Last Week
On Tuesday, the Senate Environment, Climate and Legacy Committee held an informational hearing on oversight of state regulatory actions regarding nitrate contamination, wildlife management and waste incineration. While no action was taken on any of these issues and member discussion was somewhat limited due to time constraints, it’s helpful to hear how advocates and lawmakers are thinking about these issues. Comprehensive notes on questions and comments from committee members are included below.
Presenters including the Environmental Justice Table and Energy Justice, among others, argued that the health risks posed by incineration were much greater than those of landfilling and called into question existing data and studies that have led to states prioritizing the use of waste-to-energy (WTE) over landfilling. Comments touched on concerns around how permits for WTE facilities are enforced and the state’s ability to accurately measure emissions. Environmental groups argued the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) have the ability to either withhold permits from these facilities or require continuous monitoring for more chemicals, with one person asking lawmakers to support SF4578 (Fateh). Testifiers were clear in their position that an increase in landfilling was a necessary temporary consequence to prevent additional immediate health harms.
The Partnership on Waste and Energy, Minnesota Resource Recovery Association (MRRA) and Association of Minnesota Counties/the Solid Waste Administrators Association submitted testimony expressing their support for WTE as part of Minnesota's solid waste management system.
The MPCA provided a fact sheet on WTE use in the metro area, as well as their most recent sustainable materials management and solid waste policy report. The MPCA’s comments in committee echoed county arguments in support of WTE, highlighting the long-term risks for groundwater contamination and increased methane emissions stemming from landfilling, with landfills lacking some of the controls and regulations for emissions that WTE facilities are required to follow. The MPCA also touched on their efforts to advocate for more upstream measures to reduce the amount of waste entering Minnesota’s waste stream.
Sen. Steve Green (R) asked the MPCA to clarify data on how the Hennepin Energy Recovery Center (HERC) contributes to overall emissions in Hennepin County, arguing it’s a relatively small percentage. He also cited a recent MRRA study showing that the WTE process nearly eliminates PFAS and asked who else would be able to take on the additional waste if the HERC were to close. The MPCA cited a previous example of a closed facility that led to an increase in landfilling and the loss of that facility’s recycling and recovering efforts.
Sen. Jen McEwen (DFL) asked how public health factors into the MPCA’s decision to prioritize WTE over landfilling, which will largely come into play as the MPCA begins implementing a “cumulative impacts” requirement for permitting. The state looks to federal guidelines for allowable emissions levels when approving permits. The MPCA also explained how the state established the waste management hierarchy, with the long-term impacts of landfilling outweighing the short-term emissions from WTE.
Sen. McEwen then made a larger point about how the state has approached environmental protection, saying solutions are too individualistic and the state should be making broader efforts to hold polluters accountable.
The Sierra Club North Star Chapter, Minnesota Well Owners Association, and others presented regarding trends in nitrate contamination of groundwater in Minnesota, blaming the prevalence of crop agriculture (specifically, corn) for the increase in nitrate fertilizer use causing this contamination. One of the presenters cited a Dakota County aquifer study, which was later the subject of some questions from Sen. Green. Health risks associated with nitrate pollution include increased rates of cancer. Presenters were concerned that those contributing to this pollution won’t be held responsible for covering the costs of addressing drinking water contamination, with local governments and private well owners forced to pay for mitigation efforts. They argued that if aquifers are contaminated, this issue is too large for individuals or cities to address on their own, and the state must take action.
The Minnesota Department of Health, Minnesota Department of Agriculture and MPCA provided evidence of their work to protect Minnesota’s drinking water and address contamination from nitrates and other chemicals. The MPCA also testified in committee to share more information on their efforts to permit feedlots, Minnesota’s Nutrient Reduction Strategy, a 2024 work plan for addressing nitrate contamination in southeast Minnesota and the state’s Wastewater Nitrogen Reduction and Implementation Strategy.
Sen. McEwen expressed frustration that farmers, local governments or well owners would be forced to bear the burden of costs to mitigate contamination. The MPCA said they were agnostic to who would be asked to pay for this work, saying it was the prerogative of the Legislature to make that decision and pass legislation if they wanted to hold specific industries or companies accountable. Later, Sen. McEwen said this was an issue she would be looking into in future sessions, specifically calling out companies like Cargill that have profited from the use of nitrates and other chemicals for decades.
The MPCA also explained what it would look like to set new water quality standards for the state, including the inability for these standards to address non-point source contamination (where no polluter has been identified) and the significant costs and effort for the state to enforce these rules while only addressing a small percentage of nitrate pollution.
On Thursday, SF1690 (Kupec), the battery product stewardship bill, was heard in the Senate Environment, Climate and Legacy Committee. A bill summary reflecting the narrowed scope of the bill, as it was amended in the previous committee stop, is linked here. Sen. Rob Kupec (DFL) noted the bill’s cost savings for counties and safety benefits for waste haulers and solid waste management facilities. The bill was laid over for possible inclusion.
As in previous hearings, testimony in support of the bill was submitted by counties and environmental groups: Minnesota Zero Waste Coalition, Conservation Minnesota, Eureka Recycling, Fresh Energy, Partnership on Waste and Energy, Minnesota Inter-County Association and Minnesota Resource Recovery Association. Meeker County Commissioner Steve Schmitt testified in support of the bill. Industry groups, including the National Marine Manufacturers Association, Minnesota Chamber of Commerce and Redwood Materials, oppose the bill.
Sen. Green dominated committee discussion on the bill, expressing concerns about how retailers would respond to the legislation and wondering how increased costs might contribute to higher prices for batteries sold in Minnesota. He was also skeptical that this bill would actually reduce improper disposal of batteries. Sen. Ann Johnson Stewart (DFL) expressed her strong support for the bill and asked how this bill would help collect the valuable materials inside batteries.
Finally, both the House and Senate environment committees heard presentations from agency staff on the Governor’s supplemental budget proposals on Thursday. Representatives from the Minnesota Zoo, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Department of Natural Resources spoke to the committees, although there was no member discussion of note given time constraints.