Matt Doll, Minnesota Environmental Partnership
On Thursday, February 13, the Minnesota House Environment and Natural Resources Committee considered a bill, HF 8, that would have significant impacts on the state environmental permitting process for major projects in Minnesota. With a Republican majority widely expected to last through mid-March the Committee voted along party lines to continue moving the bill.
MEP has significant concerns about this legislation and identical bills in the Senate – SF 570 and SF 577 – because of the loopholes it would create in Minnesota’s permitting system, loopholes that polluting industries could use to their advantage.
Who supports and opposes it
HF 8 has been presented as a “reform” bill in the same vein as the energy permitting reforms passed during last year’s legislative session, which passed after receiving input from a variety of stakeholders. Its backers have painted a picture of Minnesota’s economy being strangled by red tape, with businesses refusing to invest in Minnesota due to regulatory uncertainty or wait times.
They point to a report from the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce called “Streamlining Minnesota’s Environmental Permitting Process: Essential for Economic Growth.” This report notably points to sulfide mining projects as one type of project that would be boosted by a quicker, lighter process. That’s likely the reason that Mining Minnesota, along with regional business groups and agribusiness councils, support the bill.
The reality is quite different. The MPCA meets statutory deadlines for handling permits for priority projects the vast majority of the time. Minnesota is widely considered a business-friendly state. Some high-profile projects have met with delays, but these are more often caused by inadequate information from the businesses behind them, or their inability to meet state standards.
For other notable projects, state agencies have been excessively lenient, not strict, when it comes to permitting. The NewRange/PolyMet project, which has had several state-level permits overturned in court because they violated the law, is just one example.
“One of the most fundamental errors in HF 8 is the belief that there are yes and no decisions on permits,” said Aaron Klemz, Chief Strategy Officer for MEP member Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, in his testimony at Thursday’s hearing. “Instead, there is yes and ‘not yet.’” Indeed, we’ve seen numerous cases in which state agencies have either neglected to adequately enforce the conditions of its own permits for polluting industries or actively helped those industries circumvent environmental protections.
One solution that would help all sides of this issue is to make sure that the state’s environmental agencies have adequate funding for staff to give permits proper scrutiny. Governor Walz’s proposed budget includes some of this additional funding, but it remains to be seen if the Legislature will pass it.
Instead, Some legislators are pursuing this bill, largely backed by industry interests. We have seen no coordinated effort to seek feedback from other stakeholders. The lack of input thus far from Minnesota’s Indigenous tribes is especially concerning – as sovereign governments, they will be heavily impacted by dealing with Minnesota permitting changes.
Why the permitting bill is a problem
In MEP’s written testimony – co-signed by 25 other organizations – we focused on three key areas in which the bill would create problems for environmental enforcement.
First, the bill requires separate permits to be issued for constructing and operating a facility. That change might seem innocuous, but consider the implications: a company might not get permission to operate a facility, after getting approved to build one. The facility is constructed, and suddenly agencies are faced with enormous pressure to permit it to operate anyway, so that it does not become a “stranded asset.” This separation creates more regulatory confusion, not less, but still gives a large business an advantage in the process.
The bill would also set arbitrary deadlines for agencies to make permitting decisions, making it more difficult to get accurate information needed for informed permitting. It would also allow any individual to seek a court order for the agency to make a decision if the deadline is not met.
On the flip side of that coin, the bill would restrict public participation by prohibiting any Minnesotans outside of the county where a project is proposed, or adjacent counties, from petitioning for an environmental review of the project. This type of restriction has been proposed in previous sessions but has been successfully opposed so far.
The effects of pollution aren’t so neatly contained to county lines. The Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers, for example, each flow through or border more than a dozen Minnesota counties each and are affected by a vast number of tributaries. And these public waterways don’t just belong to some Minnesotans, but to all of us.
What’s next
HF 8 faced significant debate in committee, with some members questioning the lack of tribal engagement and the boost the bill could give to controversial mining projects, for example. The House Environment Committee voted along party lines to move this bill along to the House Workforce, Labor, and Economic Development Committee. A hearing in that body has yet to be scheduled.
HF 8’s companion, SF 577, has not yet been scheduled for a hearing, but its first stop is likely to be the Senate Climate, Environment, and Legacy Committee. SF 570, which includes the same content, has been referred to the same committee.
MEP plans to continue speaking out against this bill at each stage of this process to both Legislators and the Walz Administration. We aren’t opposed to an efficient permitting process and support the success of Minnesota businesses, but we see no reason, and plenty of downside, to poking holes in our environmental protections. Minnesota’s quality of life is deeply entwined with the lands and waters that we call home. This unnecessary bill would put our home at risk.