Frustrations erupt over Little Rock Creek

by Dave DeMars

news@thenewsleaders.com

Frustrations erupted at a recent meeting in Rice about the Little Rock Creek Area Planning Project over what some say is a breakdown of communications and other problems among the agencies involved with the project.

Officials from the Department of Natural Resources, the Minnesota Department of Health, the Minnesota Department of Agriculture and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency talked about water quality in the Little Rock Creek Watershed area during the three-hour meeting on June 22. The watershed area in question lies mainly to the north of Little Rock Lake just southeast of Rice.

“I don’t see the relevance (during) an irrigation meeting of talking about fertilizer that’s going to be regulated by other departments,” said Dean Zimmerman, an area farmer and irrigator. “It has no relevance to this meeting I don’t feel, because an irrigation system is not going to make nitrogen.”

Zimmerman made his remarks near the end of the meeting when attendees were asked to create a list of concerns and questions they had about the planning project to provide direction for the DNR to pursue in future meetings.

Barbara Tuckner, of Minnesota Management Analysis and Development and facilitator of the meeting, tried to calm the waters.

“I think we need to pull what we can out of this so we can proceed,” Tuckner said. “I think it’s unconscionable for agencies not to work together across or around some of these issues. And this is going to touch policy in some way.”

The DNR, MDA, MPCA and MDH are all tasked with overseeing and administering part of the State of Minnesota’s water quality and water quantity. What the DNR is attempting to do with the Little Rock Creek Area Planning Project is provide information, and elicit suggestions and ideas from members who make up the planning project group. But it appeared there was a breakdown in understanding what the planning project was meant to accomplish.

Results and concerns

Tuckner asked for a member of the audience to come forward and post concerns on the wall, so DNR personnel could do a better job of planning and responding to attendee concerns. Among the concerns posted were the following:

• There is a need for soil-health and crop-rotation information.
• There were no lake property owners being included and what they are doing on their lawns.
• Small farms have no regulations while large farms have too much; in general, it’s felt there might be too much regulation.
• What is the saturation point of the soil in terms of nitrates and more?
• What is the effect of septic and well construction on groundwater supply and quality?
• What standards should be used as criteria for water quality – drinking-water standard, industrial-water standard, agricultural-water standard or aquatic-life standard?
• Continue monitoring and analysis of water for nitrates and other contaminants.
• Provide education that stresses water quality and quantity is important.
• Provide continued monitoring of pesticide levels in water – presently below upper-level limits, but it needs to continue at a low level and not creep upwards.
• Since Little Rock Creek is listed as a trout stream, keep it as a trout stream and provide for better ecosystem management and improvement.
• Identify quality issues that are related to quantity and usage.
• There already is a group, either MDA or MDH doing this, regulating water quality. Concentrate on quantity of water, leave quality to other agencies.
• These meetings are a waste of time until there’s some relevant information so we can cite something.

Reactions to results

Alan Peterson, a Sherburne County farmer and member of the Irrigators Association of Minnesota, cited a press release printed in the Corn Growers Association blog that said there was an increased risk of overusing groundwater in the area.

“I’ve sat through three or four of these meetings and this is what they end up being – just a big group hug. What I want to start seeing is some data,” Peterson said. “You’re putting this out as a press release and accusing us of over-use of groundwater in this area. I would like to start seeing some data to back up your accusations.”

Peterson said the presentations were about how water goes through the ground and things of that nature. The information was the kind of thing that would be learned in school and the attendees were beyond that basic level, Peterson said.

“We needed to get down to the data they are using,” Peterson said.

Zimmerman added the first graph the DNR always shows is one of reported water use. The DNR seems unwilling to adjust the graph to reflect correct water usage for the sake of a dramatic soundbite.

DNR spokesperson Mark Hauck tried to explain the graph reflected reported water use and it would not be possible to go back and change what the report said.

Data accuracy

Zimmerman fired back saying to people who don’t know and aren’t familiar with the issue, the information as presented is very misleading, to which Hauck acknowledged the possibility for misinterpretation did exist.

Helen McLennan of the Morrison County Soil and Water District said she understood some of Zimmerman’s frustration, but she suggested some wells have been monitored at some length in the area that could provide data and samples for testing.

“I somewhat agree we are not seeing information that is relevant to the specific landowners within this watershed,” McLennan said.

McLennan went on to say while she found some of the information presented that day quite interesting, it pertained primarily to public wells. Nothing was presented on private wells nor was anything shown pertaining to monitoring wells that exist.

McLennan also questioned whether there was a real need for concern about water quantity since the water level seems to be recharged every spring.

Hauck explained a model is used for predictive purposes over a long period of time rather than using short periods to determine planning. Models make use of 10- and 20-year data to make predictions.

Members of the audience took some issue, saying the DNR model results in spring showed a 12-inch drop in quantity whereas the actual measurement showed only a one-inch drop in water.

“I want you guys to put that data out there and show us where this problem is,” Peterson said. “I’m looking for that data to back up your claims . . . A model is just a best guess as to what’s going to happen.”

In closing remarks, Hauck tried to clarify the DNR position saying it was his impression that some of the attendees saw the DNR as an adversary in the groundwater discussion.

“That is not the case. We want agriculture to succeed,” Hauck said. “We want people to use this groundwater and it’s part of our mission to make sure that happens.”

The DNR wants the groundwater to be used, but the more of it that’s used, more caution is needed to determine how much is too much, Hauck said.