Quote:
By DOUG SMITH, Star Tribune
Last update: December 29, 2009 – 9:04 PM
Supporters fought 10 years to get dedicated funding for Minnesota’s natural resources, and when a constitutional amendment was approved by voters in 2008, it looked like the fight was over.
Wrong.
Now a contentious battle is being waged at the Capitol over how to spend the millions raised yearly for the Outdoor Heritage Fund — the chunk of money that’s supposed to go for wildlife habitat. At the crux: How to interpret the intent of the amendment.
Some longtime amendment supporters say legislators are trying to distort the intent and broaden the purpose to include ancillary environmental issues, essentially hijacking money for their own interests at the expense of projects that would more directly benefit hunters, anglers and wildlife.
“I don’t think they [critics] are far off,” said Mark Holsten, Department of Natural Resources commissioner and former legislator.
Legislators deny that and say they are simply trying to define where the dollars should be spent to ensure they are spent properly.
“It’s a war of words,” said Garry Leaf, executive director of Sportsmen for Change, a group that pushed for the constitutional amendment.
The stakes are huge. The Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment and its three-eighths of 1 percent sales tax increase will generate about $7.5 billion over 25 years, including about $2.5 billion to the Outdoor Heritage Fund to “restore, protect and enhance” habitat for fish, game and wildlife.
“We only have 25 years to restore 180 years of damage to our lakes and rivers and wildlife habitat,” said Lance Ness, president of the Fish & Wildlife Legislative Alliance and of Anglers For Habitat. “If we don’t focus the money on the critical areas, we’ll have wasted this opportunity. It should be focused on the big problems, the major things that can be done. If we dilute the language, we’ll have wasted the opportunity and nothing will change in 25 years.”
The Legislature last session passed a law defining “restore, protect and enhance” to guide the Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council, which recommends which projects should be funded. Critics say those definitions are overly broad, mentioning “healthy ecosystems” rather than fish, game or wildlife. The 12-person Lessard-Sams council had developed its own definitions, which specifically mention fish, game and wildlife habitat.
State Sen. Satveer Chaudhary, DFL-Fridley, an amendment supporter, said he, too, believes the language battle is an attempt by some legislators to hijack amendment dollars.
“The last thing we need to do with this influx of conservation dollars is have them get tangled up in definitions from the Legislature,” Chaudhary said.
The Legislature’s definitions passed at the 11th hour last session, despite protests from opponents. But leaders agreed to reopen discussions in the 2010 session. More than two dozen conservation groups recently sent state Rep. Mary Murphy, DFL-Hermantown — whose committee helped develop the new definitions — a letter reminding her of the commitment and urging changes to the definitions.
But whether the definitions will be changed is uncertain. Murphy said this week that she only agreed to discuss possible changes.
Developing a guide
Those same definitions also are included in a legislative “guide” for the legacy funds developed by Murphy’s committee. The intent is to guide future legislators, councils and groups. But the draft of that 11-page document also raises many questions.
For example, the amendment doesn’t say that projects should be distributed geographically around the state, and some argue that critical habitat should be addressed regardless of where it is located. But the guide says “the needs of the entire state will be considered in determining how best to allocate funds … and that it should reflect the principle that geographic and regional fairness apply to each fund.”
Also, there is no mention in the amendment about job creation, but the guide says the funds “will give priority to projects to improve the state or regional economy, creating jobs and leveraging non-state money or increasing community involvement.”
Said Leaf: “This is not a jobs program.”
The guide also states: “Funding for habitat should include metropolitan and other urban area habitat projects and habitat protection for non-hunting purposes including scientific and natural areas and park/natural areas.” Said Leaf: “This is a blatant diversion [of money] for parks and trails. They have their own fund.”
The legislative guide is a work in progress, Murphy said, and will be developed by the Senate, House and Lessard-Sams council.
Effect on DNR
The same “enhance, protect and restore” definitions were added to several other statutes that directly affect the DNR, Holsten said.
“I would argue it changes us from a conservation-based agency and turns us into an environmental agency,” he said. The definitions talk about doing habitat work to increase the “ecological value” of land or water, Holsten noted, and protecting “ecological systems” to maintain “healthy ecosystems.”
The word “ecosystem” is key, he said. “Now we restore, protect and enhance habitat for conservation principles,” he said. “We’ll have to do it for the best ecological value. The best ecological value may not be the best thing for pheasants — a non-native species — or hunters. If I want to maximize pheasant production, how do I do that? How do I do a food plot with this?”
Added Holsten: “I think this has a more profound impact on future of conservation in this state than people realize. It’s scary.”
One thing is certain: The debate over the language is expected to consume vast amounts of time when the Legislature convenes Feb. 4. And many believe that ultimately the issue of what “protect, enhance and restore” means will end up in court.
“The sad part of it is we spend time with these definitions and we lose sight of what we’re trying to accomplish,” said Mike Kilgore, chair of the Lessard-Sams council.
“We have such pressing needs out there in terms of lost and degraded habitat … but we spend a lot of time debating the minutiae.”
Doug Smith • [email protected]<br />
<hr /></blockquote><font class=”post”>
its not a matter of “If” they steal this money, its a matter of “When” they will steal it.
just another lie and ploy to get more tax dollars out of us already over-taxed residents.
