April 19, 2021
Dear Members of the Minnesota Senate,
On behalf of the Conservation Minnesota members from all 87 counties in the state, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on SF 959 (Ingebrigsten)—the Senate Environment & Natural Resources Finance and Policy Omnibus Bill. There are several sections in the bill that make meaningful investments or policy changes that will help Minnesota protect the clean water and clean air that we all expect in the North Star State.
We appreciate the increased SCORE grants to help Minnesota’s local governments improve recycling programs and reduce the amount of waste burned or landfilled every year. These increased investments will help local governments move up the waste hierarchy to reduce environmental impacts, and we look forward to supporting more sustainable waste policies in the future.
We also thank Sen. Ingebrigsten and Sen. Ruud for including policy language originating in SF 1110 (Ruud) to scrutinize the bulk shipment of groundwater out of Minnesota. We all recall reading of the proposal in Dakota County to ship Minnesota groundwater to the arid western US. These types of proposals could have severe impacts on Minnesota’s groundwater and surface water resources without robust statutory protections in place.
There are also several sections of SF 959 that Conservation Minnesota does not support. Starting with the budget proposals for the agencies that regulate and protect Minnesota’s environment and natural resources—we cannot support the practice of cutting general funds and shifting dedicated sources to backfill the cuts. Historically, Minnesota’s environmental and natural resource agencies received about 2% of the state’s general fund, and yet over the last two decades, as more dedicated sources of funding have become available, general funds have shrunk and now contribute less than 1% to the agencies regulating and protecting the environment. SF 959 further erodes the general fund support for Minnesota’s agencies that have the greatest impact on clean air, clean water and open space in the state.
This under-investment from the general fund is exacerbated when dedicated funding like the Environment & Natural Resources Trust Fund (ENRTF) is used to pay for wastewater infrastructure. Conservation Minnesota strongly supports state investments in wastewater funding, but using the ENRTF is the wrong source of funding.General obligation bonds or even federal resources should be considered for wastewater infrastructure funding, not ENRTF dollars. Furthermore, the projects recommended by LCCMR (but cut in SF 959 to pay for wastewater infrastructure) represent some of the most popular projects recommended by that council. Projects to get more people outdoors and projects to protect and restore pollinators have widespread public support, and cutting these proposals in SF 959 cannot be supported by Conservation Minnesota.
Two additional policy proposals within SF 959 should be reconsidered. The Environment Omnibus incorporates SF 450, a bill to repeal the MPCA’s rulemaking ability concerning transportation emissions. SF 450 would prevent Minnesotans from benefitting from Governor Walz’s proposed Clean Cars Rule. Most Minnesotans are interested in low- and no-emission vehicles to reduce their costs at the pump and to improve Minnesota’s air quality. Incorporating the language of SF 450 will mean that as more low emissions and electric vehicles come onto the national marketplace, Minnesota consumers will be missing the opportunities as manufacturers ship their low emission vehicles or EVs to state’s with better policies on the books.
The second policy opposed by Conservation Minnesota is the repeal of the new best management practices recently incorporated in the revised large feedlot NPDES permit. The MPCA regulates Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs or “feedlots”) to ensure the risks associated with large amounts of manure are mitigated with best management practices. MPCA’s new requirements under the revised feedlot permit forbid the application of solid manure in February or March when the ground may be frozen and the likelihood of runoff could be high. The new feedlot permit also requires cover crops on certain fields where manure will be applied, and it requires nitrogen best management practices to prevent contamination of surface water and groundwater resources. SF 959 proposes to repeal these new requirements which will affect approximately 1,200 MPCA feedlot permittees. Repealing these modest policy improvements will increase the chances that manure and fertilizer runoff will harm Minnesota’s lakes, rivers and water resources. Conservation Minnesota strongly supports new and innovative ways to incentivize manure and fertilizer management, but repealing the small steps the MPCA incorporated into the new feedlot permit takes Minnesota in the wrong direction.
We encourage the Senate conferees to take the aforementioned comments into consideration as they prepare for conference committee with the Minnesota House. If you have comments or questions about this letter please feel free to reach out to me at any time.
Sincerely,
Nels Paulsen
Policy Director