Pollution Control Agency's stormwater rules roil Minnesota cities

  • Article by: Josephine Marcotty , Star Tribune
  • Updated: May 21, 2013 - 10:25 PM

Cities must reduce or maintain runoff on streets and yards as part of an MPCA plan to limit pollutants going into streams and lakes.

  • 26
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
bosshogMay. 21, 1311:01 PM

Yes, the cities would rather not take care of their own problem but instead literally wash it down stream and have the state tax payers clean up their mess (or suffer from their mess). I don't see why this is such a big issue for them. They simply require new development to make changes in how water is handled.

tmauelMay. 21, 1311:06 PM

Reducing phosphorous run off by 90%. That means green lakes turning clear once again. Why would any city not want to implement this plan as long as cost and implementation are within reason?

chuckdancerMay. 21, 1311:08 PM

How sad. In the good old days people didn't have to be responsible for their actions and lakes and rivers are so convenient to use as dumps. It is also just plain cheaper to dump your stuff in the water. Can man even really affect water anyway? I wonder if the scientists all agree?

ytierianMay. 22, 13 5:17 AM

It's about time the MPCA got off their backsides and pointed the finger at the source of the worst pollution to enter and damage our lakes. If my property taxes go up a bit from this, I'll gladly pay it.

garibaldMay. 22, 13 5:23 AM

$55 dollars a year is not asking a lot for improved stream and lake quality.

Willy53May. 22, 13 5:43 AM

As V.P. of Field Operations for a mid sized commercial construction company that does work all over the metro and country, this is not difficult or rocket science. The plans fordesign and implementation of new stormwater systems in new construction projects are by civil engineers who will quickly internalize the new requirements. Yes costs of construction will go up but there is a win situation with having that water go back into the ground to be naturally purified and replenish aquifers. The city will not bear the cost of this so much as the developers and construction companies. This is the price of population growth and a country that values its resources. There is not really any alternative. A huge component should be the banning of irrigation systems and the requirement of designing landscaping that will live without obscene daily inputs of watering. That is a no brainer. News flash: grass will live in Minnesota without irrigation as will many trees shrubs and perrenials. Perhaps some initial watering but then they have to survive on their own. Our construction sites will become more difficult to manage but we'll send our supt's to training classes and they'll get recertified in the new rules. I'm all for it. Right On.

jcinmnMay. 22, 13 6:06 AM

One simple start would be for city government to allow the planting of native grasses instead of costly bluegrass / fescue rye lawns that require constant fertilization. There is still much resistance to lawns that do not conform to 19th century norms.

verdepatoMay. 22, 13 6:09 AM

Like the water never ran to the rivers and streams before man was here

kleindropperMay. 22, 13 6:42 AM

Don't worry, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin will happily accept any development you were planning in Minnesota. I saw signs saying they are open for business, unlike Minnesota.

foneboothMay. 22, 13 7:07 AM

It is obvious, just from anecdotal evidence, that Lake Harriet, after years of observation, is changing. This is just one lake, out of the 10,000+ that we like to advertise, that struggles because of a lack of human responsibility. Some kind of changes need to be made. We have to have ways to keep our house clean.


Comment on this story   |  


Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters






question of the day

Poll: Who wins tonight's Game 4?

Weekly Question