history of the MN buffer strip legislation/bill/law

B

Bob Peters

Well-known member
Hey, I was just wondering about the history of the regulation passed in MN (maybe 15 years ago)? I know that Dayton was the gov, and that it mandated a certain amount of feet of no-till buffer around waterways. I'm sure this took a while to get passed with farming such a huge industry. I'm wondering who got the ball rolling, whether DU, congress people, conservation groups, land trust organizations, etc. Is it just for ditches, streams, and rivers, or permanent wetlands too? I know I could duckduckgo it, but I figured if I asked here I might get more of the backstory.
 
I want to say it was about 10 years go. 15 seems a little too far. Mark Dayton was definitely the governor. I am pretty sure the State House was Republican and the State Senate was Democrat, so there was a dividied legislature.

I don't remember how it started. I just remember the opposition to it, which was Big Ag. They fought it tooth and nail. I think what helped is that they said it would be phased in over the years. Not a steadfast hard set date.

My understanding is that its "waterways" so that would include rivers, creeks, streams, lakes, ponds, and man made canals. Not sure about wetlands or marshes. The counties help regulate it. If someone is not in compliance, they are given a specific amount of time to voluntarily comply.

I think its made a big difference here. Obviously most of the buffer strips are on private land so they aren't huntable without permission, but in terms of overall habitat added, its tremendous. Its also greatly increases water quality too, filtering out chemicals and nitrates which can be thick in agricultural areas.
 
Last edited:
I think it has certainly helped, but just drive through the countryside and you can see plenty of noncompliance.

I do remember that it was sprung upon the conservation orgs and originated in either the DNR or within Dayton's cabinet. There was some fallout towards the conservation orgs that wasn't deserved as they didn't do anything to start it. However, I think they would have supported it.
 
There is a good reason to enroll in that program....get paid for doing it, before it is a mandatory thing. Everyone likes clean water , but farmers don't like taking those highly productive acres out of production...but that is where it makes a difference.
 
Just get Iowa on that program and we will be a bird paradise. I am afraid that is much easier said than done.
 
remy3424 said:
Just get Iowa on that program and we will be a bird paradise. I am afraid that is much easier said than done.
Click to expand...

Yep. Bird numbers would explode if Iowa did that. But Iowa is a Big Ag state (arguably the biggest) and it would take balls by more than one politician to take them on.

The city of Des Moines utilizes surface water from the Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers for their supply. The water from those two rivers if plum full of nitrates that have to be removed, which is very expensive. Guess where all those nitrates come from.
 
If they can't get something done as simple filter strips on the tributaries that feed the water system that Des Moines uses for their water, it isn't happening statewide. Guessing the lawsuits didn't help....or, are there bunches of voluntary filter strip enrollments in those areas after that issue surfaced?...anyone here in that area of Iowa?
 
The state abolished the Des Moines water board over the issue. A non-entity can't sue. W e love our nitrates!
 
Last edited:
remy3424 said:
Just get Iowa on that program and we will be a bird paradise. I am afraid that is much easier said than done.
Click to expand...
Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska....the list could go on and on of the states that would benefit from a program like this. If the states were smart they'd pick a period like we're in now of crappy commodity prices and high inputs to launch some programs. No better time to get marginal acres, crop or hay, back out of "production " and back into a program for conservation.
 
gimruis said:
Big Ag has a lot of power though. As I previously mentioned, there has to be politicians with the balls to take them on and do it.
Click to expand...
Yeah I know it but I feel like the general public is ignorant to this situation and PF, QF, NWTF, wildlife departments, etc etc have a large cheap voice these days with social media or pay for a few commercials to educate people to help get these bills passed. Just hunters will never get it done. We need to tell them why they benefit from clean water and less erosion, then we get to reap the benefits on the backend come fall. Hell some new farmers could stand to be educated on the benefits of land husbandry.
 
100% Remy. I’m seeing that on my land. It’s historically been farmed on about half the acres. A decent chunk of those acres probably never should have been farmed with either decent slope or being in a wet, low spot. I’m putting it into CRP, but it’s sad to think of all the erosion and fertilizer and chemicals that filled in wetlands and got into the watershed.

This year especially is a year where you really think about those areas that don’t have the best/any filter strips right by a waterway. Google says MN is the only state to require a 50 ft buffer. Good on them.
 
I fished a lake 5 days apart. The first trip was good. Five days later the fishing was terrible, and there were dead crappie floating everywhere. And some were at the surface in their death throes. I fished a drainage ditch area and there was a chemical looking film on the waters surface. After the weekend I called the fisheries office and reported the event. I'm glad I did because they had not heard of it at that point.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20240716_143707_Gallery.jpg
    Screenshot_20240716_143707_Gallery.jpg
    193.8 KB · Views: 17
  • 20240712_194047.jpg
    20240712_194047.jpg
    2.4 MB · Views: 17
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top