Headwaters protection plan estimates up to $82.3M for 75% easement goal; advocates ask $10M seed for 60% target
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The 'Headwaters, Streams and Priority Lakes' team presented a selection method and preliminary cost estimates for protecting priority lakes in the Upper Mississippi Basin; they proposed a seed legislative appropriation of $10 million to pursue a 60% protection target and previewed a white paper and tour booklet due this winter.
Crystal Mathis Rood, presenting on the Oct. 24 water tour follow‑up, summarized the "Headwaters, Streams and Priority Lakes" project and shared preliminary selection criteria, protection goals and estimated costs for priority lakes in the Upper Mississippi Basin.
Mathis Rood said the team has identified 36 priority lakes so far and expects 60–80 priority lakes once watershed plans are complete. The project ranks lakes by protection and restoration need and ties goals to a protection pyramid of actions ranging from forest stewardship and cost‑share at the base to conservation easements at the top.
On cost, Mathis Rood presented two protection scenarios: protecting riparian lands to 75% using rim easements would cost an estimated $82,270,000 at current land prices; a 60% easement target would cost an estimated $28,104,000, with the project relying on land‑management tools (stewardship plans, cost‑share, agricultural best practices) to achieve the remaining protection.
Mathis Rood outlined a possible legislative ask and deployment strategy: "If the state would be willing to allocate $10,000,000 as seed money toward doing the protection with easements toward that 60% protection goal, we could deploy those funds in thirds through DNR, Forests for the Future, RIM, Reinvest in Minnesota easements, and our partnering NGOs like Minnesota Land Trust and Northern Waters Land Trust on the ground here." She said the team will publish a white paper this winter with methodology, rationale and expected costs and will distribute a tour booklet summarizing the field tour.
Mathis Rood stressed the program’s reliance on local participation: county interest and local water‑planning groups and soil and water conservation districts drive which counties join the county atlas and watershed model efforts.
Ending: The presenter invited committee members to submit questions by e‑mail and said the white paper and booklet will be available this winter; no funding decision was made at the meeting.