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.
_Web.png)