The passage of HF80--and its signing into law by Governor Tim Walz was met with great rejoicing by many in Minnesota's environmental community and relief in those communities which had wastewater treatment facility construction put on hold pending the resolution of a lawsuit challenging "last year’s controversial use of Minnesota’s voter-approved Environment & Natural Resources Trust Fund."
That's a description of the 2018 law by the Friends of the Mississippi River,which was party to the lawsuit, now dropped.
However, a look at language in two companion bills in the House and Senate suggests that HF80 didn't go far enough in repealing last year's last-minute surprise legislation. One of the changes challenged in the lawsuit (Count 3 and Request for Relief) wasn't repealed--and so SF2201 the Senate companion (1st engrossment) to the House bill (HF2032), appropriates $9,340,000 for grants for wastewater projects to small towns. Here's the passage (beginning at 25.13);
Water Infrastructure Funding Program
$9,340,000 the first year is from the trust fund to the Public Facilities Authority for grants for wastewater projects under the water infrastructure funding program under Minnesota Statutes, section 446A.072, to home rule and statutory cities and towns with a population under 5,000. The commissioner of the Pollution Control Agency must work with communities that receive grants under this paragraph to identify pollutant reduction opportunities related to wastewater projects under under this paragraph. This appropriation is available until June 30, 2023, by which time projects must be completed and final products delivered.
What's the issue with that?
To explain what the problem is with that, we turn to copy from the now-withdrawn lawsuit, which explains how statute was changed to allow for grants and loans for wastewater projects. Here's the original statutory language:
Here's the way that language was changed in 2018, according to the lawsuit:
While the appropriation in SF2201 isn't as egregious as spending millions in the trust fund to pay for servicing appropriation bonds, it's still violating the original excluding uses in the trust fund--and leaves the door open for future raids, shifting the trust fund money from the original intent for the trust to an expenditure that has been traditionally funded by other means.
As MinnPost's Walker Orenstein reported back in early October's Lawsuit over environmental trust fund may have implications for Legacy Amendment money:
Minnesota voters first approved the ENRTF in 1988, and the constitutional amendment that established it says the cash is meant for “protection, conservation, preservation, and enhancement of the state’s air, water, land, fish, wildlife, and other natural resources.”
The brief amendment was accompanied by a set of state laws which outlined in more detail how the money, which comes from the state lottery, would be spent. Those statutes said the cash was to supplement traditional environmental and natural resources spending rather than replace it. It also made clear what the money should not be used for — including city water pollution control.
It may be too late to repeal that wastewater treatment exemption for small cities, but leaving it in may be like leaving a path of chocolates to those who want to raid the chocolate shop.
Photo: A generic waste water treatment plant, because we have no desire to pick on small towns.
If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. Those wishing to make a small ongoing monthly contribution should click on the paypal subscription button.
Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen@gmail.com as recipient.
Comments