Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment

Several people have asked me about my take on the so-called Clean Water, Land, and Legacy Amendment. As one who works on water quality issues and is passionately committed to maintaining and enhancing Minnesota's natural resources, I suppose I should be excited about our coming opportunity to amend our state constitution:

"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to dedicate funding to protect our drinking water resources; to protect, enhance and restore our wetlands, prairies, forests, and fish, game, and wildlife habitat; to preserve our arts and cultural heritage; to support our parks and trails; and to protect, enhance, and restore our lakes, rivers, streams and groundwater; by increasing the sales and use tax rate beginning July 1, 2009, by three-eighths of one percent on taxable sales until the year 2034?"

A closer look at the details suggests that passing this amendment would pump more than $90 million dollars a year in water protection activities in Minnesota. What's not to like about that?

Well, for starters, the revenue generated by the sales tax increase apparently will be allocated by politically appointed commissions rather than by elected (and thus potentially unelectable) representatives. In the case of the dollars raised for water-related work, the responsible commission will be the Governor's Clean Water Council. So who is on this Council?

More importantly, let see where the appointees reside: Mayer (Carver Co), St. James (Watonwan Co), Coon Rapis, Duluth, St. Paul (2) , Ramsey, Redwood Falls, Minneapolis (2), Sauk Rapids, Buffalo, Woodbury, Dover, St. Charles, Stillwater, Burnsville...you get the idea. Not a single representative from anywhere in Minnesota lake country. No Brainerd. No Alexandria. No Park Rapids. No Grand Rapids. No Bemidji. Otter Tail County alone has almost ten percent of Minnesota's lakes and no representation! No Ely. No Detroit Lakes. What's up with that?

I am not necessarily opposed to the idea of increasing the sales tax rate to provide designated funding for something as vitally important to Minnesota's environment and economy as our lakes and rivers. However, I am more than a little suspicious of putting metro-oriented political appointees in charge of dividing up the pie. From a northern Minnesota perspective this smells of taxation without representation. In addition, I am concerned that passage of this amendment might also result in reduced funding for water through general fund allocations by the legislature.

On balance, I remain undecided as to my own vote. The fact that the wingnuts at The Taxpayer's League of Minnesota are against the amendment is almost enough to make me vote for it. Nonetheless, I encourage everyone to consider carefully the details and implications of this proposal, to weigh its relative merits and liabilities, and, most importantly, to cast an informed vote in November.

6 October Update: Strib poll numbers suggest strong but rather ill-informed support for the measure.