While the Minnesota House is prepared to vote today (Thursday, March 10) on the drought relief sought by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (for farmers and livestock producers) and the Department of Natural Resources (to replace tree seedlings), in the Senate agriculture committee Elbow Lake Republican Torrey Westrom added a provision to aid deer farmers.
Perhaps that explains why Westrom spent a month of committee meetings exploring the hardships of Minnesota's deer farmers, while only one meeting to hear testimony from conventional farmers about their drought related needs. The Westrom bill is on its way to another committee.
The media frame has been that the funding for the DNR has been the sticking point, but now that narrative gets another twist.
Forum News Service capitol reporter Dana Ferguson reports in Minnesota drought relief plans move forward at the Capitol, but face clash ahead:
Drought relief payments for Minnesota farmers and ranchers could again be delayed at the Capitol as the House of Representatives and Senate take up plans with a $13 million gap between them.
Agriculture committee leaders in the Republican-led Senate and Democratic-Farmer-Labor-led House for months emphasized the need to get grants and loans out to farmers and ranchers that couldn't draw crop insurance for their losses.
Earlier in the legislative session, it appeared that a $10 million set of grants and loans for producers hit hardest by the drought would have a clear path through the Legislature.
But recent changes to the bill could derail its passage at the Capitol or further delay relief payments from getting out the door.
The Minnesota Senate Agriculture and Rural Development Finance Committee on Wednesday, March 9, advanced a $10 million plan to open up grants to ranchers and specialty crop farmers. But not before the bill's author amended it to include funding to ready the state Veterinary Diagnostic Lab for a possible avian influenza outbreak in the state and putting up $500,000 in grants to deer farmers.
Sen. Torrey Westrom, R-Elbow Lake, said he decided to alter the funding plan from what the Department of Agriculture proposed to offer more funds for other potential emergencies. And he said some deer farmers should also get aid since some were impacted by the drought and also faced new burdens in complying with laws aimed at limiting the spread of chronic wasting disease.
“We’ve tried to balance our approach with $10 million covering multiple fronts that we’ve heard (with) drought relief being the primary concern,” Westrom said. “It’s going to help them with that unexpected cost because of the drought we had last year and be a partial replacement but a shot in the arm from the state of Minnesota … to help them sustain.”
The additions came after Westrom and other Republican lawmakers in both the House and Senate said they hoped to pass a bill focused solely on drought relief. And the grants to deer farmers are unlikely to pick up support from House Democrats, who pushed the law changes aimed at preventing chronic wasting disease's spread from farmed deer herds.
Democrats in the House, meanwhile, added to their version of the aid bill an extra $13 million provision to build out water infrastructure and replace trees and seedlings wiped out last year.
Republicans in the House argued that the grant dollars for trees shouldn't be part of the bill as they could stall out its passage. The full House of Representatives is set to vote on that bill on Thursday, March 10.
Agriculture Commissioner Thom Petersen on Wednesday told the Senate panel that the department didn't oppose Westrom's plan, but it deviated from what he'd put together with stakeholders.
“The way it’s broken down may not get as much money to our specialty crop farmers," Petersen said, "but again, we don’t know until we start getting the applications how we need that."
If the House and Senate approved different versions of the bill, differences could be smoothed out in a conference committee.
We're still curious how the grant dollars for tree and seedling replacement slows anything down. Instead, it would seem the sticking point now is the relief for Westrom's beloved deer farmers . We're not sure how many of them are his constituents, though we suspect there are many farmers, conventional livestock farmers and people who like shade trees and state forests.
Back on March 1, we observed in Minnesota House Ways & Means Committee passes drought relief bill while senate dawdles:
Over at MinnPost, there's a Walker Orenstein's article, With no agreement in the Minnesota legislature, farmers suffer from last year’s drought.
Go read it there.
We're puzzled about what the exact disagreement is about, since it seems like there's a bill (combining two versions of drought relief) headed to the House floor that would fund drought relief for farmers, while also aiding in tree replacement and such.
If the bill was approved by both chambers and signed by the Governor, it's not like the funding heading to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources would slow the Department of Agriculture's implementation of an expanded Rural Finance Authority (RFA) program after Walz inks the bill.
The House has managed to hear, move, then combine two bills in preparation for a floor vote. It's not rocket science.
Indeed, today--Thursday, March 10, the combined bill is on the calendar of the day for the House floor session at 3:30 p.m. Here it is:
H. F. No. 3420, (Authors: Sundin and Frederick. Companion to S. F. No. 3479.) A bill for an act relating to drought relief; modifying the disaster recovery loan program; increasing funding for agricultural drought relief loans; appropriating money for drought relief grants and other financial assistance for eligible farmers; providing financial assistance to municipalities, townships, and Tribal governments for increasing water efficiency in public water supplies; providing grants for planting shade trees and purchasing tree-watering equipment; providing financial assistance to replace drought-killed seedlings; appropriating money; amending Minnesota Statutes 2020, section 41B.047, subdivision 3. Second Engrossment.Printed page No. 226.
Pursuant to House Rule 3.33, a prefiling requirement for amendments offered to this bill has been established by the Committee on Rules and Legislative Administration.
There's one prefiled amendment, to eliminate the tree language, from Westrom fellow traveler, Paul Anderson, R-Starbuck.
Who's slowing down drought relief? Who worked to turn Minnesota's trees into a bargaining chip to hand out state dollars to the captive cervid industry?
Related posts:
- Minnesota House Ways & Means Committee passes drought relief bill while senate dawdles
- Second Walz administration drought relief bill meets with GOP crabfest in committee
Photo: Drought conditions in Minnesota. Via Minnesota Department of Agriculture.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, 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.
Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.
I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6
Comments