Document Type
Article
Abstract
In January 2015, the then-governor of Minnesota Mark Dayton announced new legislation that would require 50-foot vegetation buffers along all waterways in Minnesota; this legislation would come to be known as the Minnesota buffer law, exact requirements being “perennial vegetative buffers of up to 50 feet along lakes, rivers, and streams and buffers of 16.5 feet along ditches” (Albert, 2017; MN Board of Water and Soil Resources [MN BWSR] 4 ). A buffer in the context of vegetation and natural resource management is a strip of vegetation around a body of water “designed to intercept stormwater runoff and minimize soil erosion” (DNR Waters, 2007). The Minnesota buffer law specifically targets nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment. The deadline for compliance for public waters was November 1st, 2017, and the deadline for public ditches was November 1st, 2018 (MN BWSR 4). Landowners could apply for an eight-month extension to install buffers or an approved alternative (Albert, 2017)
The buffer law came about due to reports published by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency that stated that the water quality in Minnesota watersheds was below standard. One report specifically stated that “In watersheds dominated by agricultural and urban land, half or fewer of the lakes fully support the standard for swimming because of phosphorus” and that watersheds in areas dominated by agriculture “ tend to have high levels of nitrogen, phosphorus, and suspended solids” all of which are known to be harmful to aquatic life (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency [MPCA] 3, 2015). Aquatic life was not the only victim of low water quality. Interviews with Minnesota residents conducted by The Pioneer Press in 2015 found that many Minnesotan residents felt unsafe drinking their tap water due to high levels of nitrates (Magan, 2015). Magan further draws attention to the fact that many Minnesota cities such as Hastings and Cold Spring had to invest several million dollars into systems to reduce nitrate levels, such as drilling new wells and upgrading water treatment facilities (Magan, 2015). Minnesota's low water quality was harming wildlife, people, and costing cities and private owners money.
Something needed to be done about the state of Minnesota's water quality; the buffer law was one response. Today, 98% of land next to Minnesota waters is in compliance with this law (MN BWSR 4), but just how effective has it been? This paper will discuss the impact and how effective the buffer law has been on improving water quality in Minnesota, as well as how the law has impacted Minnesota residents.
Publication Date
2025
Recommended Citation
Isakson, Ellen P., "The Effectiveness of the Minnesota Buffer Law And Its Impacts On People" (2025). Journal of Earth and Life Science. 80.
https://pines.bemidjistate.edu/j-earth-life-sci/80
Included in
Agricultural Economics Commons, Agriculture Law Commons, Biodiversity Commons, Biology Commons, Environmental Health Commons, Environmental Health and Protection Commons, Environmental Law Commons, Environmental Policy Commons, Environmental Studies Commons, Land Use Law Commons, Law and Economics Commons, Legislation Commons, Natural Resource Economics Commons, Natural Resources and Conservation Commons, Natural Resources Law Commons, Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons, Other Pharmacology, Toxicology and Environmental Health Commons, Property Law and Real Estate Commons, Public Interest Commons, Public Policy Commons, State and Local Government Law Commons, Sustainability Commons, Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons, Water Resource Management Commons
Comments
Faculty sponsor: Dr. Paul Kivi