptake and what causes green snap what induces disease the imbalance the nitrogen to sulfur ratios u you know all
these different ways and you you know you get into like atomic weights and how how plants drop off and the percentage of hydrogen and all these things that how plant metabolizes or feeds itself. And when you lay that out on the board and and a farmer gets to see that, oh my
gosh, over application is actually my issue, you know, and what I'll do is I'll I'll draw I'll draw I'll draw this out. It's interesting. This really gets people to think. I draw this moon out and I and I go like this, okay? And I I
do these on these PowerPoint slides and I say, "Look, if I had zero nutrients, if I ground this plastic thing up and put it into a pot, it looks like dirt and I put a plant in it, can something grow?" And they say, "No, but it looks like dirt." Right? Okay. Have you ever put a whole bunch of manure out there
and then tried and then scraped it all up and then went and planted through it? What grows there? Absolutely nothing. So, you're farming somewhere on that arc. So I say, are you where are you at? Are you are you pushing the envelope?
Because eventually excess is the same as absolutely nothing. And this opens up so many farmers eyes when it comes to fertilizer and manure to get them to understand how excess is actually just as detrimental as an
insufficient amount. >> I'm only smiling because he said, "What grows there?" And I I think winter rye grows there cuz I don't know how >> I can see where nothing will go in winter rye go right around that pile and then I planted rye there right away and that stuff is incredible.
>> No, it takes a little while cuz the soil can buffer it out but it's indicative of that year, right? Like so what can grow and when you begin to lay it out. So what I tell people all the time is you've got to figure out where you're at. And one of the hardest things there is to do is to try to actually pick up
out of an excess and go go up. It's actually easier to predict your success on a negative side because what you do, you see the reaction much quicker. So you know where you need to go. And so the one of the first things I talk about is cutting back is probably the first
thing you've got to do if you're not there to actually move forward to know what's going to induce. And when you so I do these seminars like this and I and and and that gets people's attention. So we talk about nitrogen stabilizer, cutting back the amount of manure, selling some of your neighbors, going over more acres and and and it's just
that educational piece that really gets guys going into that right direction. So it's kind of fun to see people respond to that, you know, and that's just something I came up with years ago. >> All right. Um so we need a approval for the amendment to the grant which just
extends it out two years. Is that correct? Yep. Yep. >> Yeah. There was no additional funding added to >> just to be able to use it for >> and also I will need to docu sign this. So you need to in the motion say Sheila doesn't docu sign otherwise it'll make
things really complicated. >> So we need a motion to approve the amended grant for the local advisory team via docu sign is what the motion would have to be. >> So move second. >> All right. Motion by Andy, second by Bob
to approve line item one uh B line item one as spoke. Uh all those any discussion in favor signify by saying I. >> I oppose. Motion carries. >> All right. Whitewater well sealing grant number one approved sub agreement with
Homestead County. I think we should do these individual because they are different. >> Okay. >> All right. So I have the Whitewater has a wellsealing grant. Uh we were able to we've used we've s sealed two wells
today. >> Okay. >> And uh so anyway um this grant right now ends at the end of this year. I can extend it one more year. Um we have uh about 21,000 just
over $21,000 remaining in this grant and it's for sealing private drinking water wells or wells that are no longer being used. Um and the idea behind doing the grant was because somebody has on their property a well that's not being used,
it's like a straw, an opening to that drinking water aquifer. and um they really should be sealed if they're not being used. And uh so anyway, what brought this to mind is that um I
was talking with Skip Langanger a couple months ago and I think it was the day after our last meeting um in February and he said, you know, do
you have any money for well sealing? And I says, well, yes, I do. And he says, great. And I says, "But we had our meeting yesterday." And uh so this particular land owner timing was of
essence. They needed to get it done before the he was going to prep this field. It was kind of a a well that was underneath the windmill that was being removed. And I better seal this well. So he, this particular land owner couldn't
wait until today to bring um a well sealing contract cuz he had to already get the field work before that. So that was one that I missed out on. And then Caitlyn connected with me about a month
ago, uh maybe three weeks ago. There were two more wells seal wells in Homestead County that needed to be sealed. one, it had to be done sooner than later because it was part of a property transaction. Um, so that
we missed out on that one. And but anyway, it's and then now we're at meetings three months apart versus two months apart. Um, so talking, you know, so long story short, they were able to use windlac
dollars to seal those wells, which is good, but we still have the whitewater grant that has funding, but we can't move the funds because when I find out, and a lot of times, um, talking with Caitlyn, she says a lot of these, uh,
land owners, they don't even know that there's funding available to seal a well until they connect with a well driller and then they come over and give them an estimate and they say, "Hey, have you connected with your SWCD? There might be some funding to help with this." Well,
they're since they've already connected with a contractor, they're ready to do it next week. Um so in light of that I connected with uh Dave Copelan and asked him knowing that the Whitewater meetings are
now three months apart is there you know what is the best way to capture and be able to spend these funds without having to call a special meeting to approve a contract and his recommendation was to
allow the SWCD each of the SWCEs to approve them and then once the contra the it is complete and then the invoice is submitted then they approve that voucher
and then it comes to the white water for payment and he says that would be this most seamless way to do it and so I connected with uh Karen Sonaman and Uh, I sent her a draft um, similar to what
we've done with cover crops in the past with the SWCDs doing the the TA and and and the TA um, is done uh, per the well drilling the well driller and then it
also has to it has to meet uh the the state's requirements for sealing a well. So, um, the TA actually goes through the Department of Health criteria. So, that's what I have. I have three
identical um, sub agreements. Uh the caveat is that before any of the S SWCDs move forward, they have to connect with me because we do not want three S SWCDs in the same month
approving three well sealing contracts and oops that it kind of exceeds our the money that we have. Um so anyway, that's that's how this came about. And so I have they're all identical. Um we have
21,600 available for these um well sealing contracts and our what we have in the grant will pay up to 75% of the cost of well sealing with a
maximum of $3,000. Um and from what I've seen for uh contracts, you know, 2500 is about the average. But I did go with a little higher cap just because
when you're sealing a well, sometimes you find out that you have to add more cement or more, you know, cuz you don't know what you have until you get in and find out. >> So, so little discussion. So, we're
talking kind of a couple different things here. We're kind of lumping all four in really, >> right? the this got so she had called a month ago maybe about a month ago and said hey situation Josh um you know we've got
this land act land transaction can we do this and >> my thing was no not without board approval I mean technically that's what the board is here for is to look at discretionary aspect of this is where we want to put our money in this situation so that's
why it didn't happen because we we can't supersede the board. So, what's really being put on the table is another situation that doesn't really circumvent the board because ultimately we could deny it. We can deny the payment which now puts
the person into I'm just chances of that happening are very little but it could happen, right? um if there was something malicious or something came through. So, it would put it back onto the land owner or whoever it is that was filing for that situation.
What it does is allow the fast track of that situation in the event that an event happens like this. The pros and the cons. The pros are is that it obviously can help you know with these types of transactions. The other
the the negative is is it's another strike against the need and function of this board. That's what I see in it as basically outside agencies are approving things and we're just the regulatory fiscal agent that says yes or no. So, uh those are the really the two things that
I can see here is it really does take the actual approval out of our hands for the most part. So, that's just my take on it. I could, you know, when when I get
contacted about ceiling wells, you know, I certainly could send an email to all the board members saying this fits, you know, just to keep this board in in the know of what's transpiring between
meetings. >> One of the other things, Sheila, is again, we you know, I always say you manage it for 90% of the time, right? you're never going to hit the 10%. Even if we met on a monthly basis or even a bimonthly basis, there's still 30
to 60 days underneath anything that would happen, >> right? And we still miss out on that one anyway. >> Yeah. So, I mean, when we look at land transactions, they're typically a minimum of 90 days out. We look at, you know, I don't know too many well contractors that you call today and they're there a week later unless it's
an emergency situation. So, a lot of these, I think, are they're they're not proactive. They're they're reactive agents. Like the well's been sitting there for how long and all of a sudden we got sealed tomorrow. You know, you can't tell when we don't have 90 days. I mean, I would think that, you know, typically, hey, we should have at least
90 days to see the well. >> So, uh, again, I'm just throwing these things out here, suggestions. Do we alleviate the control over this and really play secondary? We have the ultimate saying, but I think it would take some pretty big to deny if one of
SWCD. So, I'm just throwing all the things out here for us. And can we with this grant money? Ultimately, we have the say, but is there can we legally do that?
Can we legally put the authority into somebody else's hands to appropriate money? Well, the authority is with >> approving like for cover crops for example, Winona SWCD provided, you know, gave
Wanda the authority to approve the cover crop contracts between their board meetings and that's what this would do. >> Well, that's inter agency. This is this is not you know that this is two
different entities approving things. Now they have the right to approve anything. I mean they could approve >> what color the shades are going to be, right? But if we're the ones writing the checkout, I mean they can do whatever they want. We can't tell them what they can or can't do. But when we say the word approve
is does the constituent does the taxpayer assume then legally that transaction is now theirs? That's the question I have inside of your own government. It's like we could approve for you to do something. Well, technically not because you're not an
employee. Um do you see the layer in here? I mean you're not a direct employee of what you're employee, >> right? >> Does that make sense? Right. Coordinator for >> No. Yeah, we get that. But I mean, you're not an employee. Your paycheck's
not coming from here. It's coming from Noloma County. So, I'm just making sure that Do can we in the grant? Are we going to get ourselves in trouble by saying we're we're we're delegating the authority to somebody else to make a transaction with somebody that says,
"Yes, we're going to prove something without it actually happening." is their recourse to them saying, "Well, you told me it was going to happen. We went ahead and did it. It got to the board." And whether or not that ever happens, if somebody else came back and said, "Well, you you don't have through this grant,
you can't delegate that authority to somebody else." >> And that's why I talked with Dave Copeland. I says, "I want to make sure that this because this is a Bowser grant." So that's and then he also reviewed this when I sent it to Karen
and he said this was his recommendation the way it is put together. >> So is there so let's just say the board denies I'm just I'm not going to sit on this board forever. The board were to ever deny it. What's the recourse? Let's say
county approves something. it comes to this board for payment and somebody from Homestead says, "Hey, by the way, this is why we shouldn't do this." and the board agrees. >> But doing the whale sealing, it's sealed
in accordance with the state's recommendations. % I mean there it's >> I'm saying it's unlikely but I'm just trying to just I'm looking at the recourse the legality is saying that what what now would happen at who is at >> who just making sure we're crossing te's
and dot ns here cuz we are giving up that authority for somebody else to say yes that we are the trailer just have to go along with you know that you see I'm going to this I'm not trying to say yes or no it's just trying to make sure we're not doing something for this If if it was denied, would there be
money like either through the one watershed plan or the county soil and water? Not necessarily, but >> the uh the ones that were approved that are going through in Homestead County right now, that's what they did do
um is they went through the windlac dollars to do it. So that's that's what they did, >> but that money is limited as well. >> The ones that we missed out on, did they actually seal them then or did they
postpone the project? Because >> they got them. >> They did a payment on one and then the other one isn't processed yet. They've got it approved. They're just waiting for it to get done. >> The timeline thing intrigues me. I mean,
>> if someone decides they're going to knock the windmill down and >> and then Oh, well, right now check into that and it's so much uh are they just going to chisel plow over the top of it then or build a new house over the top of it in lie of waiting until
>> the regular channels to get them some refund? I mean, that's you know why in such a hurry? That's the bothers me if it's been like that for years. Yeah, I I'm I'm not supporting it one way or the other. I'm just throwing out
all the ideas on public record that this has recourse. It has recourse. It was discussed as a board. I personally don't feel as though if you're tearing windmills down and building houses and projects, you're working on a 30-day window. You you
pretty well know, hey, I'm tearing this down. I want to seal this thing. You're doing your homework, you know. So, you know, that for me it's a little bit especially if you're using a taxpayers's dollar, but I don't know. I'm just making sure
public records due diligence before we hand off the control. So, uh what we'd be after is a go ahead. But it looks to me like uh the second point after coordination with
white water wershed coordinator >> to confirm convailability of funds, right? >> So that um I mean that that's that that seems like at least an implied
consent by this board as well if we're authorizing to deal with these things. And um but one thing I do do notice is um maximum payment of 3,000
and I was just looking at a couple of the well ceilings that we just paid and one of them was uh up to what was 4260. >> Mhm. So would that mean that?
>> Yeah, this is 75% up to 3,000. That's it. >> Yeah. And then Homestead did have that limitation previously, but we decided to >> The Oronopo one, they exceeded it. Yes. Yeah.
But that's because they had a lot of funding in that grant. >> A lot of funding. And I think I think two the the thought was that >> um the all these I mean I just
perceptually I would think >> that they would need to be in the Whitewater river whitewater watershed district. They are. >> They are. >> They are. So, so when you said Olstead County, you meant the the Whitewater water. >> The Whitewater portion of Homestead County. Yes.
>> And that's how the grant is set up. Just for the Whitewater area. >> Which which when you said Oronoko, I don't think that's in it. >> Yeah. the at their SWCD meeting for Homestead, they had a well sealing grant that was done in Oronokco for that. They
have another grant. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. >> All right. >> Yeah. Well, we we started at 80%. And also sort of eliminated the the maximum amount just primarily I think because this is something that was being
acquired and well is sort of being required now anyway. but um required, but it was also in connection with getting tied into the the city water and sewer uh that they just had put in and
that was considered to be rather expensive for homeowners and um so it's a little bit more generous I guess than what we're talking about.
I mean, I I understand Josh's take on it, but we're still running it through the Sheila. Um I guess I don't personally see an issue. >> No, I I don't have a take. It's just I'm throwing out everything on public record
so it's been discussed, >> right? >> Was that Do you want a motion for each county or can all three >> are they identical? They're all identical except of course, you know, who the contractor is on the top. Yeah, they are the same. And then there's
different signature blocks of course, but they are identical. >> So, we can do one through three as a lump, but four we would have to have a separate motion to do. So, I'll entertain a motion for one through three if somebody wants to. some move to
approve the uh sub agreements between Nstead >> Wash and County SWC motion made by Bob, second by James to
approve uh our sub agreements with Homestead Winona counties. Any discussion here? >> Oh, you're right. Yeah, >> I'm just going to follow the lead of this, I think. But but the does the granting organization was it Bowser or
>> I mean are they kind of okay with this? >> Yes. >> In fact I coordinated with him. >> Okay. That's all >> and and that'll be next time. This one is just doing some agreements right now. >> Okay. So >> and we're going through Sheila to determine it's
not going to be too much at one point or one time. It's not available. So I guess that's a good check there. There's a legislative auditor in the state that can get really finicky about details. >> That's where I'm going. That's exactly where I'm going because
>> this is I think we're kind of because this is not inner inner we're we're we're stepping on this line allowing somebody else to make decisions >> that the grant was was to us. >> Sure. >> And we're saying we're giving the power to somebody else. Now, let's let's
finish this one up and then we'll go to Phil. So we um so we've got a motion made and seconded. Uh any other discussion? >> Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I >> oppose. Motion cares. Okay. Now on the four that is why I'm making a big deal
out of I should say making a big deal. I'm bringing it to light because you're I agree. I concur that there are people that watch this and say well you have a grant given to you. you have the authority and you're handing that authority over to a different it's not
like Wanda and SHCD. This is we're handing the authority over to somebody else that the grant isn't assigned to and saying you had the power to approve this. We are just a fiscal agent without that in writing. It's just a hey
somebody said right? So the questions becomes at least we can publicly document and we have it recorded that that's what was witnessed thereof and that's what we were told and that's why I'm just doing due diligence here because we are >> does does set person have the authority
to >> correct which is the function of the board >> right >> and so when the board gives up that recourse >> now if it's inner if it's inner department >> you know let's say Sheila worked direct for us that's different but when you don't work for somebody and you're
considered a contract and we're giving the authority to the other SWCDs to make these decisions prior to our authority. Is there a commitment from the constituent that's applied to something that says, "Well, this SWCD committed to me doing this. I went ahead with the
project and now the funding isn't there because the regulatory board said no. I'm not saying it's going to happen, but if it did, even if it doesn't happen, like you attested to, there are people that watch this to say, well, you've that's not correct. So, that is why I'm
having the discussion saying, is this as simple as it is to us? Is it that simple? Right. So, I appreciate that because I I that's where I was coming from. I guess I had a question. Looking over finances here,
the board here is not a government entity being paid by this board. >> You're all being paid by. You're being paid by the county. You're paying your account, >> Homestead County, so forth. >> We're not agents of the state.
>> This is state money, right? >> Yeah. >> We're not agents of the state. >> So, I mean, is it any different than She doesn't have the power because she's not employed by us, but we're not employed by this board.
>> That's my question. I mean, again, I'm >> now we're really in a rat. >> Um, >> but because I don't come here very often, I got to ask more questions. >> But the board itself exists as an entity. So, the entity is what the grant is written to and the entity relinquishes the control of that.
>> Is that a legal thing? >> She's a coordinator basically. >> But it's not her making the decision. it's the SWCB approving it. They're just coming to her saying are the funds there. >> So that she's just the yep, you can go ahead and approve it and then it's coming to us. >> My fear is that it sets stat sets
precedent that SWCD says yes to that constituent. They start the project a month later it comes to us and we deny it for some reason. Now who's on the hook? And there's that side. And then there's the side that that that Dave brought up, which is there are people
that watch this. How the money is given to this board, but you're delegating that authority to somebody else. Is that even legal to do that? If it's in the same group like the Wanda situation, you're in the same group. >> Yeah. But you got people coming to you for these.
>> Well, they're coming to us. She's just the person you talk to, >> right? So she That's my point. She knows what's going on. >> Like I said, that simple site is easy. It's the complex side that Dave testing too. >> So before it either goes to
SWCDs, it comes here, doesn't it? Or am I missing a step? >> It could come from anywhere. It's just >> Yeah, that's what I mean. >> If if this port doesn't handle it, then it can go to SWCD. It can go to one watershed, one plant. So there's
actually three different routes you could go for the same >> but it's relative >> for money to get the job done. It's relative to where the final >> I think. Well, no. Yeah, it's all Bowser money when it comes out to it's all Bowser money whether it's one watershed land that's >> but it still has to follow the grant
>> the regulator board over that grant is who has to have the authority and if you relinquish the authority to somebody else >> is first of all is that even legal that's that has been my thought process from the beginning again I want this to be streamlined but I'm also looking at it from the regulatory aspect that Dave
brought up saying >> and you know it did get Bow's blessing to do this right >> verbally. >> Yeah, >> I got that in an email. >> Okay, good. Oh, good. So, now we're now it's getting even better. So, >> you know, so yeah, I
>> I know on the simplicity aspect, Andy, I agree. I'm just >> save that email. >> Yeah, save that email. >> So, just a thought as I'm listening to you guys discuss the legality of all this, right? >> Don't know. or you don't know, but
could the board right now say, "I make a motion to approve up to four well sealing projects within the 3month time period until our next meeting."
So that you all have agreed to that which then gives Sheila the kind of authority to to sign off on those because it's only up to four >> so that it each time you meet every
three every three months that you meet at least you have that in place as a board >> as a window because then if these well sealing things from the public come in at random times that
possibly gives the authority to to do that because as a board you've approved up to that many within a 3-month time period. >> Yeah, 100%. That that's you know those I think are the things that you know that kind of just safeguard ourselves in case
I again I would much rather have it streamlined. It's just part of my position is to challenge the thought process to make sure that we don't get ourselves a tip in the ringer, right? I mean, that's what we're doing here. So, yeah, 100%. So,
>> monetary limit in a certain time period. >> We have that >> is the same as Yeah, we've already got that. So, >> so again, I'm not against moving forward. I just want to make sure we've had the discussion to say that due diligence that we don't see an issue um
and and move it forward. So >> Dave, do you have any other thoughts on that? >> No, I mean you can beat this technology. >> 48,000 is probably not worth it and and that's always the scope of things, right? But you know, if I took a
dollar from you, it's still a petty misdemeanor. It's still theft. You know, I mean, that's the reality of it. So >> no, I agree. So, what we have on the table then um and and and I'm glad we had the discussion, but we have the ability for Sheila to preapprove well
sealing contracts up to the discretionary limit that's already set in place. We would just need a motion to allow that to happen. >> So, what is the how far out can you now? >> It would be for a 3-month period.
>> Okay. like what Don suggest. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Mr. >> Chair, I would move the motion as so stated. >> Oh, second. >> All right. Motion by Dave, second by Bob to uh approve as stated. Motion for she
to take over pre-approval on a 3-month basis with the contracts uh current cost average contract currently put in place. Any other discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I >> I n.
>> Okay. Whitewater drinking and water protection grant update. >> Okay. Um the drinking water protection grant ended at the end of December. Then I had to go through a reconciliation uh with Bowser for um to get that last
10% of the grant back. And I made it. So, we got uh so we had some deposited $16,921.75. And this one um as you recall, we had um septic system um upgrades and we also had some cover
crops that were funded with that. And um so and and I know it's been brought up about scrutiny and things like that. And I guess I did get a taste of what that looks like now. I, you know, I've gone through Bowser reconciliations in the
past, but they've really raised the bar. Um, and that was noticeable. uh you know so there were some things that you know we got noted on and I I wouldn't say I got dinged or anything but um there were
they have a new uh gal uh who does the reconciliations at for us now at Bowser and I thought before that they were but now it's >> really my due diligence
>> one of them for example was a situation where uh what we got from the farmer, you know, they did the docu sign or whatever and they sent in the scan document and something got a little bit funky and
so a part of the digit of the date was cut off. Just, you know, half of a digit was cut off and went to the SWCD and that's all they had as well. So, so the
the date was not confirmed because just of how things got scanned. It was just kind of like, well, we know it was this date, but it wasn't it didn't show that >> there's teas and eyes in here. >> Yeah. And you know, so that that was
kind of frustrating. Um but anyway, uh we made it through got it through. Got it. Got the money. So that's that's where we are now. Thank you. Sorry you had to go through that. >> Hey, get your dates right, Sheila.
>> I do not have cover money cuz that grant is done. >> Okay. >> So, do you have ideas where I could get cover money? >> Can't get out that gun, buddy. >> I Yeah, >> sure. >> All right. Spongy mouth empty. Um, I
know we had I had to present here about the spongy moth spraying that was supposed to take place in June typically. Um, and uh I was informed that that because of all the funding things going on that
uh they canled it in its entirety uh for a year. What what do you mean all the things going on >> with the federal funding cutbacks and state uncertainty funding pots? >> I think they were able to get money
after July 1st, but that's not when they spray. So, so they just decided instead of trying to get it to fit, it was better to not do it all do it at all. Um, so they're going to try again. Right now
they're just focusing on education and outreach. >> Okay. >> Who undertook that? Was it DNR or >> I think that was through Department did they do the sponging stuff? Who was it?
>> I don't know. >> Okay. >> Maybe it was one of those state agencies. Um >> but anyway, >> that's fine. It doesn't matter. I was just curious what agency got to get out of it. >> Wasn't there a group of people
protesting the spray stuff though or like they didn't want there trapping or something? I >> I think there was some push back. >> There was push back on spray. >> I had not heard that. It it wasn't tons of it by now.
>> It was well from what it when it was presented to me was that um it's not toxic. It's food grade. I mean it's so it's not, you know, and it's not an issue with organic farmers
or anything like that, but basically it it just um confuses the moths when they're trying to mate that they can't find each other. for teenagers. You're >> being recorded early. I take that back.
>> Okay. Any other? >> Anyway, just let you know that that's not happening. >> Sounds good. Um, agency reports. I guess we only have one here. >> Nothing. >> Me. >> Yeah, >> we're awesome down here. >> We're awesome.
>> Ah, the what else went on today? I think I touched everything on the local advisory teams that, you know, think we talked about that enough. Um, I talked about the onfarmm trials
happening down here in the southeast. um with the NMI program, the program through Filmer Service that covers, you know, several all the southeast counties and the one with University of Minnesota with Jeff Vetch. Actually, one of the
research plots is directly south of town here. You take the black top south of town under 90, go down the hill before you cross the little bridge to the left, you'll see all my flags in that field.
Um, >> and what are we researching? >> That's one of the full end rate response curve plots, both pre-plant and split application time. >> Uh, and all that data goes into the NRA calculator for the university. So, >> is that a little lighter ground in
there? >> Yeah, it's it's a different than what we've been on in the past. It um >> it's either going to be lighter or heavier ground usually in those little valleys. >> Hopefully, it doesn't get flooded. So, >> yeah. um >> that little crit can flood every summer. >> Every once in a while, so he told me yes
and I said, "Well, I haven't seen a flood in the last few years." So, >> cross your face. >> Usually takes a pretty because there's a lot that comes through. >> Yeah. >> Um we have that is corn following sweet corn.
>> That was sweet corn >> and it had a cover crop on it. So this is so we've done this rotation. This will be the fourth year in that rotation. Third year that rotation that's not a rotation that's been
heavily studied. So I'm glad that we have that. >> Be interesting with the reduced sweep part usually 120. >> The ENRS have been less. >> Yep. Um,
and then we have one out right outside of Elgen and with the same producer that we've been with for a few years. We've flip-flopped the fields. Um, this will probably be the last year with that producer and then we
are going to look for a new spot around that area. I'd like to stay as close to that disma as possible for many reasons with this research plot. Um, and the one that I have down here, I try
to stay as close to kind of the Udica area as I can. Um, >> do you uh is there when they do these plots, is there a kick next to the farmers? >> Yep. They get an incentive payment.
>> What's the incentive? Um the university ones are $2,000. >> So do it. And how many acres is it on? >> It's like an acre. >> An acre. >> Yes. >> So I own we owned an 80 right and right
at Udica just right next to the one. >> Yep. >> Um so if you're ever interested >> Yep. It has to meet some criteria. Can't have on these ones we can't have manure history within 5 years. difficult one. >> Um, and I have had plots right in the
Udica Wisma in the past in several spots. >> This is right, >> we're not my fertilizer plant is, but the ad isn't. So, it's right on the edge. >> Yep. Yeah. And we've been mostly on Port Byron Silm
soil around Udica. Um, and now I guess you know this one we're on a different soil type too. I try I'm trying to get them on different different areas. There's going to be one down in Harmony
and then area that's like on a FET and then there's one in Grand Meadow on poorly drain which is a different beast of its own. So um
along with these level two DWISMAS I I and the the modeling information and different things that I talked about there was an age dating study done on the public water supply wells down here in these level two whismas and so we've
talked about those results at each of the LAT meetings and um like how old is the the water that we're drinking out of those public water supply wells. Um that was done in partnership with USGS and Department of the Bay. So,
and then Kevin Kenir worked with some other project partners on um a tracing study that also looked at age dating springs.
And it pairs well with the age dating studies done in the wells too. So um there department of egg stuff down here. That's kind of like the research stuff going on down here. Um
>> so just out of curiosity what is age of the water coming out of the >> So the youngest one is Alura and it's Oh gosh.
In the 40 to 50 year range. I'm not going to quote exact numbers because I don't want to be wrong. >> Yep. Well done. >> Without pulling up my slide. >> Yep. >> The Udica
Plain View Elgen ones are older. Uh they're in the 50 to 60 to 5 year range. I believe it was Alura sits up on a groundwater divide. It's I think of it kind of as an island
and it is >> Why is that? What's Alura stand for? >> Altitude >> stands for great heights. >> Yeah, it's it's it's it's only like individual. >> It's where that water or that windmill sits out there on the bridge. That's
supposed to be the highest point in my county. >> Yeah, >> we were told that one. Yeah, >> cuz we own that used >> the geology up there is interesting. So, um yeah, what else is going on down here for um
they just kind of shared a legislative update in a meeting I was just in and there was I couldn't even list everything that they that was talked about in the legislature and what was passed and what wasn't. So, I guess keeping an eye on that. But there was something I don't think it was
passed yet, but they did bring up the tax I don't know if it's a tax credit. I know Steve Jacobson was big for the um uh Minnesota egg water quality certified acres.
>> Okay. It >> I think it's still being talked about. Don't quote me on everything, but I don't I don't think it was passed, but I think it's still being talked about. I don't know where it's going to go, but um the acres for the egg water quality certifification acres down here in southeast Minnesota I
think is pretty good. So we've had we've also had participation with um farmers within some of these DWIMAS going through the process. So that's that's really good. Any other MDA questions that I can maybe
or maybe not answer? >> Thank you. Um, okay. Great. Next meeting. Are we back at El? >> Yes. >> Okay. Next meeting, August 26 at Elwood at uh 8:30.
We have those meetings. um right in the main concourse uh area there to the left when you walk in. Um hearing that, anything else? >> Oh, I do have one more thing that I just thought of that may expand up here
eventually. We are voluntary working in high testing townships with um working with producers and doing um right now we're kind of doing a pilot of onfarmm walkovers instead of forming
local advisory teams but um that was part of in the work plan that with that EPA petition and but our first one is down Houston, >> but it's also part of the nitrogen
fertilizer management plan as well doing education and outreach. >> I got a question too. If if if runoff nitrate runoff uh is uh is what we think it is, is is
there is there any data at all on nitrate levels within the Whitewater River anywhere? We've tested that. >> Mhm. >> And MPCA has a lot of monitoring information. >> I could look on their database.
>> Yep. Is there is it recently been an issue though? >> Well, they at PCA they we do um two years of intensive monitoring
and that's every 10 years. So we're we're in in between that 10 year. >> Yeah. >> But the last time it was done test >> I didn't know that. >> So you're 10 years apart before you know what your progress. >> That's right.
given all the >> all the discussion on all this. >> Yeah. >> Wait 10 years for the new data. >> And the and the real bad part about it is is that it could be it could be that year. We could have a bunch of rain events. It could be, >> you know, it could be what was conducive
in one small area to do that at that time frame. And that's the hard part is that >> how do you set a precedent for everybody to follow something that might have one thing influencing it and that's what makes it difficult. Well, it isn't because one of those 724
monitors one of the branch one of the branches. >> Yeah, we do have in the middle branch. >> So that that's where it's be monitored constantly at least during the summer, fall, and
not during the winter, but >> we do have some long-term monitoring stations, but it's not everywhere. We're spending all this money trying to all this time trying to find out if we're making any progress. >> And that's the hard part is, you know,
we're we're monitoring 30 water. How do you know what you're doing? You know, I keep arguing this point. We've never farmed as efficient today as what we ever had in history. Right. >> Exactly. >> Yeah. So, it's it's hard to start pointing fingers when there's so many variables.
So, you know, I I David, the soap box I'm on is that you can't put too much pressure on agriculture because it's a global market now and we've got to be careful what we do here because you can't start pointing fingers, you know.
So I I think collectively the voices are coming together and there's some reason keep moving in their direction. Met never met a farmer yet that doesn't want to save money. >> Great.
>> So all right good great discussion. Thank you everybody for coming. We do need a motion to adjourn. So move second motion by attend second by Bob. Any discussion hearing? None. All those in favor sign by saying I. I
thank everybody. Thank you.