Special Legislative Update
May 19, 2023
Dear MCPR Members:
 
There are just days left in the 2023 Minnesota legislative session with a looming constitutional adjournment date of Monday, May 22. With the DFL controlling all three levers of state government, the fate of many key fiscal and policy priorities will be determined in short order as the session finish line approaches over the legislative horizon.
 
In recent weeks, lawmakers have focused their collective efforts on the passage of omnibus bills that comprise the funding and policy priorities for the DFL-led House of Representatives and State Senate. In fact, several bills have already been signed into law by Governor Tim Walz including the Agriculture, Broadband, and Rural Development bill. Just yesterday, an official bill signing ceremony was held at a farm near Finlayson, Minnesota that included Minnesota Department of Agriculture Commissioner Thom Petersen, Senate Ag Committee Chair Aric Putnam (DFL – St. Cloud) and House Ag Committee Chair Samantha Vang (DFL – Brooklyn Park). 
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz signs the Agriculture, Rural Development, and Broadband Omnibus Bill into law on Thursday, May 18, 2023 at a farm near Finlayson, Minnesota. (Office of Gov. Tim Walz)
Several omnibus bills continue to be negotiated in the final week including the Environment, Natural Resources, Climate, and Energy Conference Committee. Just last night, both the House and Senate voted in the affirmative to advance the conference committee report that was brokered by DFL leaders in the House, Senate, and Walz Administration. Due to the sheer size of the bill and agency jurisdictions that are included in bill, conference committee conferees needed to take more time to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of the underlying bills. The final report is a 434 page piece of legislation that contains spending and policy provisions affecting states agencies such as the Department of Commerce, the Pollution Control Agency, the Department of Natural Resources, and the Public Utilities Commission.

In the midst of the myriad of provisions in the package are ones that were opposed by MCPR throughout the legislative session and during conference committee deliberations due to redundancy of existing state and federal laws. In addition, the fact that the language was included in the Environment Omnibus bill vs. the Agriculture Omnibus bill was yet another end-around utilized by the conference committee to avoid the legislative arena that has actual jurisdiction over the state statutes that regulate pesticides. The new language agreed upon and passed by both the House and Senate that will now be memorialized in Minnesota State Statutes is as follows:
 
  • Prohibited Disposal Methods of Waste Treated Seed
  • Burial near a drinking water source or any creek, stream, river, lakes, or other surface water;
  • Composting; or
  • Incinerating within a home or other dwelling.
 
  • Pesticide-Treated Seed
  • A person must not use, store, handle, distribute, or dispose of treated seed with pesticide in a manner that:
  • Endangers humans, food, livestock, fish, or wildlife; or
  • Will cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.
 
  • Pesticide-Treated Seed Use and Disposal Consumer Guidance Requirement
  • The Commissioner of the Department of Agriculture, in consultation with the Pollution Control Agency, must develop and maintain consumer guidance regarding the proper used and disposal of seed treated with pesticide.
  • A person selling seed treated with pesticide at retail must post in a conspicuous location the guidance developed by the Commissioner of Agriculture.
 
  • Treated Seed Waste Disposal Rulemaking
  • The Commissioner of the Pollution Control Agency, in consultation with the Commissioner of Agriculture and the University of Minnesota, must adopt rules under Minnesota Statutes providing for the safe and lawful disposal of waste treated seed. The rules must clearly identify the regulatory jurisdiction of state agencies and local governments with regard to such seed. Additional Department of Agriculture staff will not be hired until the rulemaking is completed. The cost of the rulemaking is $175,000 derived from the state general fund.

  • Application of Certain Pesticides Prohibited in Cities of the First Class
  • Cities of the first class (more than 100,000 inhabitants) may enact an ordinance, which may include penalty and enforcement provisions, that prohibits a person from applying or using a pollinator-lethal pesticide with geographic boundaries of a city that has enacted such an ordinance.
  • Current cities of the first class include Minneapolis, St. Paul, Duluth, and Rochester. 
  • It should be noted the newly created language does not apply to pesticides used or applied on land used for agricultural production located in an area zoned for agricultural use within these cities of the first class if they do indeed enact such an ordinance.

Lastly, MCPR opposed this provision during the legislative session as pesticides are registered and regulated for use in the state by MDA, which includes sale, distribution, application, use, education, and enforcement. We were pleased to see the original intent of the bill scoped down to include just cities of the first class vs. the over 850+ cities located throughout Minnesota in the original proposal.
 
Additional Cautionary Statements for Corn and Soy Pesticide Treated Seed
Fortunately, a provision MCPR advocated against throughout session and during conference committee deliberations was dropped in the final agreement. The proposed language would have required caution statements for any corn or soybean treated seed treated with a neonicotinoid pesticide be framed in a box that includes a bee icon developed by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA). In addition, the proposed language stated that a label must have indicated that planting seed treated with a neonicotinoid pesticide may negatively impact pollinator health and to use care when handling and planting the seed.
 
PFAS
In addition, the Environment, Natural Resources, Climate, and Energy Conference Committee contained a plethora of new statutory language as it relates to perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances, more commonly known as "PFAS". The bill includes prohibition language on the sale or distribution of products containing intentionally added PFAS in products including carpets, rugs, cleaning products, cookware, cosmetics, menstruation products, dental floss, or upholstered furniture by January 1, 2025. The MPCA Commissioner by rule may also identify additional products by category or use that may not be sold, offered for sale, or distributed for sale if they contain intentionally added PFAS. A prohibition must be effective no earlier than January 1, 2025 and no later than January 1, 2032. Finally, beginning January 1, 2032 no person may sell or distribute any product at all that contains intentionally added PFAS unless the commissioner has determine by rule that the PFAS is a currently unavoidable use.
 
As was noted in enews last week, language was included in the Agriculture, Rural Development, and Broadband Conference Committee Report as it relates to pesticides (agricultural and cleaning product related) and fertilizers that contain PFAS. Language opposed by MCPR was introduced in the House earlier this session that would have prohibited the registration of any pesticide that contained PFAS, as an inert ingredient or an intentionally added substance. While this more draconian approach was dropped in favor of alternative language in the conference report, pesticide registrants and fertilizer manufacturers will now be required starting on January 1, 2026 to annually provide a statement that a product contains no intentionally added PFAS or, for products that contain PFAS, a pesticide registrant or fertilizer manufacturer must submit to the Commissioner of Agriculture the following information:
 
·    The name and purpose for which PFAS are used in the pesticide or products* including in any product components.
·    The amount of each PFAS in the pesticide or products*, identified by its name, chemical structure, analytical methods, chemical abstracts service registry number, or other unique method approved by the commissioner.
·    Any additional information required by the commissioner.
 
*Regarding definitions of what products would be affected as it relates to fertilizers, also included are specialty fertilizers, soil amendments, plant amendments, agricultural liming material, or other material that is manufactured, assembled, packaged, or otherwise prepared for sale to consumers, including its product components, sold, or distributed for agricultural, personal, residential, commercial, or industrial use, including for use in making other products.
 
In addition, beginning on January 1, 2032, the commissioner may not register a pesticide product or fertilizer that contains intentionally added PFAS unless the commissioner determines the use of PFAS is a currently unavoidable use.
 
Lastly, the commissioner of agriculture must conduct a review of existing published literature and other available information on the presence of PFAS in pesticides used in Minnesota. This was the preferred language that MCPR and ally agricultural organizations were supporting in negotiations with the conference committee for a host of reasons. While the preferred study language was included in the final conference committee report, unfortunately the other language articulated above was also included.
 
The study must consider the presence of intentionally added PFAS in pesticide active and inert ingredients; the potential for PFAS which is not intentionally added in pesticides; an assessment of the use and criticality of pesticides containing PFAS in Minnesota; potential alternative products; and other considerations necessary to determine the risks of, and need for, PFAS in pesticide products used in Minnesota. The commissioner must submit an interim report to the chairs and ranking minority members of the Agriculture Committees by February 1, 2024, and a final report no later than February 1, 2025.
 
Investment in Green Fertilizer Production
One other provision of note that was included in the final Environment, Natural Resources, Climate, and Energy Conference Committee Report was the inclusion of $7,000,000 in grants to cooperatives to invest in green fertilizer production facilities in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase the use of renewable energy in the agricultural sector. The grant must include a long-term agreement requiring cooperative members to purchase green fertilizer from the facilities and obtain training in best management practices in fertilizer application to minimize pollution. The renewable energy, hydrogen, and ammonia must be produced within 100 miles of the production facilities and the final production of nitrogen must occur within Minnesota.
 
In closing, the Minnesota Legislature is expected to adjourn for the session either over the weekend or on Monday at the latest. If you have any questions on any of the provisions included in either omnibus bill or other legislation being deliberated in St. Paul, please do not hesitate to contact me at patrick@mcpr-cca.org or (651) 238-0089.  
Follow MCPR on Social Media!
Are you following MCPR on social media? Make sure you like and follow us so you don't miss out on events, what's happening with our members and the latest news impacting Minnesota’s agricultural retail sector! 

Does your organization or company have news or a press release that you would like to share with the MCPR’s membership? If so, please contact MCPR Executive Director Patrick Murray at patrick@mcpr-cca.org.

Minnesota Crop Production Retailers | P: 763.235.6466
www.mcpr-cca.org
601 Carlson Parkway, Ste 450, Minnetonka, MN 55305