Clean Water Council presents statewide priorities, flags funding uncertainty for local conservation districts

Paul Gardner, administrator for the Minnesota Clean Water Council, told the Minnesota House Legacy Committee that the council’s recommendations for fiscal 2026–27 focus on expanding monitoring, drinking-water source protection and targeted implementation in impaired watersheds, while warning that a tighter state revenue forecast could increase demand for Clean Water Fund support for soil and water conservation districts.

The presentation, given during a Legacy Committee meeting, summarized 15 years of monitoring and planning funded by the Clean Water Fund and explained how the council prioritizes funding to get measurable water-quality improvements. "We test our waters…find the source of the problem…come up with a plan to fix the problem," Gardner said, describing the council’s approach to watershed-scale planning and long-term projects.

Why it matters: the Clean Water Fund is the state’s principal dedicated revenue stream for water-quality work created by the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment. Gardner said the council expects to recommend allocations that stretch across drinking-water protection, groundwater work and surface-water restoration, and noted that some local partners—especially soil and water conservation districts (SWCDs)—depend on steady funding to deliver projects on the ground.

Gardner said the council meets a statutory requirement to advise how Clean Water Fund money should be used and described the council’s year-long review process. He said 28 people serve on the council (17 voting members and 11 nonvoting agency and legislative members) and that the amendment requires at least 5% of the fund go to drinking-water source protection; he estimated total spending directed to drinking-water protection, including related projects, is in the double digits and well above the 5% statutory minimum.

On monitoring and outcomes, Gardner said the council has greatly expanded the state’s water-quality data. "We actually can diagnose problems a little more thoroughly," he said, and pointed to watershed plans that project 10-year costs and outcomes. Gardner used the Yellow Medicine River watershed as an example of targeted spending and the Rice Creek remeander project in Ramsey County as an example of a local restoration that provided habitat, recreation and water-quality benefits.

Committee members asked about specific contaminants and threats. Gardner said the council supports three primary Clean Water Fund roles for PFAS: monitoring (MPCA), expanded fish testing (DNR) and the Department of Health’s contaminants-of-emerging-concern work. He said the council’s role is largely preventive: constitutional language and statutory guidance limit the Clean Water Fund to projects that "protect, enhance and restore" water; Gardner said a strict reading of the amendment limits use for mitigation once contamination has occurred.

On nitrates, Gardner said the state response is multiagency and includes increased private-well testing in southeastern Minnesota, permitting changes by the MPCA that affect manure land application, and voluntary work with landowners through the Board of Water and Soil Resources and the Department of Agriculture. "We have many, many opportunities to do that," he said, noting progress is uneven and more work is requested in the council’s recommendations.

Gardner also described the Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWISMA) framework—more than 900 DWSMAs statewide—that maps wellhead vulnerability and helps target outside-the-city protections, such as cover crops, fuel-tank removal and homeowner education. He said the council funds technical assistance to help communities apply for federal matching funds and bonding and that limited local capacity has, at times, prevented capture of federal grants.

Members raised the prospect that a weaker February budget forecast could shift pressure onto the Clean Water Fund as a revenue source for SWCD capacity. Gardner said the council watches the forecast and that some capacity funding has moved between general fund and Clean Water Fund in past sessions; he reiterated that the legislature has final appropriation authority.

Gardner said the council is working on a more accessible public presentation of monitoring results and outcome tracking and pointed members to a new story map and a monthly newsletter as ways to view projects and progress. He also said the council is trying to improve public engagement—particularly to reach constituencies who do not regularly attend Capitol hearings—and to strengthen consultation with tribal governments.

The committee did not take formal action on Gardner’s presentation. Members thanked Gardner and the council staff for the overview and asked staff to supply more information on specific watershed and local projects upon request.

Ending: Gardner told the committee he would welcome follow-up questions and that the council’s formal recommendations and accompanying policy statements appear in the council’s report and online materials.