ST. PAUL — A bipartisan effort from Minnesota lawmakers would look to speed up Minnesota’s environmental permitting process, lawmakers and supporters say to invest in the state’s economic growth.
The bills — , introduced by Rep. Josh Heintzeman, R-Nisswa; introduced by Sen. Grant Hauschild, DFL-Hermantown, and Sen. Justin Eichorn, R-Grand Rapids — encapsulate several reform proposals for Minnesota’s environmental permitting process. Among them is a proposal to cap currently unlimited wetland permit extensions, to one extension of 60 days for local units of government to make permitting decisions under the Wetland Conservation Act.
ADVERTISEMENT
The bill also proposes that the commissioner of the Pollution Control Agency would oversee permits if the approval process exceeds 90 to 150 days, depending on the permit type. Additionally, the bills would restrict citizen petitions against projects to only those living within the county where the project is located, and allow permit applicants to request an expedited permit review.
A 2024 found Minnesota could see $260 million to $910 million in economic gains per year if the permitting process is streamlined. The same study found that Minnesota’s air permitting review times are 1.5 to 6 times longer than neighboring states, with an average time of 6.5 years for expired but still-in-effect permits.
Doug Loon, CEO of the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of the legislation at a press conference Thursday, Feb. 13. He said Minnesota-based companies invested in 355 projects located outside of the state, resulting in an estimated $17.5 billion in capital expenditures and 31,000 jobs lost.
For air permits specifically, Minnesota averages 656 days to issue, compared to 109 days in Iowa, 121 in Wisconsin and 110 in Illinois, according to the Chamber’s study.
“Their permitting process is no less stringent than ours,” Loon said. “Our economy and our employees cannot afford to miss out on opportunities to expand work in our state. But that’s exactly what’s happening.”
Environmentalists and concerned citizens met the bill with some resistance during its first hearing Thursday. Aaron Klemz, chief strategy officer for the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, said he believes Minnesota’s permitting problem is with “a lack of enforcement and the inability to say no when proposals don’t meet our environmental standards, not the lack of a deadline.”
“One of the most fundamental errors in HF8 is the belief that there are ‘yes’ and ‘no’ decisions on permits,” Klemz said before the committee Thursday. “Instead, there is ‘yes’ and ‘not yet.’ The inability of agencies to say no and the refusal of the industry to take no for an answer at times are the causes of many of the more intractable permitting battles that kind of inform the Chamber’s report. Real permitting reform would center communities that are affected by pollution, not the polluters.”
ADVERTISEMENT
Heintzeman, the bill’s author in the House, maintained after the committee on Thursday that this wouldn’t change Minnesota’s environmental standards but would speed up the process of how fast the permit decisions are made.
“Streamlining the permitting process does not need to be an either/or proposition. Minnesota can and should maintain our environmental and safety standards, while also giving job creators the certainty they need to invest in our state and its people,” he said. “For too long, Minnesota has lost out on hundreds of millions of dollars in private investment that would have provided good-paying jobs and helped revitalize communities across our state.”
A few local industries struggling with the permitting process spoke in support of the legislation Thursday. Lauren Servick, director of public policy, strategy and sustainability for the Minnesota Pork Producers Association, said she speaks on behalf of more than 3,000 family pig farmers in the state who are struggling with the costs that result from a longer permitting process.
“The cost of a permitted pig barn in Minnesota is significantly higher than in our neighboring states, according to a study done by our own Department of Agriculture,” she said. “The review process can also be delayed with administrative pauses, further delay in timelines, increasing costs and even halting projects altogether. This discussion isn’t about reducing thresholds or changing environmental protections — farmers know what it takes to manage environmentally, socially and economically sustainable farms.”
Robert Sip, executive director of the Red River Watershed Management Board, reiterated the cost burden of the permitting process, which he said is often covered by taxpayer dollars.
He said in the Red River Valley alone, the board has 10 projects in their funding process, and those 10 projects required 89 permits — 62% from state agencies, including the Department of Natural Resources and the Pollution Control Agency.
Sip said the board has another 15 projects in the “concept phase,” and with the average number of permits per project estimated at nine, he said the board is looking at about 135 additional permits in the future — to the tune of about $5 million in permitting fees and environmental review costs born by local watershed districts.
ADVERTISEMENT
“One project up in the Middle Snake Tamarack River Watershed District up by Warren, Minnesota ... that project was moving forward, and at the 11th hour, a rare wetland was found, and the watershed spent about $800,000 on permitting and environmental review,” he said. “That project is effectively halted. It will not move forward, and $800,000 in local dollars, and also some federal dollars, was lost.”
The House bill passed out of committee 7-5 along party lines and was referred to the Workforce, Labor, and Economic Development Finance and Policy Committee. The Senate bill was referred to the Environment, Climate, and Legacy Committee and awaits a hearing.
The Trust Project
