Committee on Environment, Climate and Legacy - Mar 26, 2026

I'm in legacy. I, as chair of this committee, call to order. Order. Let the record show that Today is Thursday, March 26, 2026, and the time is 3:10 at the moment. We have a full agenda today. And so I know we have lines of testifiers. We want to keep our time limits to 2 minute per each testifier. And I'm going to control that as tight as I can. I do allow a little leeway, mainly because I'm a slower speaker and you know, sometimes speaking I have slur and a little challenging. So I do understand that. But for those who are expert in speaking, I'm going to be very, very firm. All right, so we have four bills today, and now we do have quorum. The first bill here is from Senator Houchild, Senate File 4228. And Senator Houchow will be presented from remote. He will announce his location. Also, before we go to him, I want to just mention some committee decorum. There will not be any clapping. There will not be any standing or any hold of sign. And the sergeant arm is here to help anyone that will have questions. Okay, so let's start off with our first bill on the list here, Senator House Child. If you online, do turn on your mic and your camera as well. Thank you, Chair her and members appreciate the flexibility. I'm coming to you from Hermantown, Minnesota, virtually today. I have for your consideration Senate File 4228, the acquisition provisions, better known as the Lands Bill. Lori Klein, a lands attorney with the Department of Natural Resources, is here today and can speak to the specific provisions in the bill as needed. And I do have four amendments. So we could either have Laurie go through the bill first, Mr. Chair, or I could bring forward amendments. I'd imagine you'll want to hear from her first. Okay, let's hear from the testifier first and then after that we can just go through the sequence of your amendments. Welcome. Welcome, Lori. And state your name again for the record.

Senator House Shaw, would you proceed to make your amendment? Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I'll start with the A3amendment. This was brought to me by St. Louis county and includes two sections that were prepared and requested on their behalf. Mr. Jason Meyer, the director of lands and minerals with St. Louis county, is available online for questions and to say anything about that particular amendment as needed. Okay, members, all the amendments are in your package, and so if not, we can ask the page to pass it to you. Any question on the amendment, and if not, we're going to move on to. We're going to motion to adapt this amendment and then move on to the next amendment. And then after that, we can continue having Discussion on the bill as it is. Okay. All in favor of A two amendments, say Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. Opposed? Okay. Motion prevail. Okay. Senator Hochschild, back to you on another Amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And just to clarify, that was the A3amendment, the one we just voted on? Yes, that is. Okay, let's. Let's motion again. So House shall move that we adopt the A3amendment. All in favor say Aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Motion prevail on A3. Now to the A2. Do you have the A2amendments in House, Chow? Yes, Mr. Chair. The A2amendment. This is from the Historical Society. It's regarding the Lower Sioux Agency Historic Site and the Marine on St. Croix Historical Site. David Kell here from the Minnesota Historical Society is here to address the amendment. I believe he's in the room. Okay, welcome. And while he's making his way up there, I forgot to mention that we're going to have a hard stop at five as that's our usual two hour committee slide. Okay. Welcome, Mr. Kelleher. Go ahead with your presentation. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members of the committee, I'm David Kelleher from the Minnesota Historical Society. Mr. Chair, the A2amendment contains two transfers which will. The first one, which will become Section 10 of the bill, as Senator Hochschild mentioned, is in Redwood county. And really that's a continuation of a transfer that was authorized by the legislature in 2024. There was a part of that parcel that did not have the legal description included in the 2024 bill. So what's in the A2amendment is that on line 1.11 is is the legal description of a parcel that we meant to include and thought was included, but was not included. So to correct that action in 2024, that's the first part. The second part on the A2 on line 1.21, which will become Section 12 in Washington county, that's the Marine Mill Historic Site. The City of Marine on St. Croix asked us to consider transferring a quarter of an acre so that they could build a community building on that site. That is a site that's rich with archaeological resources. And we did some investigations and found a portion of that site that would not be disturbed by the construction of a building. So the new section 12 is for that transfer of about a quarter acre to the city of Marina on St. Croix. And with that, happy to answer any questions you might have, any question or discussion from members. Also, is there an additional testifier on on this amendment, Senator H. Not that I'm aware of. Mr. Chair. Okay. All right. All in favor of the A2amendment, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Motion prevail. Thank you. Okay. Next is the A6amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The A6amendment is a result of ongoing collaboration between Itasca county and the dnr. This concept originated last year in a Senate file. And I really appreciate the county and the dnr, DNR continuing to work together to develop a framework for this pilot program. Basically, what this does, I'll just walk through the three subdivisions very quickly. Subdivision one directs Itasca county to develop and run this pilot program to identify and sell tax forfeited lands that after review by the DNR Commissioner, the county determines our better return to private ownership. Subdivision two sets two deadlines. First, October 1, 2026, the county must identify all tax forfeited parcels that border public waters and are accessible by existing roads and infrastructure. And by December 1, 2026, it must rank those parcels by how much the county's land management interest would benefit from returning each one to private ownership. Subdivision three allows the county to sell up to 10% of the identified parcels and put some guardrails in place. For example, sales must honor existing rights of prior owners to repurchase land. It requires that land within tribal reservation boundaries first be offered for sale to the tribal nation and requires that all sales follow public sale procedures, except that private sales are permitted for parcels that are non conforming to zoning or landlocked without legal access or best used by combining with an adjoining parcel. And with that, Mr. Chair, I do have Itasca County Commissioner John Johnson there in the room to testify in the amendment. And Mr. Bob Meyer with the DNR is also able to speak from the agency's perspective. Okay. Welcome, Mr. Johnson. Please state your name for the record. My name is John Johnson. I'm an Itasca County Commissioner. I represent District 3 of Itasca County. As Senator Hochschild stated. Mr. Chair, approximately a year ago, Senate file 2381 was offered as a. And it was a basic concept of the amendment today. Since then, I have engaged in multiple stakeholder and resident meetings to get feedback from some of our county residents relative to this concept of pilot program. But more importantly, Mr. Chair, I have had ongoing dialogue with the Department of Natural Resources, and we've entered into a collaborative agreement on how we can move forward with this. So it's my hope today that the committee will support Amendment 6. Okay. We also have Assistant Commissioner of DNR Bob Meyer online to speak and to speak on the amendment number six. Thank you, Mr. Chair members for the record, Bob Meyer, Department of Natural resources Excuse me. Mr. Johnson is absolutely right. We have been in great conversations about this proposal for some time now. When we first learned about it last year, it was quite alarming in the beginning. But once we had conversation and understood exactly what the county's trying to do, it makes perfect sense. I kind of view it as a reinvest in Shoreland or in Shoreland property again, where you have a lot that has been gone, tax forfeit. There used to be a cabin. There's a road that goes right by. There's power, sometimes sewer or septic system. Those properties should be put back on the tax rolls. But it also provides for a process to review for habitat, aquatic habitat and terrestrial habitat impacts and also also other environmental attributes that these properties are providing. So we look forward to working with the county on this. I will just say this language is in a state of work still. We are trying to minimize the fiscal impact of the department, but also make sure that we're providing a valuable asset to the county in this review as well. So you may see a little bit different changes as this moves forward. But the concept, as the commissioner said, is one that we're interested in working with them on. Thank you. Thank you very much. I think we also have another person online, Richard Lippy, that will be speaking on the amendment A6. Richard, are you there? Go ahead, turn on your camera and microphone. Hello, thanks for having me. I'm Richard Libby with Isaac Walton League in Grand Rapids, Minnesota. We've been defending public lands for many, many years. And last year we were really alarmed at the bill that was presented that would allow up to the sale of 10% of our lakeshore with private sale with no DNR oversight. We did meet with Commissioner Johnson last night for a good hour, had conversation, but he didn't have any idea what the bill was going to be that's presented now. So I haven't had time to review it. But our big concern is to protect our natural resources up here. They did do a test run and they said it could identify up to 6,500 acres of public lands that border in the county. That would be 10%. And we're just concerned about, you know, is there going to be public oversight? Is it this going to be by private sale? I'm glad Bob Moore and the DNR is involved in this, but it's an ongoing thing, so I don't know exactly where we should go from here. Also, there's a potential to sell 3,000 acres of the property up here due to a no net loss policy that the county instigated a few years ago. It used to be that it was no net. It was no net loss and it's no net gain now. And we're also under stress from school trust land selling lakeshore. So we want to minimize the amount of lakeshore sold. Sounds like the bill might involve citizens. That would be good. But mainly, you know, the lifeblood of the Northland is our public lands. And the thing that drove this bill to begin with was to try to balance the county budget. I don't think we should, you know, lose all our public lands. Once they're sold, they're gone forever. And this is state land and it belongs to everybody. And that's the lifeblood of our country up here for recreation, for aesthetics and so forth. So thanks for having me, and I hope you try to protect our natural resources and keep the land and public ownership as much as you can. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Libby, any discussion on the A6amendment? Senator Green? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a couple of questions for Mr. Libby. If he's still online, I'm here. First is just a comment, Mr. Libby. As I understand that this is private land that went tax forfeit because the people couldn't afford the property. Property taxes on it. Or maybe they passed away and it went back. So is private land or was private land, and as we'd be reverting back to that, but I didn't. I know you're from the Isaac Walton League, but do you live in Itasca County, Mr. Libby? Yeah, I've lived here all my life. In fact, it's named the West Libby Grand Rapids and Northern Lakes Chapter is named after my dad that started it in 1935, and it's been existent since then. We've got DNR Wildlife Manager, Regional manager on our board, the retired forester and real estate dealer from Atasi County, a game warden, grouse society member. So we're active in trying to protect the public land as much as we can. But we weren't aware of this new bill until yesterday, so we haven't had time to really look into it. Mr. Johnson explained it somewhat last night, but even then it wasn't finalized, and I don't believe it's finalized now. So thank you for that, Mr. Libby. So do you happen to live on a lake? Yep, I live on a lake. In fact, one of these. I've been the president of the Caygima Lake association for 12 years. In the past, I'VE been on the board for 30 years, and we worked with the county and the state to preserve three of the largest islands on the lake through fundraising. All this and this I see as a step backwards. You know, if it's developable land, like I say, on the road. But we need to have oversight by private individuals or groups like us or the dnr. And private sales should always be over. It was checked out by the DNR. Mr. Chair, just one last comment. So, Mr. Libby, it sounds like you've got land, lakeshore land in Itasca county, and you are obviously a responsible landowner, and yet you want to prevent other people from owning land there. And Itasca county is very heavily state land right now. And what this is doing is not taking land away from the state. It's putting private land back into private hands. And so I don't see what the big issue is here. I think this is a really good amendment and I encourage a yes vote. Can I reply to that? It went tax for. But some of these parcels back in the 40s and it's been under. The state has the title to it and it's managed by the counties. And right now the county can sell it as they please. And we change county commissioners every couple years. And so it should be allow five commissioners on their own to determine to sell up to 6,500 acres every. I agree with the. If they could go through and find the parcels, like you said, that are developable on a lake in a marginal space, go ahead. But even those provide habitat for everybody. And we don't want to be another brainerd with which we're getting towards McMansion. People are coming up from down south, tearing down houses, cabins, decent ones, building McMansions. And if they can, you know, Lakeshore Valley's going up and up and up and up, and it's never going to come back once you sell it. Thank you. Any further discussion? Mr. Chair, I just have to respond to that and I will be quick, but thank you, Mr. Chair, once again. You know, Mr. Libby, I've seen this in the past. I don't know you, but the county commissioners in Itasca county are elected by the people, and they're elected to make those decisions. And to assume that they're not going to make the responsible decisions for their county is in itself not responsible. And once again, you're assuming that this land is going to be treated poorly. But anyone who can afford these lakeshores is not going to treat that land poorly. I'm sure they're just as concerned about the wildlife and environment as you are. And to sell a piece of land into private property is certainly not losing it forever. It is using it at the best ability that we can do so. Thank you. Thank you. Senator Healthchild, any closing comment before we adapt the a sixth amendment? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Wiesenberg. Senator Wiesender better have his hand. Senator Wiesenberg. Mr. Chair, just to clarify, this bill's been around since March of last year. Okay. Senator Housechild, closing comment. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Appreciate the conversation and some of the questions and also the testimony from both the commissioner and the landowner in the county. I think this is a really balanced approach. It's a pilot. We're trying out a way for us to get tax exempt properties that went into tax forfeiture back onto private ownership. This is something that we are always balancing in northern Minnesota with the amount of public housing lands we have. And so I just really appreciate us trying this out and seeing how it goes. I think we've put in some really strong and good guard rails. And I appreciate the county and the leadership of Commissioner Johnson working with the DNR on a proposal for how we can make this work. Thank you so much, Senator.

Yeah. Let's hear from Bob Meyer, the DNR, Ms. Klein or Mrs. Johnson. Mr. Chair, if I may. Thank you, Senator. Approximately a year ago when this concept came up, I sought the support and approval of my county board at a county board meeting. And it was an official board action to proceed with this concept. Since then, I've engaged in public meetings with special interest groups and interest groups within our community and our county, as well as the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe. In fact, I just met with Executive Director Gordon Feinde yesterday to further discuss the tribal inclusion in the amendment to ensure that if there are any tribal lands identified, they get first right of refusal on those properties before they would be auctioned for private sale. Any. Okay, well, good. Now we'll move to. We'll motion to adapt the A6amendment. All in favor of the A6amendment say aye. Aye. Oppose. Okay, Motion prevail. The next Amendment. Senator HAUSCHILD, the amendment. A seven amendment. That's right, Mr. Chair. This is the final amendment that I have for this bill. This amendment simply removes Section 8 as described by the DNR testimony earlier on the bill. Okay. Remember, any question to that. And Mr. The assistant commissioner can speak to this as well. Assistant Bob Meyer. Sorry, Mr.

Buttons are playing a trick on me. Bob Meyer. Since Christian dnr. Again, this is language that we included in the bill. Some issues have come up with this section. We're asking to remove it from the bill while we continue working with the landowner. Okay, Any discussion. But. No discussion. Senator, House child move that we adapt the A7amendment. All in favor say Aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Motion prevail. Okay, all. The amendment is complete and the bill as whole. Any discussion on the entire bill, Senator Jolkowski? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Hochschild, for the bill. Ms. Klein, could you tell me how many acres were we selling in this bill? I like to see more. I'd like to see this bill be thicker than it is. I'm curious how many we're actually selling in this bill, Ms. Klein. A ballpark would work. Mr. Chair. Ms. Klein.

Senator Koski. So, Mr. Chair, members, the public watching, we've got. We've got bills that sell land. One bill that sells land, that's this one, 30 acres we're going to sell. And we have multiple bills that buy land, which I'm looking at, Senator Green. But it's at least, Mr. Chair, the 35,000 acres that we're going to buy of private land and make it public land in the legacy bill. And then there's more acres in the LCCMR bill. And I don't know if there's other buy land bills, too, but just if you just compare those 35,000 acres of buying land and 30 acres of selling land. That's where we're going here. But I do appreciate the bill, Ms. Klein. Thank you for your work on it. Thank you, Senator Hocho, for the bill. Okay, any further discussion on the entire bill, Senator Housechild, closing mark on the entire bill. Thank you, Mr.

To save time, I appreciate the consideration and the discussion on the lands bill, as always. Okay, this bill. So how shall move that? The. Hold on just a second. Or you can send it to the floor. Okay. Can council help me with the formal language, please? But, Senator. House, house a motion. Mr. Chair, members, I think the motion would be that Senate File 4228, as amended, be recommended to pass and re. Refer to the committee on Finance. Okay. All in favor of that say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Motion prevail. Thank you, Senator Hal Child. Next is Senator Johnson Stewart. 753852. Okay. And sir Johnson's Johnson Stewart. Do you have an amendment? Okay. You wanna, you wanna move to adapt the amendment first?

Okay. Everybody have the A3amendment? Okay. Okay. All in favor of the A3amendment say aye. Aye. Opposed. Okay. Motion prevailed. Okay. To the bill, Senator Ann Johnson Stewart.

Thank you. And we have total of 10 testifiers for this bill. So we're going to be straight on our 2 minutes and 2 minute rules and we'll apply that as soon as the first speaker began. I'd like to call on Mr. Andrew Hillman from MCA and Janelle Kuznia. You can come to the testifying table first. So welcome and state your name for the record. Chair Herb members of the committee. My name is Andrew Hillman. I'm a water resources specialist with the Minnesota center for Environmental Advocacy thank you for the opportunity today to testify in favor of SF3. Water intensive industries are increasingly looking to states like Minnesota and this region to cheaply exploit groundwater for industrial uses. However, Minnesota's groundwater resources are not unlimited. Pumping too much water can cause residential wells to run dry, draw contaminants like manganese and arsenic into well water for people's residential wells, and long term can threaten sustainable water supplies across the state. We're especially concerned at MCEA with the trend of large volume water Large volume industrial users avoiding scrutiny by getting water through city permits for example, there are several data centers proposed in Dakota county that would more than double a city's current water use. In Elka New Market, for example, a bottled water plant has already amended the city's permit once to accommodate its water demand and has plans to do so again as they increase their operations. This bill provides three common sense measures to increase scrutiny for these large volume industrial users. First, it creates a separate permit requirement so the state's allocation priorities, which favor domestic use as the first priority, are easier for the Department of Natural Resources to enforce. Second, it requires a public comment period so the citizens of the area can weigh in on proposed water use in their communities. And three, it requires large industrial users to report their monthly water use to the DNR and to include any aquifer pump tests that the DNR chooses to require as part of the environmental review process. Because these changes will help protect Minnesota's limited groundwater resources from unscrutinized exploitation and use, I ask you to move SF352 forward. Thank you and I'm happy to answer questions. Thank you very much. Also like to call Mr. William Vaughny to be ready now. Janelle, go ahead. State your name for the record.

Perfect. I'd like to call Mr. Jason Mackell to the testified table and Mr. Bonnie Do. State your name for the record and you may present. Thank you Mr. Chairman, distinguished members. My name is William Bonin. I'm a geologist with Midwest Geological. As you're aware, the Minnesota statutes clearly define priority of water use with personal use being tops and then municipal and agricultural being following closely behind. The way the permits are being used today is a deceptive practice that allows lower priority use to be equal to personal, municipal or agricultural use. This bill closes that loophole and it makes the lower priority large volume users apply for their own permits to be assessed on their own merit. I think that secures individual rights of use of water. Also farms rights to produce food using that water and cities rights to use that water for their citizens. So as intended by current law. Thank you. All right, next testifier, Mr. Mochio and staff. Your name for the record or pronounce it the right way as you it seems. Go ahead Mr. Chair, members for the record, Jason Meckle. I'm the assistant division Director for Ecological and Water Resources at the dnr. I know we have a short amount of time, so I'm just going to be very succinct and get to the point just to speak to a few provisions in the bill. There is a fiscal note that, that we had prepared the separation of a permit. So for an industrial user to get their own permit but still get the water from a municipality is going to require some reprogramming and some adjustments to our permit program. We're not currently set up to have a sub permittee, so we just wanted to make sure folks were aware of that. The public comment period as it's currently drafted presents some challenges because this is asking us to notify and receive public comment on a geographic basis. We don't currently have a mechanism to do that. We have a Gub delivery service. It can go to anybody that subscribes, but we don't have a way to target a notice to a watershed boundary or then receive the comments and then process those comments. So that's also in the fiscal note. The last thing that I wanted to comment on is the intended incentives, and I understand and appreciate what that is meant to do. However, we have a large permit backlog and moving some of these permits to jump the line presents some challenges for us. I also would hope that as the bill moves forward, we'd be able to provide some clarity because as it's written, all they'd have to do is have some reuse. It might be 5% or it might be 95%, but if it's 5% and that moves it up to the front of the line, I'm not sure what we've accomplished there. But we're happy to continue to work with the author as the bill moves forward. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next testifier is Mr. Moley from the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce. Also, I want to ask Mr. Burt, Jim Burt to come forward as well. Go ahead. Chair her members of the committee. My name is Andrew Morley and I work for the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, a statewide trade association representing more than 6,300 businesses and a half million employees across the state. Thank you to the committee and Senator Johnson Stewart for the chance to testify today in opposition to the DE amendment to SF 3852, which creates a new permitting requirement for certain water users. Among other provisions, one provision requires a project to give notice to every municipality Its same U.S. geological Survey. Unicode. That means a project near the Twin Cities would have to notify every municipality through the Upper Mississippi region, which includes neighboring states but also towns in Missouri and southern Illinois more than 600 miles away. This would be a massive undertaking for the dnr consuming significant full time employee hours and financial resources. It would make compliance for the agency next to impossible and make litigation a certainty. Just nine months ago, the Legislature approved a set of statutes governing data center permitting taxation and more. In that new law, the DNR has the authority to request pre application information from data centers, including water use plans, sources, temperatures and averages, among other items. And most relevant to this Discussion, under statute 100 and 371, the legislature directs the DNR to require applicants conduct aquifer tests to protect the public health, safety and welfare. This was a compromise bill that received significant support from both caucuses in the House and was signed by the Governor before creating duplicative or unnecessary compliance requirements for the project proposers and the dnr. We believe the newly passed protections should be followed first. Thank you, thank you very much. Next, I also want to invite Mo Fushimi to come to the testify table and Mr. Berg, go ahead with your testimony. Mr. Chair members of the Committee. My name is Jim Berg. I'm a hydrogeologist. As a 37 year veteran of investigating, mapping and monitoring groundwater. As a hydrogeologist I've lived through a few cycles of water supply anguish caused by too much rain, too little rain or the appearance of new water intensive industries. Today the challenge is hyperscale data centers and their needs to consume enormous amounts of groundwater for cooling. Thirty years ago I began my career as a DNR hydrogeologist. I learned some very encouraging things about my home state. Minnesota is a riparian water rights state. Everyone owns the water it's in such a system, people and water dependent ecosystems have the first priority. If ever there are conflicts due to limited supply, irrigation power production and industrial commercial categories are all subordinate uses. To me, these two concepts form a kind of groundwater bill of rights. I was proud to present those ideas to audiences whenever appropriate in my many groundwater investigation presentations that I made over the years. Recently I've become concerned about the hyperscale data centers and the shell games that some of the world's largest and richest companies are playing to access vast amounts of water to cool their computers. Last year at a local groundwater conference, I listened with great disappointment to a story from a citizen group about a hyperscale data center in Farmington that was hiding its purpose in permanent applications and was planning to use huge amounts of groundwater from the city. My first thought was if permitted, this would stomp all over The Water use priority system. That was one of the key features of what I consider to be the Minnesota Groundwater bill of rights. SF 3852 would create transparency by requiring the large volume users to get their own permit and prevent hiding behind the municipal permit. This bill will require restore the integrity of the water use priority system and help prevent overuse and improper use of Minnesota groundwater resources. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I also want to invite Mr. Peter Woginis to come to test the Montevo once the seat is open. So next is Mr. Fushimi. Welcome. Hello. Thank you. Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Mohe Shami. My professional background is in telecommunication and data center network design for Fortune 500 companies, some of them here in Minnesota. I'm here to share my personal experience in support of SF3852. I live in the proximity of the mentioned hyperscale data center in Farmington, right in the middle of residential neighborhoods. When fully operational, it can demand more water than the city of 22,000 uses on an average day. This intense water demand will happen in summer when the city restricts citizens water use but permits the data center to operate at its maximum capacity. Water demand Two months after DNR warned the city of Farmington about the significant water demand of the data center, Farmington signed a contract that guarantees the developer up to 2.93 million gallons of water per day subjugating Farmington citizens to this significant amount of water. That this contract prior to DNR's evaluation and approval is fiscally irresponsible. This contract protects the developer, not the citizens. The same citizens that Farmington leaders took an oath of office to protect and to serve. Cities supplying the data centers out of their own domestic water can also circumvent Minnesota's water prioritization statute in case of water scarcity. This could allow data centers to jump the line in front of which they're a priority five to jump the line to priority one well ahead of small businesses and our struggling farmers. I get it that Minnesota is supposed to be a new business friendly state. But these new data centers should not drain our natural resources without state oversight and regulation and protection. Please approve SF3852 so that other cities don't suffer like Farmington. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. And for those who already testify, you know, do stay on in case member have any question for you. I'm going to call Jenna Van Den Boon to the testifying. Oh she's on remote, so be ready. Next will be Mr. Wginis. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm Peter Wiginius, Legislative Director at Sierra Club Northstar Chapter. Thank you to Senator Johnson Stewart for offering Senate file 3852. Why is Minnesota such an attractive place for Big Tech to locate hyperscale data centers? The first reason is obviously the subsidies the state provides for Minnesota taxpayers. But the second reason is likely our waters. Using our waters to cool their hyperscale data centers can save Big Tech owners huge expenses compared to air cooling with electricity. The owners want massive amounts of drinking quality water because it's the cheapest way to cool. Others have already noted that a separate DNR permit is needed to ensure residential customers remain the priority. But that's not the only reason. The expert staff at DNR need to be involved, even if the people they answer to aren't certain that is needed. Because cities are not equipped to deal with big tech behemoths and cities are not charged with protecting aquifers. DNR is. Our water resources do not follow municipal boundaries. A broader perspective and the expertise that comes with it are necessary. Furthermore, we have an incentive problem. Cities are going to look at data centers as a way to raise revenue. But the gap between the size of a big tech owner of a hyperscale data center and a municipality in Minnesota can hardly be overstated. It is a chasm. That small municipality could sell water at many times the rate they charge to residential customers, and the city could feel like that's a great deal for them. But it would still be a small cost to the hyperscaler compared to the cost of cooling without our water.

to create an effective financial incentive for water conservation through the water bill. Consumption of drinking water needs to be directly regulated to protect our water resources for future generations. This must be the DNR's responsibility. And thanks again to Senator Johnson Stewart for offering this bill which is both responsible and necessary. Okay, thank you. We'll go to our remote testifier. We have two. First testifier is from Stop the Montecell Data Center Group. Ms. Vande Boone, are you online?

Okay, stay here.

We see you just fine.

Now it's off, but. Oh, right there.

Thank you very much. Let's go to our second remote testifier, Dr. Lewis, and help me with the last name here. Schwartzkope. Yep. So go ahead, state your name for the record. Louis Schwarzkopf. And thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm a retired physics professor from Minnesota State Mankato and a volunteer with Isaiah and I'm testifying in favor of Senate File 3852. I want to tell you North Mankato's experiences with the hyperscale data center developer. North Mankato is entirely dependent on the Mount Simon aquifer for its drinking water. The Mount Simon, as you know, is protected by state law and can be used only for domestic purposes and not for commercial, industrial or agricultural uses. In 2023, a developer approached North Mankato city staff with the proposal for a hyperscale data center. City staff signed a non disclosure agreement. So the development proceeded in secrecy. Then In April of 2025, the city posted the required environmental review of the proposed data center on their website for public comment. The draft auar, that's what it was, stated that the development, which it called a technology park, would get its water from the city water system using the city's permit, thereby circumventing the restriction on industrial water use. North Mankato's water Appropriation from the Mount Simon is 570 million gallons a year. In 2023, the city used 533 million gallons. Water use of the proposed data center was estimated from data in the draft auar to be 450 million gallons a year for a water cooled system and 180 million gallons a year for a non water cooled system, clearly exceeding North Mankato's appropriation. The city lobbied the legislature last year to amend the Groundwater Protection act to give them the water they needed, but were unsuccessful. My point is this. This bill, by requiring a separate permit for data centers, will help to protect North Mankato and other small cities from data center developments that approach them. And it will help protect the aquifer as well. And they encourage the committee to support it. There's more information in our written testimony and I'd be happy to answer your questions. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Now, members, any questions to Senator Johnson Stewart or comment on the subject matter or question to any of our testifiers? Certainly. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Johnson Stewart, for bringing the bill. When the chamber testified, they had actually brought up some of the questions. They don't seem insurmountable some of their concerns. It isn't necessarily the real context of the bill. I guess as I was going through the amendment, that was one of the things that popped up to me right away too, was the removal for the requirement of the aqua for testing. Can you just give us what the reasoning for that was or. I remember going through that years ago and, you know, kind of everybody being on board with that. Aquifer testing was kind of the bellwether for what we were doing when it came with groundwater. Can you give us a little more detail on that, why it was removed?

Language. Thank you, Mr. Chair. On the original bill, starting at line 2.21 and under, let's see, it's subsection B, I believe it does delineate the requirement for an aquifer test. And in the amendment it does, it mentions it, but it doesn't really require it. And I don't know, it just seemed like that if that was a legal necessity out of some reason or.

so, Stanley

Mr. Chair, members, I believe the current statute allows but does not require the DNR to require an aquifer test. And the bill as introduced, not the amendment, but the underlying bill that Senator Lang is asking about, said that DNR essentially said the same thing, that the DNR can require an aquifer test if the commissioner determines that the test results are necessary to ensure public health, safety and welfare, et cetera, are protected. The language in the amendment that addresses this issue is found at the bottom of page two and the top of page three. And it leaves in place this DNR discretion to order an aquifer test, but simply says that where it exercises that discretion and orders 1, the results of that test have to be considered as part of any environmental review that takes place place in connection with it. So I guess my question remains.

Say that again.

Right. You and Mr. Chair. Thank you. We removed the requirement for the aquifer testing. That would be correct, right, Mr. Stanley. So it is up to the discretion of the DNR at this point with the amendment.

Mr. Stanley Mr. Chair. Senator Lang. No, my understanding is the statute as currently written and the bill as introduced and the amendment, it's discretionary under all three of those. It's just that where there is one under the amendment, it is now required to be included in environmental review. Where there's going to be environmental review.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And that was my initial thought when reading through the original bill, where I thought it was required by paragraph 2.2. Paragraph 2, where I tend to agree

That is the intent of my question. Yeah.

Chair, the original language in the bill that you're referring to, Senator lang, on lines 2.21 to 2.25 says that an aquifer test has to be undertaken only. And here are the words, I think, that answer this question. If the commissioner determines that the test results are necessary. So it is discretionary under the bill as introduced, and nothing in the amendment changes that discretionary nature.

Certainly, Mr. Chair, I think maybe the question should be with the gallon amount and the water usage amounts we're talking about. Maybe the question is, should we.

Starlight thank you, Mr. Chair and Secretary. Senator Johnson Seward the next question would be actually the second part of what the chamber had said. Again, they didn't seem the context of the bill didn't really seem to bother him. It was some of the processes that happened within. But the public notification, what he mentioned, is there some thought or some language where you could get the results you wanted with public notification, but also streamline some of it? Is there a way to do that? Senator Johnson STEWART Perhaps.

Mr. Stanley, Mr. Chair, senators, this is something that's determined differently across different statutes. Some set it at 30, some said it at 60, some said it at other periods. I don't know if somebody from the DNR has a good sense for what the average is. I certainly don't. Anyone from the dnr?

Or. Yeah. Mr. Chairman, for the record, Jason Meckel, Assistant Director, Ecological and Water Resources at the dnr, My colleagues and I all looked at each other and we think 30 is pretty standard.

Any other questions? Senator green thank you, Mr. Chair. Listen to the testimony of both the Chamber and the dnr. So you can stay there for a minute, if you would. It doesn't sound like they're anywhere near being able to implement this. Did you discuss this with them at all on the permits and what was the result of that? Senator Johnson stored.

Okay, Mr. Chair, thank you for the DNR then. I've dealt a little bit with water usage not on the data center, and it's obviously about data centers, but with irrigation. And some of my irrigators have gone through, they've gone through hell trying to get their permits up and running. And when they do, they can be cut off if the wells go down. So if you got private wells and they start to drop, policy in Minnesota is your heavy users have to stop using water, is that still in effect in this situation? Mr. Chair, members, senator Green. Yes, the state law protects domestic water supplies and an agricultural irrigation permit is only subject to being suspended during the growing season and if it is endangering a public water supply or a domestic water supply. And that is my point. So there is protections there right now. And we're trying to, you know, we're kind of jumping the gun. I don't know if the data center in Monticello is still moving forward. I had heard one time they had given up and, you know, so you won that one. But we're going after this. And the same is true with the mpca, if there's any. And you don't have to answer, Senator, but if there's any problems with any kind of chemicals or any kind of pollution within the water, the MPC 8 already has the ability to step in. And so one of the questions that I have when you do this statewide, and I'll go back to the irrigators on a smaller scale because that's what I dealt with. There was concern that one farming group was using 7 million gallons of water to irrigate, but the aquifer itself was over a trillion gallons. And so the 7 million gallons didn't really affect the aquifer. And so, you know, we're talking about a set amount here. And I'm not going to tell you that I'm for or against the data centers. I don't have a dog in that fight. But I do worry when we do blanket stuff across the state because that affects my area a great deal. Maybe not in this area, but a lot. And I would rather see it be done on a area by area scale. And then I'm going to stick up a little bit for the city councils here, even though you may have some problems with them. They are elected by the people and if there's a problem, then they can deal with that. So I'm just. I'm not comfortable with the bill for a couple reasons. One, the agencies obviously are not ready for it. And not taking into consideration the amount of water in any given area seems to be a little overbearing.

Is this bill will be laid over?

But that's your intent, right? You don't want to lay.

Just, just for the sake of time, you know where.

Thank you. And this bill will be layover. Thank you. Senator McCune on center file 1245. Sir. McCune, welcome to the community that you are vice chair of and so to your bill. Sarah McCune and we do have testifier, a long list of testifiers so our 2 minute time limit do kicks in.

Okay, thank you, Sarah McCune. We have a list of testifier and going first will be Ms. K. Kelly Applegate from the department, from the Commissioner of Natural Resources, Malak Band of Ojibwe. She's on remote right now. If you can switch your camera and audio. Mr. Sorry, can you hear me all? Can you all hear me? Yes, we can hear you and see you as well, but now we lost visual.

Okay. There we go. There we go. I see myself there. All right. Well, good afternoon, chairman, members of the committee. My name is Kelly Applegate.

the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe, and

protect wetland areas and natural habitats, including our sacred manoomin or wild rice areas

As of April 2024, the state of Minnesota has recorded 522,000 motorized off highway recreational vehicles.

expanding trail systems and allocates grant and aid funding for the creation of additional off highway vehicle trails that may be

where tribal members have federally protected hunting, fishing and luring rights. This activity has several acknowledged environmental impacts

some of the primary consequences of those

engaging in consultation with tribal nations regarding

may traverse tribal lands and and our ceded territories. Our shared natural resources are facing significant

These and other environmental impacts threaten our traditional practices which greatly depend upon our

Mr. Applegate, if you can go to a conclusion, that would be great.

Yep.

Thank you. Next on remote is Gretchen Mamel.

Thank you. Next we'll go to Ms. Susan Sherbert. I think she's here.

Thank you very much. And we have from remote Jeff Burch. Welcome. After Jeff Burchin is Greg Val hello, My name is Greg Qualley. I'm a member of Backcountry Hunters Board Director. A little background on myself. I'm a 30 year employee, retired employee of the DNR. I was part of the original team that developed the current rules and OHV regulations about two decades ago. One thing I can say personally is and the statistics support this, the use of OHVs in Minnesota has increased exponentially. Backcountry hunters and anglers is a public land, water and wildlife advocacy group. We support all legal uses of public lands and we Support Senate File 1245, specifically the unification of the rules in both the north and part, excuse me, both the north and south parts of the state. Now, the committee's going to hear plenty of testimony today that this is all about a loss of opportunity and rights. And that simply just is not the point. The rules have worked excellent in the south half of the state. I'm a user myself. I live in the south half of the state and I have no problem complying with the OHV rules in the southern part of the state. I also have property in the northern part of the state and I have some problem complying with the rules in the northern half of the state because it's not clear where I can go and where I shouldn't go. So at a minimum, I would recommend to the committee that the rules be unified statewide. If there are objections to other part of this bill, I would highly recommend to the committee that they work out the differences on this bill. But please unify the rules statewide for all of us. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you. And let me go back to Jeff Burchan. If it's not online, we're going to go to the next testifier. Dr. Laura Perez. Hello, Jeff. This is Jeff Burcham. Okay, go ahead. Hello, my name is Jeff Burcham. I'm a concert was a conservation officer for the DNR for a little over 25 years, mostly in the Beltrami county or Beltrami Island State Forest in Lake of the Woods County. I've just got a couple of comments I want to make today. Number one, this bill simplifies state regulations. Right now about half the state has rules that trails are closed unless posted open. And the other half, which are up north, says trails are open unless posted closed. This is confusing to people and makes enforcement of the rules harder than it needs to be. This legislature should fix this by passing this bill. Number two, this bill will help keep regulation signs in place. If you can't ride on a trail that's posted closed, what we see, a lot of times people tear down the signs. That is a major problem for enforcement officers. Without a closed sign in place, I couldn't enforce keeping people from these riding and causing damage to these environmentally sensitive areas. Number three, this bill will keep illegally new trails from forming In a very short time. A new trail can be illegally developed. Once a visible trail is present with no sign place marking it, it's closed. And by definition now it's open. That means continual time and money spent by the DNR to keep looking for these new trails and posting them close. Now, I understand that trappers and deer hunters are concerned about this bill. They shouldn't be. As a trapper and a deer hunter myself, we have an exemption to travel off trail with ATVs when you're trapping and also to retrieve a deer during deer season. Nothing will change with that. With this bill, my recommendations as a former enforcement officer who spent his whole entire career in the field enforcing ATV regulations is to simplify the state's regulations and make it statewide that all trails are clear closed unless designated and posted open for off road vehicle use. This is what this proposed legislation does. Thank you for your time. Okay. Senator McCune, you know, we're a little short of time, you know, and this, this bill do need some work and more discussion. And I know there's. We have whole lists of people and I still have a bill coming up to. But because of the current decorum and security reason, I think we're going to have to have a hard stop at five. I know that there's two people there lined up to speak now, but let me get to the DNR so that we have diverse, fair perspectives as well. So can I call the dnr? Yes, why don't you go ahead then. Followed by the DNR. Yes, go ahead.

Thank you very much. And I'm going to skip a few people that are on the list. I want to call Mr. Ron Porter of President ATV Minnesota to be the next testifier as well. So Ms. Graham.

Why don't you go ahead with your testimony.

groups in the bill.

Please support this bill.

Thank you very much and well welcome Mr. Ron Porter. You may testify in the following by Corey Cease, Chairman, Herd and Committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Ron Potter. I serve as the current President for the All Terrain Vehicle association of Minnesota. Together with our 71 member clubs, we build and maintain a sustainable ATV trail system across Minnesota that supports local economies, enhances outdoor recreation while protecting our natural resource. I am here today to express our strong opposition to Senate File 1245 because it threatens the responsible trail development framework that we have worked decades to establish. Over the last two years, we've worked in good faith with Senator McHugh and others to find common ground and improve this bill. We've also had discussions with the DNR and the counties as the bill directly impacts lands they manage. While we're allowed to use limited areas of the land they oversee, we neither have the authority nor make management decisions on those lands. We work to be good partners as they manage for multiple use. All ATV trails are developed through rigorous permitting process. This is a public transparent and administered by the dnr. Trail development and maintenance follows the environmental best practices. The ATV program has Trail Ambassadors that are trained by the DNR who monitor trails, identify maintenance issues early, and notify both local clubs and the dnr. These Trail Ambassadors also interact with trail users they encounter to answer questions and to ensure they understand the rules and the expected behavior. They're also trained to identify invasive species, mark their locations and provide that information to the club in the dnr. This DNR Trained Ambassador program is a unique example of how the ATV community takes responsibility for stewardship and education. For these reasons and several others. The All Terrain Vehicle association of Minnesota and its member clubs strongly oppose Senate file 1245 and respectfully ask for your no vote on this bill. Finally, ATV Minnesota wants to be clear about the tone of this discussion. We are aware that some communication legislators regarding this bill have been inappropriate, including language that is disrespectful, misleading or in some cases offensive. ATV Minnesota does not not condone hateful or discriminatory communication of any kind. We believe strongly that policy disagreements should be addressed through respectful fact based dialogue. While we have serious concerns about Senate file 1245 and oppose it as written, we are committed to engaging in a constructive and responsible conversation grounded in accurate information and a shared goal of balanced, workable solutions for Minnesota's public lands. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you very much, Mr. Porter. Next is Corey Heath, but I want to call Chris Berger to come forward as well. Okay. Mr. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk to committee on Senate file 1245 and the task County Board of Commissioners also have an opposition letter on this bill. Recreational trails are vital to our northern communities which are dependent on tourism for supporting our local economies. This bill puts additional and unneeded restrictions on further trail development and use of OHVs within the state. Like many other northern counties, Itasa county utilizes a county OHV develop trail development policy alongside the state's grant need procedures for all OHV trail development. These policies require that we have public notice and consultation early in the process. Our policy does and landowner permissions, environmental permitting and they must be attained before any trail can be established and opened. Our policies, as well as grant and aid procedures require the DNR area and regional reviews and state environmental review programs which if thresholds are met, would include an eaw. And very importantly, our policy requires local and government as well as public notification for the required public meetings and public comment periods. And local governments also also still have the opportunity to create ordinances to regulate uses within their powers and their jurisdiction. The current trail development process can take four or five years or longer, sometimes often longer before a trail is established and open to use. Also, especially given the state of our ATV Fund, our trail funding and grant sources essentially mirror many of the regional trail projects currently have these stringent requirements for cultural Also cultural environmental review, our land department provides oversight on trails in the county. We take great pride in our stewardship for the natural resources we manage to protect. We provide local oversight by natural resource professionals with firsthand knowledge of the land. With this oversight we are able to review and steer proposed projects into areas that have least amount of environmental impact, including the use of existing forest transportation infrastructure structure that is would minimize any additional impacts by establishing a new corridor. So we thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak on this bill and we hope that you vote. No, thanks. Thank you. I'd like to also call Mr. Jeff Salmon to come forward as well. And now Mr. Bork, with your testimony. Chairman her and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Chris Bjork. I live in St Paul and I'm a District 67 constituent of Chairman Hers. And I'm here to respectfully oppose Senate File 1245, a bill that would dramatically reshape off highway vehicle management in Minnesota. Me and my son are avid dirt bikers, spending much of our summers riding and maintaining trails in the magi State Forest, as well as participating in organized trail rides and enduro events in other state forests. The proposals in Senate File 1245, while called Common sense from proponents, are far from it in reality because of time. I'll try to focus on just one area. But the main issue that I have a problem with is this bill creates a decommissioning process that's far too easy to trigger. Under Subdivision 5, as few as 50 local residents or just 150 Minnesotans statewide can petition the DNR to consider closing an OHV trail. The commissioner must review every petition within 90 days, regardless of whether any scientific evidence is provided. This invites organized campaigns to target trails across the state and forces the DNR into a continuous cycle of administrative review rather than focusing on resource management. It should be noted that this is only for motorized recreation too. This does not touch non motorized trails. So to sum it up, for these reasons, I respectfully urge the committee to not advance. Senate filed 1245 in its current form and thank you for your time. Okay, we do still have a few people on remote and I want to call them, although we getting closer to five and we may not have member discussion. But this is a bill that we will plan to at some point have more discussion on this and depend on Senator McCune, what's your decision on this bill? I think it needs more debate to make sure that we find the merit of this bill. So I also really appreciate, let's see Mr. Potter for making a good statement on being biased toward individual members and also appreciate, I know Senator McCune, you did allude to that itself about discrimination. And folks already stated clear earlier that what the bill is about, the bill is about our environment. The bill is not about Hate or anything like that. And I know that you alluded to folks that just left me a number of hate messages which I could, which I could accept of any apology. I live by the code of forgive those who know not what they're saying. And so we're talking about improving our environment, whether it's for ATV or environment, so that we can keep it long lasting for a future generation. That's more important than not taking the easy route of just telling someone to leave this country. And if the chair has left this country, we will not have fee increase or grant that I appropriated last session for the ATV and also many other things. And I might take a vacation somewhere, but I'll be back and still vote. So I'm going to make little exception with little time here, maybe giving five minutes so that we have everybody testify and then I'll go back to you, Sarah McCune, to, to see what your decision is on this bill. Okay, so because Mr. Edith is already here on the testify table, you may go ahead with, with your testimony and, and then be ready. Mr. Madison online. Okay, go ahead. Yeah, welcome Mr. I'm. I'm Jeff Salmos. Oh, Jeff. Jeff Salmo. Okay. Yes, Right. Go ahead. All right, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for having us. My name is Jeff sos. I'm a board of director. I'm part a board member of the Minnesota Four Wheel Drive Association. We urge you to oppose SF 1245 in its current form. Our community supports responsible recreation. We have volunteers that have spent many hours maintaining trails protecting natural resources along with the land managers. SF 1245 in its current form takes a one size fits all approach which without clear evidence of widespread harm, the 200 to 150 foot setbacks would eliminate large portions of sustainable long established trails in a state where water is everywhere, requiring environmental assessment worksheets for even minor trail changes. Even though the trail had the environmental assessment worksheet done when it was created would make a routine maintenance or safety improvements slow and impractical. Preventing or delaying very important environmental protections that we all want. Allowing just 50 individuals to trigger a trail decommissioning without proof of harm involves invites conflict, not collaboration. And using right or paid funds to potentially reduce access undermines a system that already works. We all want to protect Minnesota natural resources, but the bill doesn't balance protection practicality. It restricts responsible use without improving outcomes. I respectfully ask that you oppose SF 1245. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. I'd like to call Willis Madison from online, Isaac Watten lead. And then Please stand by. Ms. Jody Provost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am Willis Mattson, the master's degree professional ecologist and former MPCA regional director for 28 years. I find opponents to this legislation commit two serious interrelated errors. One such scientific and the other economic. First, ecology is really the study of nature's economics, which is my area of expertise. Opponents of this legislation cite a study claiming ATV trails brought $36 billion into Minnesota's economy. But independent reviewers discovered major flaws. The authors used a biased statistical sampling technique that wrongly exaggerated the positive market based benefits. But they never addressed or corrected these issues. Secondly, the study ignores the fact that researchers must also include the negative impacts of ATDs on nature's economy. Nature's economy is in free fall while the human economy grows. You know this if you drive an automobile. Because you've collected ecological data on your windshield in the past seven decades, the number of bug stains you've had to scrape off has diminished by about 70%. Science corroborates your observations that insect populations are disappearing due to disruptions in the food chain. Populations of birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish and various other animals are also declining rapidly. All of Minnesota, like the planet, suffers from the five top causes of these habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, invasive species, toxic emissions and climate change. Thus, ATVs contribute significantly but unnecessarily to all these stressors. And worse yet, the stresses are cumulative. They add or multiply one another. We must remember that ATVs, like all forms of motorized recreation, are discretionary activities as opposed to essential motorized activities like driving cars and trucks. This legislation would reduce adverse ATV impacts and begin to restore balance between our market and nature based economies. I strongly recommend committee approval of Senate file 1245. Thank you. Thank you. And Judy Povos. I also want to call Bruce Anderson to the table as well. Chef Harrod. That will be reading Bruce Anderson. Now let's go to Judy provost on remote.

Thank you very much, Mr. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Shep Harris. I'm reading a statement on behalf of Bruce Anderson who could not be here today. My name is Bruce Anderson. I'm here in support of Senate file 1245. I'm a retired natural resource manager with 34 years experience with the U.S. forest Service as a wildlife and recreation manager and four years with the DNR as a Wildlife Manager. During these years, I have been involved with and have considerable experience with motorized and non motorized recreation management in Montana, Idaho and Minnesota. My testimony today is on behalf of the Wildlife Society. Our primary interests revolve around motorized impacts on wildlife populations and or wildlife habitat and we view this bill as a means to mitigate these impacts. Review of scientific literature concludes that motorized recreation does have a disproportional impact on wildlife. We want to emphasize that this legislation takes nothing away from responsible off road vehicle user. Legal trails would remain open. Currently, every trail without a sign or map north of Highway 2 is open, meaning that illegally created trails, enclosed trails are open by default, resulting in damage to fragile vegetation, impacts of sensitive wildlife and loss of solitude. With this legislation, potential impacts to wildlife can be mitigated. Working in three states, I've witnessed that marking trails open for motorized recreation has proven successful on national forests. Our northern forests are already fragmented with an incredible patchwork of trails. There are over 100,000 miles of trails and roadways now open to off road vehicles. The map of designated off highway vehicle trails in the arrowhead is included in your packet. Access to designated and posted trails is in place south of Highway 2. And there is no reason why it cannot prove successful on state lands north of Highway 2. This would unify state policy and better protect wildlife and their habitats. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Senator McEwen. Thank you. And we have one last testifier from remote Jackie Jo Monahan. Jackie, are you there? If not, I just want to double check those who already sign up, I believe. Mr. Nathan Edith, you spoke already, right? Or you haven't? Okay, why don't you come for forward? Welcome. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee members. My name is Nathan Ide. I'm the land Commissioner for Lake county where I've been employed for 20 years. I'm here on behalf of Lake county in opposition to Senate file 1245. I'll make this quick. The primary opposition to the bill relates to prohibiting ATVs except on officially designated routes throughout the county. There are many forest routes that ATVers use on a regular basis. ATV is for riding through the woods, accessing favorite hunting locations, picking balsam boughs for some extra Christmas money, or going to the cabin off the beaten path. These are routes maintained for forest management purposes. Some are wide enough for a pickup and some are just wide enough for an atv. An ATV is often the vehicle of choice as a vehicle would struggle or cause damage to the road. Because we've done a good job creating designated ATV trails, riders have well maintained places to ride. Under this proposal, someone who wants to take a quick ride on their ATV to their favorite fishing hole or berry picking couldn't do that. What has been as what has been an acceptable and responsible practice for decades, unless there was a sign stating ATVs are allowed. So the signs would be a large burden. Significant burden. My staff would have to place and then maintain signs on the routes we deem fit for ATVs, which there are many. This would be a significant financial and time burden. Thanks for your time. Thank you very much. And I believe all the member who had, all the folks that have signed up to be testified that are here have already spoke. I don't want to miss anyone. Thank you very much for banking effort to be here and those online already spoke as well. I see Senator Houschild raising his hand for the longest time and I want to give his moment here and then go Back to Senator McCune, see where you want this bill to go. We are extremely out of time. So Senator hauschild. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to speak on behalf of northeastern Minnesota as the senator from the very region that this bill impacts. This is a common theme for me, everybody wants to regulate northeastern Minnesota. I hear every day from families, small businesses, and communities that rely on our outdoor recreation. And this bill is not a small change. It's a fundamental shift in how access works across the Northland. For decades, our system has reflected our reality. Vast forests, long distances, and a strong culture of responsible use. Unfortunately, this bill flips that on its head. If a trail is not mapped, signed, and designated, it is effectively closed. A small group can petition to decommission a trail. Think about that. Thousands of miles of routes people have used responsibly for years, routes that connect our rural communities and support tourism, could slowly disappear. Not because people are harming the land or the environment, but because the system simply becomes too complicated and too costly to maintain. Let me be abundantly clear. ATV riders in northern Minnesota are not the problem. They are the people who respect the land, build the trails, and care about the outdoors. They're not asking for special treatment. They're just asking for simple common sense. The DNR already has the authority to protect sensitive areas and manage use responsibly, including shutting down trails when necessary. So what problem are we actually solving? What I just see is more bureaucracy without the resources to implement it and shoving those costs onto our local counties. As you just heard from the previous testifier, what I see is a risk to our trail system, to our tourism for our small mom and pop shops and businesses all across the Northland, and a small deterioration of outdoor tourism for everyone who enjoyed the playground and the gem of the state, which is my district in northeastern Minnesota. And what I hear back home is frustration. Frustration that decisions are being made without an understanding of how things work on the ground. We all care about protecting the environment. Of course we do. But protecting the environment and maintaining access go hand in hand. So today, I'm asking the committee to stand with my communities, stand for responsible access, stand for outdoor recreation, and stand for a system that is working really, really well for our region. I strongly oppose this bill, and I hope that we can vote on it, because I think it's clear that this committee opposes this bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sarah McCune.

Okay, the bill now is laid over and last part here. We'll adjourn in a few minutes here. But earlier, if I'm not clear about what I was saying is that this is my country and I'm not leaving. I will put protect its environment as my forebear had died in many form in saving American government. So I'm here. I have the right to be here. I'm so welcomed by the Native folks. My 50 year in this country, no one told me to go home. I mean, I hear a lot of things about going home, but I have never heard any member of native community tell me to go home. So I so appreciate that. And this is my home now. I have no people without country. And wherever I am, that's my country. So I will do my best to listen to the ATV of Minnesota of their interests as well as the interests of the environment so we can protect this country together. So with that, meeting is adjourned. Yes. Before we adjourn, Mr. Chair, I know we still have the policy bill and I'm wondering what the plan is. We ran out time, so I get that. But I'm just running in looking forward. Is it. Is the policy bill dead now? It seems to be. Okay. All right, well, if. If there's any chance of even doing a, you know, a meeting tomorrow or whatever, whatever, you're obviously the chair. You can do what you want. But I know there were some amendments to it as well, but. But I get that we're out of time and maybe we can talk about that later. Thank you. And stay strong out there and stay Meetings at Yarn.