The Free Press, Mankato, MN

News Ticker

Editorials

February 11, 2008

Our View — State water quality diminishing

A summer’s day visit to the lake is a Minnesota tradition. The sun, the fishing, the beauty of nature.

And increasingly, the pea-green murky water.

In spite of decades of attempts to reduce the nutrients that turn our lakes into an ugly mess that harms water quality and aquatic life, Minnesota has been unable to get a handle on the issue.

The primary problem is phosphorus flowing into bodies of water, helping to super-charge the growth of lake plants, leading to algae blooms and reducing dissolved oxygen needed in a healthy lake.

The lack of progress is frustrating because it is an issue many have worked diligently on since the 1970s.

Already, many of the obvious problems have been addressed.

There has been a big push to reduce so-called “point-source” dumping of phosphorus by municipal sewage treatment plants. That program has been largely successful as cities across the state, including Mankato and St. Peter, have replaced old treatment plants with new facilities that drastically reduce the amount of phosphorus released into rivers and lakes.

The state in recent years also banned most lawn fertilizers containing phosphorus. Farmers, big users of fertilizer that needs to contain phosphorus, have also made significant strides through better crop management. Today, farm crops absorb most of the phosphorus applied, a far cry from a couple of decades ago when half the phosphorus was left on the land where much of it seeped into waterways.

In spite of those efforts, Minnesota lakes are still under assault and many lakes are getting worse, not better. More than 200 lakes are listed by the state as impaired because of phosphorus loads. That listing will lead the federal government to pressure the state to take more serious steps toward phosphorus reduction.

There are areas where more can and should be done.

Poorly performing septic systems remain a significant contributor to phosphorus loads, particularly septics located near lakes and rivers. Another major contributor is the onslaught of development. People understandably like to live near bodies of water. But counties and the state are not doing enough to require that developments are built in a way that limit nutrient runoff. Finally, the state needs to be more watchful of smaller livestock feedlots. While large feedlot operations are more strictly monitored, small feedlots are not.

The efforts already made show that reversing the degradation of our lakes will be more difficult and costly than most had expected.

But in a state whose very identity and economic vitality is tied to its natural beauty and water resources, there is no choice but to invigorate the battle.

Text Only | Photo Reprints
Editorials