Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Watershed Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Shakopee outlines watershed priorities as Lower Minnesota River Watershed District begins plan update; new administrator seeks funding alignment
Summary
City staff on Oct. 7 presented recommended priorities for the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District’s upcoming 10‑year plan update and introduced the district’s new administrator, who stressed the need to align funding with impacts.
City staff asked the council on Oct. 7 to endorse priorities for the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District’s upcoming management‑plan update, and members of the watershed introduced new administrator Will Lytle and discussed funding and mission issues.
City staff said the existing watershed plan was adopted Oct. 24, 2018, and expires in 2028; the district is beginning its next 10‑year planning cycle. Staff recommended the city emphasize: maintaining partnerships with local governments; addressing legacy problems such as riverbank erosion and sedimentation rather than imposing additional regulation on developers; reducing chloride use and improving nutrient removal; and preserving funding partnerships including watershed‑based implementation funds (WBIF).
Staff said the city has received a significant share of Lower Minnesota River WBIF funding in recent years — about 52 percent of that watershed’s share over the last five years — and cited roughly $260,000 in WBIF grant awards over six years plus about $425,000 in additional cost‑share participation from the watershed for local projects. City officials said Shakopee’s stormwater and project work make a measurable contribution to downstream water quality and that the watershed should focus on upstream legacy sources of pollution and erosion.
Will Lytle, Ph.D., the watershed’s new administrator, said the district is unique: it was formed as a joint‑powers organization around the Minnesota River and combines a traditional watershed role with responsibilities for dredging and handling dredged materials. He said the district’s revenue base is limited relative to its mission, causing administrative and deferred‑maintenance shortfalls, and that the district must better tie funding to demonstrated impacts. Lytle and Scott County’s representative, Carter McNew, said the watershed wants to make it “easy to do the right thing and expensive to do the wrong thing” and to create fair financing mechanisms that reward upstream practices that reduce pollution and erosion.
Council members said they prefer to keep the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District as the city’s partner rather than fold the area into the Scott County Watershed District, noting the existing funding partnerships and project experience. Several council members emphasized groundwater recharge and riverbank stabilization as high priorities and asked staff to submit the recommended priorities to the watershed during the plan update process.
No final council action to leave or join a different watershed district occurred at the meeting; staff said the city may be asked for a formal position in the future.
