Lower Minnesota River Watershed District presents basinwide strategy, cites funding and governance constraints

Will Lytle, the new administrator of the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District, told the Carver County Board on the district’s strategic framework and upcoming watershed management plan that the district must shift from project‑by‑project responses to a basinwide, measurable approach.
The district’s dual mission — maintaining navigation and managing water quality and quantity — complicates funding and governance, Lytle said. ‘‘The river will not wait,’’ he said when summarizing the board’s vision statement.
LMRWD managers said the district’s boundary is mostly flood plain and that revenue is raised under conventional watershed funding methods focused on the flood plain, which Lytle described as regressive relative to where the pollution originates. He told commissioners the Minnesota River receives most sediment and nutrients from upstream sources outside the district, so local taxes applied to the flood plain can be inequitable when money is used for upstream interventions.
Lytle outlined three near‑term priorities: (1) develop an open‑access scientific measurement model to target investments where they will reduce cumulative basin impacts, (2) revisit governance and funding mechanisms across counties and watershed organizations so costs and benefits align, and (3) upgrade permit review and rules to give the district more proactive authority when construction and temporary works create hazards, such as the log jam near Merriam Junction.
On dredging and navigation, Lytle said statute requires a 9‑foot channel to Savage and a 4‑foot channel to Chaska, but the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers now dredges only the main federal shipping channel; private entities dredge their own landings. He said the Army Corps could dredge farther upstream but historically has not where there is no clear beneficiary. Lytle added that the district operates a dredge‑material site and seeks beneficial reuses for dredged sediment.
Commissioners pressed on costs and governance. Commissioner Anderson, the county liaison to the watershed district, asked about financial impact to Carver County if the district expands its scope; Lytle said the district has a ‘‘deferred budget requirement’’ and that even a large levy increase would not fully solve basin problems without rethinking how projects are funded. Several county commissioners raised concerns about seat allocation on the LMRWD board, noting Hennepin County currently holds an extra seat under the statute and Scott County has pressed for changed representation.
Lytle said the district will kick off its next watershed management plan cycle in about two months and is accepting vision comments until the planning meeting; after that, the district will move into stakeholder engagement on specific projects and rules.
No formal action was taken by the Carver County Board during the presentation. The discussion focused on the scope of the next LMRWD plan, funding mechanisms, dredging responsibilities, and the need to strengthen permit rules to allow proactive responses to hazards.
The Watershed District asked for continued county engagement during the planning process and for feedback on governance options as the district refines its 10‑year plan.