Chaotic, contentious and unruly are some of the terms used by those present at the end of the 2024 Minnesota legislative session on Sunday, May 19, where shouting rang out up to the midnight deadline.
In the final hour before the deadline, the Democratic-Farmer-Labor majorities in both the House and Senate advanced a 1,430-page omnibus bill containing supplemental budget, policy and tax measures. The bill was signed into law on Friday, May 24.
While there is some frustration over how the bill got done, government relations officials with Minnesota's two main farmer groups, Farm Bureau and Farmers Union, say the results were largely positive for farmers. They detailed some of the outcomes while working with legislators in the second half of the biennium.
“We feel that this session has been a relatively net positive,” said Pierce Bennett, director of public policy for the Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation.
He noted that the focus was more on policy than spending since it was the second session of the biennium. The No. 1 focus was addressing nitrate issues in groundwater in southeast Minnesota.
ADVERTIsem*nT
“Change is hard at the Capitol,” said Stu Lourey, Minnesota Farmers Union government relations director. He said the omnibus bill was largely positive, but work remains to do in the next session.
Many proposals were heard, including proposals on drinking water and manure and fertilizer management, incentivizing cover crops and tillage practices, and education around the subject.
AFREC changes
A priority of the Farm Bureau related to the nitrate issue was to reauthorize the Agriculture Fertilizer Research and Education Council .
Despite some changes, funds will continue to stream to the program for the next five years. Dollars were also appropriated through the Clean Water Fund, and a broader conversation was had about how farmers can be a part of the solution.
“From a Farm Bureau perspective, we believe in voluntary programming that gives farmers options and choices that are best for their farms, their families and their communities while also ensuring that we recognize that this is not something that can be solved overnight,” Bennett said of the nitrate-related health concerns.
Within the bill, the 40-cent fertilizer fee is reauthorized to continue to fund the Agriculture Fertilizer Research and Education Council through June 30, 2030. While that was considered a win by many organizations , the makeup of that council will see some changes, with a shift from purely crop and retailer representation to the addition of soil and public health representatives.
USDA Rural Development announced funding for projects in 12 states, including Iowa, Minnesota and North Dakota, on Thursday. The projects all are aimed at enhancing domestic fertilizer supply.
Dec 31, 1969
·
By Jenny Schlecht
Previously, the council was made up of industry members representing corn, soybean, sugarbeet, wheat, potato, the grain and feed association, the Farm Bureau, the Farmers Union, the Irrigators Association, a crop consultant or adviser, and two members of the Minnesota Crop Production Retailers. A significant addition is a move from 12 members to 15.
A reduction of one crop production retail member means there are four new groups represented — all related to soil or public health. The additions include the Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture, the Minnesota Soil Health Coalition, an expert in public health, and one member who is an expert in water quality and has performed scientific research on water issues.
ADVERTIsem*nT
Within the scope of AFREC-eligible projects, new language was added emphasizing that research and education should also include a focus on “regenerative agriculture and the protection of clean water.”
Coming back to the nitrate issue, new language directs the council to develop or update research priorities and request guidance related to “the availability of nitrogen by manure type and livestock species based on management; and manure management and fertilizer best management practices for areas where surface water or groundwater are vulnerable to nitrate losses, including the adjustment of practices based on vulnerability such as coarse-textured soils, soils with shallow bedrock, and karst geology.”
Other nitrate-related funding included $2.8 million appropriated for nitrate home treatment, including reverse osmosis for private drinking water wells with nitrate in excess of 10 milligrams per liter, located in Dodge, Fillmore, Goodhue, Houston, Mower, Olmsted, Wabasha or Winona counties. Impoverished households with infants or pregnant individuals are to be a priority.
Both groups strongly supported funding the Agricultural Growth, Research, and Innovation program. This faced a funding shortfall last session. It received funding in this bill.
“It’s the umbrella program that funds the bulk of the proactive farmer-facing grants and financial assistance programs at the Department of Agriculture,” Lourey said.
Undesignated funds approved for AGRI include $2.5 million. Other funding in AGRI is related to meat-cutting programs, beginning farmer grants and assistance to fight the spread of bird flu.
Defeated legislation
Bennett said the Farm Bureau was pleased to see legislation defeated related to required reporting of subsurface drain tile installation .
Bennett said membership does not feel there is a need for additional regulation of their property.
ADVERTIsem*nT
Another piece the Farm Bureau was pleased to see defeated included one that would have created a need for an environmental impact statement for operations of 10,000 animal units or more, or approximately 8,500 head of cattle.
The legislation from Rep. Kristi Pursell, DFL-Northfield, highlighted the fact that operations of 1,000 animals were subject to the same environmental reviews as those with 10,000, partially because the regulations were written in the 1980s, a time when operations were much smaller.
Contributed
The Farmers Union stood out as a group that supported the increased scrutiny of these larger facilities.
Lourey said some of what pushed this idea forward was one farm group seeking to go from about 10,000 to around 20,000 dairy cows in Minnesota. Farmers Union members were particularly concerned about larger operations' impacts on groundwater use.
Ultimately, the legislation was not a part of the final environmental bill. Lourey said there will be discussion to see if members want them to continue to lobby for this type of legislation in the next session.
“This is the first year that we brought that forward. It was a good conversation, and I think legislators will have a continued interest in having that conversation in future years,” he said.
Lourey mentioned another piece of legislation that has been a topic since around 2016. This would be a MinnesotaCare “public option” to allow more low-income Minnesotans access to affordable health coverage.
The bill met stiff opposition and did not move forward.
ADVERTIsem*nT
Agweek file photo
Here’s a closer look at some of the other agriculture policy and budget items of significance to agriculture.
Cervidae damage
The bill makes available $50,000 to convene a working group to investigate and recommend options for addressing crop and fence destruction due to cervidae (deer/elk). The commissioner will submit a report on findings and recommendations by February 2025.
Meat processing
Secondary career and technical college education programs could apply for $225,000 in grants to offer meat cutting and butchery.
Public waters
Bennett said Farm Bureau members were concerned about the passing of funds to be spent on mapping public waters and the potential inclusion of other waters among those public waters.
