RIM funding vetoed from bonding bill
By Janet Kubat Willette
jkubat@agrinews.com
Date Modified: 04/15/2010 8:48 AM
E-mail article | Print version
ST. PAUL — Landowners interested in restoring wetlands have until May 14 to sign up for the Reinvest In Minnesota - Wetlands Reserve Program at their county Soil and Water Conservation District office.
RIM-WRP is a local-state-national partnership that combines the state's Reinvest in Minnesota conservation easement program with USDA's Wetlands Reserve Program. Funding comes through the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Board of Water and Soil Resources.
The state dollars are expected to come through the extra sales tax dollars Ok'ed by voters in 2008, based on a recommendation of the Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council. The council recommends that $6.9 million be spent for RIM easements.
For every $1 invested by the state, the federal government will contribute 1.6 dollars, said John Jaschke, BWSR executive director.
The state lost an estimated $35 million in federal funding when the governor vetoed $25 million in RIM funding from the bonding bill on March 14. The federal government was expected to contribute 1.4 dollars for every state dollar spent, Jaschke said, but the contribution rate was recently re-negotiated.
In his veto message, Gov. Tim Pawlenty wrote that the amount requested for RIM was more than six times his recommendation and "the language used invites an all or nothing veto approach."
The governor vetoed several projects, bringing the $999 million bill to $680 million.
The RIM money from the bonding bill would primarily have been used to partner with the federal Wetlands Reserve Program to restore wetlands, Jaschke said. The wetland easement is permanent and payment rates are based on cropping history. The payment schedule varies according to landowner preference, he said.
Riparian areas can also be enrolled in RIM, Jaschke said, but it's focused on wetland restoration.
The two most recent signups generated requests for $170 million in potential projects, he said. The projects are ranked and evaluated based on the benefits for wildlife habitat, water quality and flood prevention. They've never gotten more than a third of the way through the list.
If additional state funding doesn't come through this session, Minnesota's allocation of federal WRP money will be available to other states.
"I'm not expecting anything," Jaschke said, "but people are talking whether there can be another bonding bill. At this point I don't expect it."
If there isn't a second bonding bill or if RIM funding isn't included in a second bonding bill, the Board of Water and Soil Resources will be back at the Legislature next year to request state funds for RIM to leverage federal dollars.
The Board must have state funds no later than July 1, 2011, to leverage federal funds in 2011, Jaschke said.
Also stripped from the bonding bill was funding for renovation of the Oliver H. Kelley Farm in Elk River.
The project won't go forward at this time, said John Crippen, Minnesota Historical Society director of historic sites and museums. There's a slim outside chance there will be a second bonding bill this session, but he's not expecting that.
Instead, he's looking ahead to next year when a supplemental bonding bill may be assembled.
In the meantime, the MHS will continue the design work for the Oliver Kelley project, keep talking to people in the Legislature about the project, keep working with new partners in the agricultural community and be ready to act when another bonding bill moves forward.
The historical society did receive $3.4 million, about half of what they requested, for asset preservation of historic sites within Minnesota.