Minneapolis Star Tribune, May 23
Minnesota’s 2018 legislative session ends in shambles
With vetoes Wednesday of the year’s major tax and spending bills, Gov. Mark Dayton nullified much of the work of the 2018 Legislature - ensuring that this year’s session will rank among the least productive in Minnesota annals
The DFL governor’s vetoes tear down bills fashioned by the Republican-controlled Legislature and sent to his desk despite his objections to their contents, after a session that saw very little of the usual face-to-face negotiation among legislative and executive branch leaders. For weeks, Dayton declared his willingness to reject those bills if his objections to their contents were ignored. In that sense, the vetoes are not a surprise.
But in another sense, the vetoes are jarring. They reveal a deepening slide into dysfunction by an institution that through most of state history has been a force for good in Minnesotans’ lives. The habit of turning to state government for help in solving shared problems is deeply ingrained in Minnesotans. As state government becomes unreliable, that habit is breaking, with worrisome consequences.
The vetoes are particularly disappointing to Minnesotans who stood to benefit from provisions in one or both of the bills. Republicans were ready with a list of victims moments after the vetoes were announced. Among them: schools seeking more funds for safety measures; disabled people and their home- and community-based caregivers, who were looking to the Legislature to undo a looming 7 percent funding cut; deputy registrars, who have endured losses because of defects in the new electronic vehicle registration system; and election administrators seeking to access federal funds to upgrade election system security.
But the vetoed bills were themselves disappointing, both for what they contained and for what they did not. It’s telling that in the days since the Legislature’s 12 a.m. Monday adjournment, advocates for measures both to combat opioid addiction and to protect vulnerable adults from abuse - two of the year’s top priorities - called for Dayton to veto the omnibus spending bill. In both cases, legislative concessions to the affected industries had weakened the final measures.
That bill’s 985-page bulk was also a problem. Dayton - whose list of objections last week ran to 19 pages - repeatedly asked the Legislature to send him stand-alone bills on which broad agreement existed. The Legislature’s refusal to do so deserves to be called into question - as does its willingness to run roughshod over the Minnesota Constitution’s single-subject rule.
The tax bill, too, was a blend of good and bad features that might have improved if genuine give-and-take negotiations had shaped its final form. We think Dayton should have signed that bill to avoid the costly confusion and uncertainty - and, for some lower-income filers, the tax increase - that will follow from a failure to conform state tax laws to the recent federal changes.
But it must be noted that the vetoed bill included a series of cuts in state individual and corporate income tax rates that would not have been fully realized in the state budget until 2022-23, when they would have cut state revenues by an estimated $565 million. That’s a risky cut that future legislators would have been hard-pressed to reverse. It amounted to this year’s Legislature attempting to impose its will on a future one, and giving tax relief an automatic first claim over all other demands on future state budgets.
The Legislature’s response to Dayton’s call for a one-time boost in K-12 school funding was unsatisfying. It involved taking $50 million from the state’s reserve - never advisable during good economic times - and giving districts permission to raid funds set aside for staff development and community education. New money targeted to districts in financial distress would have been preferable.
Wednesday’s veto leaves just one of the year’s three major bills still standing - a bonding bill. It’s barely more than half of the $1.5 billion Dayton recommended in general obligation bonds, though it includes highway bonds and higher-interest appropriation bonds for a grand total near the governor’s. Dayton should sign that measure. The fact that so many other Minnesota hopes for this year’s session are now dashed makes the projects in that bill all the more important.
More than that: We hope both Dayton and legislators look at the mess that they’ve made of this session with a desire to clean it up. As Dayton and House Speaker Kurt Daudt traded harsh criticism of each other’s performances Wednesday, both all but ruled out a special session. “I will not ask for one,” Daudt said. “The people impacted by these bills will ask.”
So do we, on their behalf.
___
Mesabi Daily News, May 22
The wild rice bill isn’t perfect, but it sounds like a good compromise
On Sunday, as the Legislature threw its final jabs at the 2018 session, the House and Senate passed a revised version of the wild rice sulfate standard bill that more catered to requests of Gov. Mark Dayton.
This bill creates and funds a group of experts and advisers to help make recommendations to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency on wild rice management, studies and more, appointed by governor, with the exception of tribal leaders, who will appoint themselves.
It also establishes that the MPCA has to provide documentation on costs associated with new rulemaking so taxpayers, rate payers and industries can know and understand the impacts.
Considering how well the MPCA’s first shot at changing the wild rice standard went, these provisions are more than reasonable. And during this time, the 10-rule cannot be enforced.
It was clear in its efforts last year, the MPCA created a very flawed rule revision that created more questions than answers. Even Dayton, who admitted the so-called 10-rule law of the 1970s was less than inexact science, was ultimately uncomfortable with the new rule and had the agency eventually withdraw it. This happened after it went through the ringer of public opinion and an unfavorable administrative law judge.
The 10-rule remains in place under this revised legislation, which keeps it in line with the federal Clean Water Act. That was Dayton’s main point of contention with the original legislation to simply withdraw the wild rice rule.
So compromise it was, and lawmakers agreed long enough to pass something.
But Dayton is considering another veto on the measure. As he is doing with all the last-minute bill passages, the governor is taking 14 days to review them. There shouldn’t be much to review here.
A logical bill was vetoed earlier this month over compliance issues with federal law and a concern over leaving wild rice unprotected. The revised bill passed Sunday is a good one. It bends to some of the governor’s demands: It protects wild rice, it doesn’t violate the Clean Water Act and it gives industry and municipalities more of a leg to stand on than variance promises as the MPCA pursues a more sensible and science-based standard.
Is it perfect? No, and is flawed for different reasons depending on what side of the issue one talks to.
Neither side is thrilled and that is the point of compromise. Dayton should set an example in St. Paul by recognizing compromise on the rare occasion it happens, and sign the wild rice bill.
___
Mankato Free Press, May 22
Legacy funds help, but water problems persist
A decade ago Minnesotans approved a historic change to the constitution that funnels up to $300 million a year to land conservation, clean water protections, parks and the arts.
The Clean Water Land and Legacy Amendment, which runs for another 15 years, has brought huge benefits in many areas. The arts, particularly in outstate Minnesota, have flourished because of Legacy funding. Large amounts of land have been protected and parks and trails have been added or enhanced.
When it comes to water quality, the story is more complicated, according to recent stories done by the Star Tribune.
More information than ever is known about our rivers, lakes and aquifers and while progress has been made in many areas, the state’s water quality is in great danger. That fact doesn’t mesh with public opinion surveys where a majority of Minnesotans believe the state is on the right track in improving our water.
The Legacy Amendment tax generates $240 million to $300 million a year, with one-third going to the Outdoor Heritage Fund for land conservation and protection; one-third to the Clean Water Fund for water protection; and 14.5 percent to the Parks and Trails Fund. Another 20 percent, roughly, is dedicated to arts and culture.
While $760 million has been spent on water projects and many have improved conditions - including the cleanup of the St. Louis River estuary near Duluth - water experts say there is little if any progress in protecting water from farm chemicals, road salt, and excess nutrients.
At the current rate of improvements, just a few percent of the lakes and rivers deemed impaired will come off the state list in the next 15 years.
The travesty is that it’s no mystery on what steps are needed to make a big impact on improving our water. But the changes require people to change practices and habits.
Experts have extensive data showing much of the problem in our area rivers comes from farming practices.
Millions of acres of farmland have had highly efficient drainage tile systems installed, systems that are great at getting water off fields quickly and terrible for ravines, streams and rivers. Too much water comes off the landscape too quickly, causing erosion and keeping rivers very high. Those high rivers cause quick currents that are tearing away river banks, adding more soil and excess nutrients into the rivers.
Add to that the nitrogen and other chemicals that move off the landscape and the fate of rivers is dire.
Holding back more water in ponds and specially designed drainage ditches works at slowing the water flow to rivers. And changing when and how fertilizer is applied to fields keeps more of it on the land and not in the rivers.
While urban residents have paid more for a variety of mandates to improve water and waste treatment, any regulations requiring changes to farm practices face fierce opposition from ag groups. From the buffer strip requirement to proposals on fertilizer application to farm drainage changes, all suggestions have been bitterly fought.
Unless and until the public demands changes and supports funding to help offset some of the costs to landowners, the rivers will not improve.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.