The only comment I have came after reading the 10-year plan, which we will discuss later, and that is I will offer an institutional perspective: if you have a vision statement, you should include it in all marketing materials you send out. Otherwise, the vision will get a little lost, and it will appear as if different documents have different focal points. So, no problem with that. This is the current situation, but I suggest, in the future, if you are going to use a vision statement, to use it consistently and repeatedly. Because, theoretically, it is the foundation upon which everything we do is based.

I have a comment: perhaps when reviewing the plan, I believe the vision statement is a bit long and verbose. I think it would be better if the vision statement were concise and brief, so that all stakeholders, theoretically, could memorize it by heart. And I don't think that's what we have today.

The only thing I noticed, which also came to mind, is that I am currently helping my father apply for an exception. In Section 5.5, it talks about how the Southwest Missouri Local Government Unit Standards in its local ordinance cannot grant exceptions without first obtaining approval from Southwest Missouri. Is this new or a continuation of what was previously in place?

Then there's another thing, especially if you've paid them, and not to nitpick, but they really need to proofread the document very carefully in terms of grammar and punctuation. Because there are a lot of mistakes, maybe a quarter of the document, and there are many places they haven't mastered. So, especially if you're paying for that, they should fix it.

Well, it's spread throughout the plan. I think that when looking at the current plan's policies, for example, Article 6.8 talks about resource pooling and sharing. Article 6.6 talks about using county staff and Scott County Soil & Water Conservation District staff. It also talks about how the majority of staff support for the strategy is provided by the Scott County Soil & Water Conservation District. It's a strong reliance on our joint government partnership, and a recognition that we work as a team. And this is somewhat absent in the current plan. It talks about SWMO staff taking on core strategies, which is great. I think this confirms your point, Melissa, about the need to increase staff because you are clearly understaffed. But when I talk about Soil and Water Management, I mean its staff are dedicated to doing core work, right?

We have about 80,000 acres of agricultural land in Scott County, so a few thousand acres of managed soil might seem small, but when looking at the percentage of these practices in our county compared to the total agricultural land area, we find it relatively high. However, when looking at all surrounding counties or even at the state level, we find that the percentage of acres where we implement soil health improvement practices is very significant.

It's blue-green algae. Does it come from... is it from... or where does it come from? It's actually cyanobacteria that has existed for millions of years. It exists in every lake. In some lakes, this phenomenon appears more clearly when phosphorus levels rise. And when warm water temperatures combine, cyanobacteria or blue-green algae multiply significantly. These algae can be toxic, releasing toxins harmful to humans and animals. This year, we've seen ideal conditions for its proliferation, with many warm days, little rain, and low water levels.

That's a good question. Well, I would say things are generally going well, and I say that because we updated our standard operating procedures last year, where we tightened the procedures we take if we detect any violations, and tightened control over everyone, so to speak. And we informed them, for example, that if their site was non-compliant and they didn't correct it, the cost of each inspection would double. These financial signals caught their attention. But generally, I would say we are getting very good compliance.

In my work plan for this year, I will hold a meeting with many experts. As you know, our funding for aquatic invasive species prevention, I think I mentioned this previously, may be canceled. This state grant we receive is what we use to pay for boat inspections. We also use part of this funding for early monitoring to detect aquatic invasive species, where I survey lake vegetation to look for them. We want to detect them early. ... Our funding for this purpose will be reduced by 50% next year. We usually get about $68,000 for this funding, but next year we will only receive about $34,000.

We need to get approval from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to implement this type of project. But first, I need to talk with the Cedar Lake Improvement District Board, because there's a significant matching fund requirement. We need help covering part of this contribution. So, I will meet with them to see if they are willing to proceed with this project, and if they can provide a financial contribution. Well, the total matching funding required is about $200,000, which is the amount we get from the grant, and $78,000 is the amount required for the matching funds.