>>[THE HOUSE AGRICULTURE POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING OF SATURDAY; MAY 19; 2018 WILL CONVENE SHORTLY]>>CHAIR: THE SENATE ALSO PASS THE BILL THAT WOULD BE KATE COMING BACK TO THE LEGISLATURE AND PUT IN ANOTHER PROVISION THAT ASKED THAT THE SOIL LOSS INDEX REVERT BACK TO LOCAL COUNTY CONTROL. AND; I THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD COMPROMISE AND EVIDENTLY IT WASN’T SEEN THAT WAY ON SOME FRIENDS. WE HAD A DEBATE ON THAT ON THE FLOOR I APPRECIATE THAT. AND WE SIMPLY ASKED THAT THE GOVERNOR ASSURED US THAT HE WOULD SIGN THE BILL PUTTING THAT SOIL LOSS PROVISION BACK INTO LOCAL CONTROL. AND; AS OF NOW; HE HAS NOT CHOSEN TO DO SO. WE DID MEET WITH COMMISSIONER WOLLMAN 9 O’CLOCK THIS MORNING AND WE DISCUSSED THE VIEWPOINTS AND AGREED TO KEEP WORKING AND TRY TO COME TO SOME KIND OF AGREEMENT. AND; I TALKED WITH MR. WOLLMAN AND JOHN JANSKY AS WE RECESSED THE FLOOR THIS AFTERNOON AND THEY EXPRESSED SOME HOPE THAT WE COULD ARRIVE AT SOME KIND OF LANGUAGE TO COMPROMISE AND NOT HAVE TO DO THIS. AND; WE SAID LET’S GET TOGETHER AGAIN AT 3:30 PM IF THERE IS ANY PROGRESS AND THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. SO; WE ARE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND DEBATE THIS RESOLUTION AND WHAT IT DOES; IT TAKES AWAY; YOU HAVE A COPY OF THE RESOLUTION IN YOUR PACKETS; AND; IT TAKES AWAY THE RULEMAKING AUTHORITY UNTIL THE END OF THE NEXT SESSION FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE PERTAINING TO THE NITROGEN ROLE. AND THE BIT OF BACKGROUND WITH WHAT WE ARE DOING WITH THAT THIS IS WHAT LEGISLATION PASSED BACK IN 2001 IT WAS SPONSORED IN THE HOUSE BY REPRESENTATIVE MURRAY FIBER AND IN THE SENATE BY–& DONE BY THE THEN GOVERNOR OF VENTURA. THEN; THE STATUTE; I BELIEVE YOU HAVE A COPY OF THAT AS WELL. 14.126 COMMITTEE AUTHORITY OVER ROLE ADOPTION IS WHAT WE ARE GOING TO BE WORKING OFF OF TODAY. BUT; BEFORE WE GET INTO THAT I HAVE SOME HOUSEKEEPING. WE HAVE THE MINUTES OF A COUPLE OF MEETINGS THE MEETING OF APRIL 12 AND REPRESENTATIVE MUNSON; WE LOOK AT THE MINUTES OF APRIL 12 AND GIVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THOSE?>>REPRESENTATIVE MUNSON: YES MR. CHAIR I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 12.>>CHAIR: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY; AYE. OPPOSED; NAY. THOSE MINUTES ARE APPROVED. AND REPRESENTATIVE LUECK; THE MINUTES OFAPRIL 12 WILL YOU GO OVER AND APPROVE THOSE?>>REPRESENTATIVE LUECK: YES MR. CHAIR I WILL; PROVE THERE IS MINUTES.>>CHAIR: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY; AYE. OPPOSED; NAY. THOSE ARE APPROVED.>>REPRESENTATIVE: FIRST OF ALL I OBJECT BECAUSE I THINK YOU’RE BREAKING THE HOUSE RULES BECAUSE 6.01 6.02 SAYS PUBLIC TESTIMONY FOR OPPONENTS AND PROPONENTS MUST BE ALLOWED ON EACH BILL BEFORE THE RESOLUTION OR EXHAUST THE ENDING OF THE HOUSE AND THIS IS A RESOLUTION AND AS YOU KNOW YOU HAVE REFUSE PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND AS YOU KNOW I START YOU ON THE FLOOR THIS AFTERNOON AND I SPOKE TO THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ON THE CITY OF ST. PETER TO BE ABLE TO TESTIFY. HE WAS- HIS TESTIMONY I THINK WOULD BE VERY APPROPRIATE IN THIS COMMITTEE AND THE CITY OF ST. PETER IS ONE OF THE CITIES AFFECTED BY THIS AND I THINK IT WOULD’VE BEEN VERY HELPFUL WITH THIS COMMITTEE TO LEARN ABOUT THE CITY’S EXPERIENCE WITH THE CHALLENGES OF ME PROVIDING CLEAN WATER FOR THAT CITY. AND; I’VE SHARED TO THIS COMMITTEE THE COST WITH THIS COMMITTEE AND THAT SORT OF THING BUT I THINK MR. MORTON COULD’VE PROVIDED YOU; MORE IMPORTANTLY; THE FACT THAT THE CITY HAS WORKED WITH FARMERS IN THAT AREA. AGAIN; ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WITH WHAT WE’RE DOING TODAY IS THAT IT’S GOING TO DIVIDE CITIES AND FARMERS AND I WILL TELL YOU; THE CITY OF ST. PETER TAKES A LOT OF PRIDE AS DO THE NEIGHBORING FARMERS TAKE A LOT OF PRIDE IN THE CITY. AND; EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT’S GOING ON IN THAT TOWN ABOUT THIS AND THEY HAVE WORKED TOGETHER FOR YEARS ON THIS TO THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE SHARED SOME EQUIPMENT WITH THE FARMERS IN THAT DRINKING WATER PROTECTION AREA. AND; I THINK THAT HIS TESTIMONY WOULD’VE BEEN SO VALUABLE AND AFTER YOU INFORMED ME THAT HE WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO TESTIFY IN THIS IS A SATURDAY AND THIS IS A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE THAT HE TOOK A SATURDAY THAT HE ACTUALLY DELIVER SOMETHING TO HIS LAKE HOME IN ALEXANDRIA AND HE GOT UP VERY EARLY THIS MORNING AND HE DROVE ALL THE WAY HERE FROM HIS HOUSE IN ALEXANDRIA AND HE WAS THAT RIDE UNIVERSITY AVENUE AND TOLD HIM THAT HE DID NOT- HE WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO TESTIFY AND HE SAID HE HAD TWO HOURS TO REALLY HAVE SOME DEEP THOUGHT AND A LOT OF YOU KNOW MR. BONIN AND HE REALLY CARES ABOUT WATER AND THIS IS WHAT HE DOES AND SO HE WENT HOME AND HE WENT HOME AND SO THE COMMITTEE GOES AND THEY LOSE THE VALUE OF THAT TESTIMONY AND THIS IS ABSOLUTELY-B THIS IS A DEMOCRACY; IN THAT PUBLIC TESTIMONY WOULD’VE REALLY HELPED US TO PROVIDE US WITH SOME INSIGHT FOR DOING WHAT WE ARE DOING BUT I HAVE TO ASK YOU; WHAT IS YOUR DEFENSE FOR NOT ALLOWING PUBLIC TESTIMONY FOR PROPONENTS OR REPENTANCE WHICH MUST BE ALLOWED FOR EVERY RESOLUTION OF A STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE.>>CHAIR: REPRESENTATIVE; WE ARE NOT HERE TO DEBATE THE MERITS OF THE NITROGEN WILL WE’VE DEBATED THAT ON THE FLOOR AND IN COMMITTEE A NUMBER OF TIMES AND BECAUSE WE ARE IN SESSION; WHILE ACTUALLY COME IN RECESS OF A SESSION WE HAVE A PRETTY SMALL WINDOW OF TIME TO CONDUCT THE BUSINESS OF THIS MEETING AND TO ALLOW PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON A MEETING CALLED SPECIFICALLY TO PASS A RESOLUTION AND NOT TO TAKE TESTIMONY PUBLICLY ON THE TOPIC TO ME; WAS THE APPROPRIATE USE OF OUR TIME TO GET THIS DONE AND YET; NOT MISS THE FLOOR SESSION. BUT; I WILL ASK MR. SULLIVAN HIS OPINION IF WE ARE BREAKING SOME ROLE. I HAVE BEEN TO A LOT OF MEETINGS WHERE THEY IN THE BREADTH OF TIME THEY ELIMINATE TESTIMONY OR IN SOME OF THE MEETINGS THE COMMITTEE IS WHEN THEY COME BACK TO THE FINAL BILL THEY DO NOT TAKE PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND I HAVE BEEN TO A LOT OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS WHERE THAT IS THE CASE. MR. SULLIVAN; DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION.>>HOUSE STAFF: MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS I DON’T AS MY ROLE AS THE RESEARCH ANALYSTS IN THAT TRAINING FOR PARLIAMENTARY FEATURE I CAN TELL YOU THAT THAT IS THE RULE FIRST 6.22 22 IN PUBLIC TESTIMONY IN COMMITTEE; RULE 6.22 THAT IS THE RULE FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY IN COMMITTEE.>>REPRESENTATIVE: WE ARE NOT DISPUTING WHAT IS IN THIS RESOLUTION AS THE CHAIR SAID AND I’M JUST CONCERNED THAT THE TESTIMONY IS GOING TO CONTINUALLY DEVOLVE INTO THAT WHERE WE ARE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT CLEAN WATER AND WERE GONNA BE TALKING ABOUT THE NITROGEN WHEN WERE GOING TO BE TALKING AT ALL OF THOSE DIFFERENT THINGS. AND SO; IF THERE IS TESTIMONY THAT IS; IF YOU WILL; FOR OR AGAINST THIS RESOLUTION THAT STAYS DEVOID OF THAT SORT OF CONVERSATION; I CAN SEE WHERE THAT CAN HAPPEN; I JUST DON’T KNOW WHERE THAT CAN HAPPEN. SO; IN THE CASE OF THE GENTLEMEN; I’M REALLY SORRY THAT HE DROVE OUT HERE BUT I CAN SEE WHERE THE TESTIMONY OF THAT PERSON; AS YOU TESTIFIED WHAT HE WAS COMING HERE TO TESTIFY ABOUT THAT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT.>>REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: THANK YOU MR. CHAIR AND REPRESENTATIVE MILLER AND I ACTUALLY THINK WOULD’VE BEEN DIRECTLY TOWARDS THE RESOLUTION I THINK MR.’S TESTIMONY WOULD’VE BEEN ALL ALONG THE LINES AND AGAIN I CAN’T SPEAK FOR HIM BUT THIS IS A CONSTITUENT OF MIND AND TOWARDS THE SITE AND TOWARDS THE FACILITIES WE ALL KNOW OUR PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTORS AND HE IS A STATEWIDE FIGURE IN MANY WAYS BECAUSE OF HIS WORK. BUT; I REALLY THINK THAT THE TESTIMONY THAT HE WOULD’VE HAD FOR US TODAY IS ABOUT THIS RESOLUTION AND THE FACT THAT IT IS OF THE NEED FOR THE RULES TO GO FORWARD. AND HE’S A PRETTY BRIGHT GUY. I THINK YOU KNOW; I LIVE IN A PRETTY POLITE PART OF THE STATE AND I THINK ST. PETER IN PARTICULAR IS A VERY POLITE CITY. AND THIS IS A CHALLENGE FOR THEM. WHEN THEY HAD TO PUT IN REVERSE OSMOSIS; YOU CAN IMAGINE; THIS IS NOT THE WEALTHIEST TOWN IN MINNESOTA. THOUGH THIS HAD BEEN GOING ON FOR EIGHT OR NINE YEARS NOW; IF YOU LIVED IN ST. PETER’S AT THIS TIME; YOU WOULD’VE PAID A NEXT TO $1000 JUST FOR CLEAN WATER IN YOUR HOME. EVERYBODY KNOWS THERE’S NO CONTENTION IN THIS AREA ABOUT THE SOURCE OF THE PROBLEM. IT’S A UNIQUE GEOGRAPHY IS VERY COARSE FOR YOUR NITROGEN JUST FOLLOWS THROUGH WITH THE SOIL VERY QUICKLY. AND HAVING DONE THIS AND HAVING SEEN PROTEST ON THIS BUT THIS IS MAY BE NEWS TO YOU BUT IT IS BECAUSE OF RESPECT FOR THEIR NEIGHBORS AND THEIR NEIGHBORS; IN THIS CASE; ARE THE FARMERS. WERE TALKING ABOUT NEIGHBORSTHAT ARE NEIGHBORS OF ST. PETER’S AND THIS IS AN OLD TOWN AND THOSE FARMERS HAVE A DEEP RESPECT FOR THE CITY OF ST. PETER AND THIS IS NOT A CASE OF CONTENTION THIS IS A CASE WHERE THE CITIES AND THE FARMERS HAVE TRIED TO WORK TOGETHER ON FINGERS NEVER CONTENTION BUT A LOT OF FARMERS HAVE WORKED WITH THE CITY TO TRY TO IMPROVE IT. AND THIS IS THE VERY ISSUE OF THE POINT OF THE RULE. IN MY GUESS IS THAT HIS TESTIMONY WOULD HAVE BEEN TELLING THE STORY OF THE HISTORY OF THAT RELATIONSHIP IS WORKED FOR THE DEPARTMENT FOR 30 OR 35 YEARS SO HE KNOWS THIS WELL. AND THE GRACE OF THIS CITY AS WELL IS SHOWING WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THIS WERE TO GO FORWARD; AND I THINK THIS IS THE CASE DID NOT PASS THE RESOLUTION. AND; IN MY EXPERIENCE PERSONALLY; THERE CAN BE CONTENTION BETWEEN CITIES AND TOWNS AND REALLY WHAT WERE DOING TODAY REALLY EXACERBATES THE TENSION. AND I WILL TELL YOU THAT IS NOT THE WAY THE FOLKS WITHIN THIS COUNTY WANT TO LIVE. WE WANT TO WORK WERE WE ARE WORKING TOGETHER IN THIS COUNTY TO SOLVE THESE PROBLEMS AND THAT CERTAINLY THE CASE IN ST. PETER. AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT HISTORIES HAVE WENT FORWARD WHERE WE ARE DOING THEN I CAN TELL YOU IN OUR AGRICULTURE COMMITTEEWHEN WE TALK ABOUT THAT WE TALK ABOUT BRINGING AGRICULTURE TOGETHER BUT REALLY; IT’S ABOUT BRINGING MINNESOTA TOGETHER AND WHAT APPEARS TO BE HAPPENING IS IF WE GO AHEAD AND MAKE THIS CHOICE AND MAKE THIS ACTION TODAY WERE REALLY CHALLENGING THAT NOTION . AND JUST HOW WE FIGHT FOR A ONE MINNESOTA WERE ALL TOGETHER IN MINNESOTA WE STILL FIGHT FOR OUR FARM COMMUNITIES TOO. THERE IS DIFFERENCES IN ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES AND DIFFERENCES IN WATER QUALITY; AND I THINK WHEN WE FOSTER AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE PEOPLE WORK CLOSELY TOGETHER TO SOLVE THOSE PROBLEMS AND REALLY REACH OUT TO EACH OTHER; THERE IS UPS AND DOWNS AND THAT; THERE CAN BE CONFLICT; BUT NONETHELESS; MY EXPERIENCE IN MY COMMUNITY IS THAT THE COMMUNITY DOES SEEK TO WORK TOGETHER AND THEY SEE THIS IS A MAJOR STEP BACKWARDS FROM THAT . AND; IF ANYTHING IT WILL SERVE TO ERODE THAT UNITY THAT THE COMMUNITY WORKS SO HARD TO CREATE WITH THE NEIGHBORING FARMERS AND SO; THAT IS WHAT I THINK HIS TESTIMONY WOULD HAVE BEEN AND I GUESS I TRIED TO SAY IT FOR MR. MOULTON BUT I THINK MR. AND WOULD’VE DONE A MUCH BETTER JOB THAN I COULD BUT I HOPE THIS COMMITTEE REALLY TAKE THAT TO HEART. BECAUSE; I WILL TELL YOU; BUILDING HARMONY AND BUILDING; YOU KNOW WILL MINNESOTA FACES A LOT OF CHALLENGES AND WE DO NOT WANT TO DIVIDE WILL MINNESOTA AND I THINK THIS WILL SERVE TO DO IT AND I THINK THIS IS GOING TO MAKE- THIS ISSUE WILL ADD TO THE ATTENTION IN ST. PETER AND ALL THE COMMUNITIES ALL OF THE 30 THAT ARE FACED WITH THIS ISSUE AND I THINK IT’S A LOUSY CHOICE IT’S A VERY POOR CHOICE AND I THINK BACK TO THE ROLE THIS IS A DRAMATIC ACTION TODAY. THIS HAS NEVER BEEN DONE IN A DRAMATIC ACTION AND THEN NOT FOLLOWING THE RULE AND NOT FOLLOWING TESTIMONY; BOY; I WILL TELL YOU; IT IS NOT THE WAY THAT I HAVE TRIED TO WORK WITH THE AGRICULTURE ISSUES AND THE WATER ISSUES AND I HAVE WORKED A LOT ON THE ISSUES PARTLY BECAUSE OF MY EXPERIENCE IN THE CITY OF ST. PETER. THIS IS A HUGE STEP BACKWARDS IN THE PROGRESS FOR RURAL MINNE AND FOR THE PROGRESS OF THE A=STATE>>CHAIR:WI TH ALL THE PROGRESS THAT YOU SAY IS GOING ON IN YOUR AREA I DO NOT THINK THIS NEEDS TO HAPPEN. NEXT QUESTION REPRESENTATIVE MAHONEY.>>REPRESENTATIVE MAHONEY: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR I WHOLEHEARTEDLY DISAGREE WITH YOU ON YOUR LAST COMMENT I THINK THIS STOPS COOPERATION AND I THINK THIS STOPS MOVEMENT ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE WHICH I THINK IS YOUR INTENT. I ALSO THINK IT IS A SHOT AT THE GOVERNOR; AND TO NOT ALLOW TESTIMONY; JUST ON THAT PRINCIPLE ALONE IS WRONG. BUT; YOU HEARD THE READ. I HAVE HEARD TIME LIMITS ON TESTIMONY. I’VE HEARD YOU GET 20 MINUTES FOR THE PROPONENTS AND 20 MINUTES FOR THE OPPONENTS. I’VE HEARD THAT IN VERY PARTISAN COMMITTEES AND I WHOLEHEARTEDLY ADMIT TO BEING A PARTISAN IN THIS PARTICULAR BUILDING; AND I’M NOT INTO THE PARTISAN FIGHTS. AND I CAME TO THIS COMMITTEE TWO YEARS AGO BECAUSE I HEARD THIS COMMITTEE WAS NOT A PARTISAN FIGHTING COMMITTEE. AND IN MY TWO YEARS HERE I HAVE SEEN NOTHING BUT VERY PARTISAN AND VERY-WELL; ACTUALLY; MORE TACTFULLY IF I STAYED IN OTHER COMMITTEES IN ONE I THREATENED TO TAKE THE GAVEL AWAY FROM THE CHAIR IF HE BANGED IT ONE MORE TIME WHILE I HAVE THE FLOOR AND I WOULD NEVER DO THAT TO YOU BECAUSE I RESPECT YOUR TEMPERAMENT IN THE DIRECTION OF THIS BUT I DON’T RESPECT HER DIRECTION BY DUE RESPECT HOW YOU RUN THE COMMITTEE BUT THIS PARTICULAR BILL IN THIS PARTICULAR PARTISAN SHOT AT THE GOVERNOR IS A THREAT OVER YOUR HEAD MR. GOV. IF YOU DON’T FIND MY BILL; WE SHOULD’VE HEARD FROM THE OTHER 30 COMMUNITIES THAT THIS IS GONNA CAUSE A PROBLEM FOR. SO IF WE HAVE THE PUT IN A REVERSE OSMOSIS PROGRAM IN 30 CITIES; I THINK THAT EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU ARE GOING TO VOTE FOR THE TAX INCREASE NEEDED FOR THE PFA BECAUSE; YOU KNOW; THEY FOUGHT HARD FOR THINK $160 MILLION FOR PFA WHICH WOULD’VE TAKEN CARE OF THIS YEAR’S BUT NOT MOVED THE LIST OF CITIES ON THEIR REQUEST YOU WOULD HAVE TO SPEND A LOT MORE MONEY TO HIT THOSE 30 CITIES AND WE ARE GOING TO NEED IT. AND THEN; FINALLY; IS THIS THE PRECEDENT THAT WE ARE GOING TO SET WHEN THIS COMES UP AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN BECAUSE THE TOOL THAT YOU USED TODAY WILL BE USED TOMORROW. SO YOU HAVE OPENED UP A PANDORA’S BOX BY TRYING TO USE THIS PARTICULAR RESOLUTION AND; BELIEVE ME; I CAN THINK OF A LOT OF ISSUES THAT I WOULD LIKE TO PUT THIS ON TO. OUR ARGUMENTS ARE HERE. OUR REASONING IS HERE. BUT; TO USE A BACKHANDED; SELF-SERVING; KIND OF RESOLUTION TO TELL THE GOVERNOR THAT YOU DON’T LIKE WHAT HE’S DOING BUT YOU DON’T HAVE THE POWER TO STOP HIM; THAT IS NOT WHY I CAME TO THE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE. I HAVE SPENT 20 YEARS HERE AND YOU CAN AS MANY CITIES; I HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME WITH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POURING MONEY OUT INTO GREATER MINNESOTA BEING A CHAMPION FOR GREATER MINNESOTA 60% OF THE MONEY 65% OF THE MONEY IS SPENT OUT IN GREATER MINNESOTA AND I HAVE BEEN A CHAMPION OF THAT AND I WANTED TO BRING THAT EXPERTISE HERE. IT IS NOT HAPPENING BECAUSE THIS HAS BECOME A PARTISAN COMMITTEE AND THAT ASIDE AND I THINK WE SHOULD’VE HEARD THAT TESTIMONY FROM THE OTHER CITIES AND I THINK WE SHOULD THINK BEFORE WE TAKE A SHOT AT THAT GOVERNOR AND YOU SHOULD ANY WALKWAY BECAUSE I’M IN A VOTE AGAINST THIS RESOLUTION AND THE IDEA THAT YOU DO NOT LIKE THAT TESTIMONY; IT’S A GREAT DEMOCRACY.>>CHAIR: REPRESENTATIVE MUNSON.>>REPRESENTATIVE MUNSON: THANK YOU MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS I WOULD AGREE WITH REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON ABOUT HOW AN ORDINANCE IN PUBLIC TESTIMONY IS FOR THIS PROCESS AND THIS IS WHAT WHAT MAKES THIS COMMITTEE SO IMPORTANT TO HEAR FROM EVERYONE AND ARM TO MAKE SUCH AN IMPORTANT LEGISLATION TO MAKE IMPACTS WITH THE SITTING CITY AND FARMING INDUSTRY AT LARGE AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THIS RIGHT WHICH IS THE INTENT OF THIS RESOLUTION TO THE WHICH IS TO MAKE SURE WE DON’T RUSH INTO PUTTING FORTH LEGISLATION THAT HAS SUCH BROUGHT BROAD IMPACTS. THIS RULE NEEDS AT WORK AND I HAVE HAS BROUGHT IMPACTS AND I THINK THAT WE COULD DELAY THIS UNTIL NEXT SESSION THAN THE ENTIRE SESSION TO BRING IN PUBLIC; AND MAKE SURE THAT WE DON’T IMPLEMENT SOMETHING SO QUICKLY AND SO; FOR THAT REASON ; I SUPPORT IT. THAT IS WHY WE DO NOT HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT COMING IN TODAY TOGETHER WE CAN IN JUST AN HOUR OR TWO. WE NEED A LOT OF PUBLIC COMMENT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE WHO IS IMPACTED BY THIS RULE; THAT IS IMPACTED TODAY AND THE AUTHOR TODAY THE INTENT IS THAT WE DON’T JUST DO THIS BEFORE THE END THE SESSION WE NEED TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY HAS THE TIME TO COME AND WHO MAY BE OUT ON THE FIELD PLANTING RIGHT NOW WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THEY HAVE TIME TO COME IN NEXT SESSION AND DISCUSS IT SO WE CAN COME UP WITH A PERFECT RULE THAT WORKS WELL FOR THE CITIES AND THE AGRICULTURE COMMUNITY AND I UNDERSTAND WHY WHEN I BRING IT IN TODAY FOR SUCH A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME.>>CHAIR: REPRESENTATIVES POPPE.>>REPRESENTATIVE POPPE: THANK YOU MR. CHAIR AND I AM SO STUNNED THAT WE HAVE DEVOLVED TO THIS USING THIS AS PART OF OUR PROCESS I DO NOT KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO COMMUNICATION;; TO BEING ABLE TO SPEAK ACROSS THE AISLE; ACROSS THE LEGISLATIVE BODIES AND IT IS EXTREMELY SAD TO ME. MAYBE; I SIT AROUND THIS ROOM AND I REPRESENT THE SENATE AND I SHARE IS SENATE DISTRICT AND WE ARE THE ONLY TWO WOMEN ON THIS COMMITTEE AND I HAVE TO WONDER IF FRANKLY; IF THIS IS BOYS BEING BOYS. IT IS A CHALLENGE FOR ME. I REALLY CANNOT UNDERSTAND HOW WE’VE GOTTEN TO THIS POINT THAT WE HAVE TO BE BULLIES AND I DO THINK THAT WE ACT THAT WAY. I VOTED FOR THE BILL. A VOTE FOR THE BILL YESTERDAY A SPORT MOVING FORWARD WITH THE BOW I COMMUNICATED WITH THE GOVERNOR’S OFFICE I SUPPORTED HIM TO SIGN THE BILL AND I WOULD LIKE THAT TO HAPPEN THE AGRICULTURAL POLICY BILL. I’M NOT SURE WHAT THE INTENT IS OF DOING THIS TODAY; BUT THE APPEARANCE OF THIS IS REALLY THAT IT IS ONLY POLITICAL BULLYING AND; YOU KNOW; AGAIN; I’M NOT SURE IF THIS IS A GENDER THING WORTH THIS IS JUST BECAUSE I’M A COUNSELOR AND I’M USED TO LISTENING AND HEARING PEOPLE SOLVE PROBLEMS I DON’T KNOW IF IT’S BECAUSE I GREW UP IN A TOWN AND I WATCH PEOPLE PULL TOGETHER THE WHAT’S RIGHT. BUTI THINK THEY YOU AND I MR. CHAIR CUT FROM THE CLOTH IN A LOT OF WAYS I DON’T SEE US FAR DIFFERENT IN A LOT OF ISSUES AND I FEEL THAT; I FEEL SAD; REGARDING PUBLIC COMMENT THE RULEMAKING PROCESS IS A RULEMAKING PROCESS IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT; THE BILL HAS BEEN THE RULE HAS BEEN OUT FOR; HOW MANY WEEKS? 3 1/2 WEEKS NOW AND WE COULD’VE HAD A COMMITTEE HEARING ON THE ACTUAL ROLE. SO; TODAY; WE ARE NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE ACTUAL ROLE BUT THIS IS WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT WORK AND ACTUALLY DO THE BULLYING WERE CONVINCED THE GOVERNOR TO DO SOMETHING AND AGAIN; WHEN BOYS ARE BOYS I KNOW AGAIN I RAISED TWO SONS AND THEY WILL IF THEY WANT TO DO SOMETHING WILL TAKE THEIR HEELS IN A LITTLE BIT MORE. SO MAYBE NEXT YEAR WHEN WOMEN IN THIS COMMITTEE ARE MORE THOUGHT OF LOOKING AT THE LONG RANGE OF HOWARD ADDRESSING THESE THINGS. COMMUNITIES SUFFER AND CLEAN DRINKING WATER; AGAIN; I HAVE SEEN THIS BEFORE WE ARE GOING TO SEE A CONSENSUS IN A COUPLE OF YEARS AND WERE GOING TO THE REDISTRICTING TO SEE HOW THE STATE DOES THIS AGAIN REGARDING WHO REPRESENTS WHOM AND HOW IT’S GOING TO BE LAID OUT AND IN AGRICULTURAL AREAS; WOULD THEN HAVE FEWER REPRESENTATIVES. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE PERHAPS A QUIETER VOICE THAN WE CURRENTLY HAVE RIGHT NOW . WE ARE GOING TO BE CHALLENGED DO TO JUST THE DEMOGRAPHY OF OUR STATE AND WHERE PEOPLE ACTUALLY LIVE THAT CAN HARM US UNLESS WE FIGURE OUT THAT TOGETHER; WE CAN WORK WITH PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THE CITIES THE BIG CITIES OR THE SMALLER CITIES AND WE HAVE TO LEARN TO WORK TOGETHER TO SOLVE OUR PROBLEMS BECAUSE FRANKLY; IF WE DON’T; WE ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE A VOICE AND WE’RE GOING TO BE DIMINISHED IN OUR CAPACITY TO ACTUALLY REPRESENT PEOPLE THROUGHOUT THE STATE.I AM EXTREMELY CONCERNED THAT THIS IS THE FOREST TODAY I DO NOT KNOW THE SENATE HAS TAKEN THIS UP YET BUT I’M EVEN SAID THAT YOU ARE–IF THEY HAVEN’T THAT YOU ARE GOING BEFORE THEM AND IF THE SENATE WERE DOING THIS THEY HAVE THEIR OWN DISCUSSIONS. BUT IT IS; I THINK YOU ARE- YOU ARE A PERSON OF THE HIGHEST-QUALITY MR. CHAIR; IN THIS SENSE; I HAVE OFTEN SAID; YOU ARE ONE OF MY FAVORITE PEOPLE IN THE MINNESOTA HOUSE AND I’M NOT TRYING TO SHAME YOU REGARDING THIS; BUT I AM JUST; I HAVE TO SAY THAT I AM JUST SO DISAPPOINTED THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE DEVOLVED TO; ; THAT WE CANNOT HAVE A CLEAR AND HONEST DISCUSSION AND THAT WE CAN’T ENGAGE THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH IN A WAY THAT HELPS US TO ALL SALT PROBLEMS. I DO NOT WA NT FARMERS TO BE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF NOT WANTING CLEAN DRINKING WATER FOR THE PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITIES AND OUR STATE AND I FEAR FOR WHAT CAN HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE IF YOU GO AHEAD AND APPROVE THIS MEASURE AND THEN WE ARE IN A POSITION THAT THE ROLE IS STALLED OUT FOR A YEAR AND WE DON’T HAVE IT; THAT IS A SAD STATE FOR ALL OF US IN MINNESOTA; BUT I AM JUST DISAPPOINTED. SO I JUST NEED TO SAY THAT MR. CHAIR AND AGAIN; I CAUTION YOU ALL TO THINK INTO THE FUTURE INTO THE COMMUNITIES AND CLEAN DRINKING WATER SHOULD BE A RIGHT THAT WE ALL EXPECT TO HAVE.>>CHAIR: THANK YOU REPRESENTATIVE AND I TAKE THE WORDS THAT YOU ALL SAY SERIOUSLY; AND MY INTENT IN NOT ALLOWING PUBLIC TESTIMONY; AND MAYBE I WAS WRONG; I WILL SAY THAT RIGHT HERE AND NOW. IT WAS NOT TO STIFLE TESTIMONY ON THIS TOPIC. IT WAS THAT IF WE WERE GOING TO WORK ON ACTING ON PASSING THE RESOLUTION. SO WHAT I THINK THAT I’M GOING TO DO IS WE WILL CONTINUE HERE UNTIL 5:00 PM AND THEN I WILL RECESSED THE MEETING AND THEN I WILL OPEN IT UP TO PUBLIC TESTIMONY WHEN WE COME BACK AGAIN AFTER SESSION AND HOPEFULLY IT IS NOT TOO LATE AND IF IT IS; THEN WE WILL COME BACK TOMORROW. AND; YOUR COMMENT REPRESENTATIVE ABOUT A TIME LIMIT IS WHAT I SHOULD’VE DONE. I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THIS DRAGGING ON AND CUTTING INTO FULL-TIME BECAUSE WE CANNOT MEET. THIS IS NOT A CONFERENCE COMMITTEE. WE CANNOT BE NEEDING ONE BEFORE; WHEN THE HOUSE IS IN SESSION. THAT WAS MY INTENTION AND I WILL LOOK AT THAT. SO; HAVING SAID THAT; REPRESENTATIVE BENNETT YOU ARE NEXT ON THE AGENDA.>>REPRESENTATIVE BENNETT: THANK YOU MR. CHAIR; AND I JUST WANTED TO ADD A COMMENT IN REPRESENTATIVE POPPE; THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORDS THERE THERE WAS A LOT OF WISDOM IN WHICH YOU SAID AND FIRST OF ALL AS THE OTHER WOMAN SERVING ON THIS COMMITTEE I THINK IT HAS BEEN A WONDERFUL EXPERIENCE AND WE ARE FROM A BIG AGRICULTURE AREA AND BEING ON THIS COMMITTEE I THINK IT’S A GREAT THING. I DO NOT SEE THIS AS A MEN VERSUS WOMEN THING AND I WANT TO SPEAK ABOUT THAT. FIRST OF ALL IF THERE WERE ANY OTHER WOMAN WERE TO SERVE ON THIS COMMITTEE IT WOULD BE YOU OR WOULD CHOOSE BECAUSE I RESPECT YOU GREATLY. BUT THIS IS ABOUT FARMERS NOT FEELING LIKE THEY ARE GETTING THE VOICE THAT THEY NEED AND WE ARE TRYING TO SAY LET’S DELAY THIS AND ACTUALLY; FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND THE ROLE WOULD GO ON JANUARY 1 AND DELAY UNTIL WE GET OUT A SESSION AT THE END OF NEXT MAY SO WE ARE NOT LOOKING AT A HUGE DELAY BUT I KNOW SPEAKING TO MANY MANY FARMERS IN HEARING FROM MY DISTRICT; THEY ARE FRUSTRATED; NOT JUST WITH THIS NITRATE ROLE BUT MUCH RULEMAKING THEY FEELS GETTING GM DOWN THEIR THROAT WITHOUT GETTING THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE SUBSTANTIAL INPUT AND NOT GETTING THAT SUBSTANTIAL INPUT ONES THAT COMES OUT AND ALL PEOPLE IN ALL GROUPS DESERVE THAT INPUT AND I THINK LEAVING THAT NEXT SESSION FOR US TO LOOK AT THIS A LITTLE MORE AND HAVING THAT OPPORTUNITY AS REPRESENTATIVE MUNSON SAID THE EXTENSIVE INPUT ON HOW THE IMPACT WILL HIT FARMERS AND HIT CITIES WERE HIT RURAL COMMUNITIES AND EVERYTHING NEEDS TO BE HEARD MORE. SO; I DON’T QUITE HONESTLY SEE THIS AS A BOYS OR GIRLS OR MEN OR WOMEN THING; I THINK IT IS JUST A FAIRNESS OF PROPER INPUT. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.>>CHAIR:SHE MENTIONED THE TIMELINE HERE. THE TIMELINE HAD BEEN THAT THE ROLE WOULD GO INTO EFFECT I BELIEVE; DECEMBER JANUARY OF NEXT YEAR AND WHAT THIS WOULD DO IS; THIS WOULD DELAY THAT UNTIL AFTER THE SESSION ENDS IN MAY WOULD BE WHAT THIS RESOLUTION WOULD DO. FURTHER DISCUSSION? COMMENTS? REPRESENTATIVES POPPE.>>REPRESENTATIVE POPPE: THINK YOU MR. CHAIR AND I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT PEOPLE HAVE ENGAGED IN THISIT HAS BEEN 30 YEARS SINCE THE WATER ACT AND 10 YEARS AND PEOPLE ENGAGED IN THIS I KNOW THIS TO BE TRUE FROM THE PEOPLE PARTICIPATING IN THIS AND WE’VE HAD FARM GROUPS AND FARMERS AND PEOPLE FROM -WITH SCIENCE BACKGROUNDS AND WE’VE HAD A NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE ENGAGED IN THIS AND THIS IS; ESPECIALLY ON THIS RULE THIS HAS BEEN ONE OF THE MOST WELL VETTED RULES THAT YOU PROBABLY HAD IN FRONT OF THE LEGISLATURE; AND I DON’T REALLY SEE THIS AS MEN VERSUS WOMEN ARE BOYS VERSUS GIRLS I JUST SAY I THINK BY GENDER; PEOPLE LOOK AT THINGS DIFFERENTLY AND I; OBVIOUSLY; MAYBE I AM A GENDER OF MY OWN; BUT I LOOK AT A WHOLE LOT DIFFERENTLY THAN A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE AROUND THE TABLE. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.>>CHAIR: AT THAT POINT; I WILL GO TO REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON.>>REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: I THINK PEOPLE HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON THIS AND EVEN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RULE THERE’S BEEN A LONG TIME WE NEED TO LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED IN THE SUMMER OF 2017 THERE WAS EVER SESSIONS IN MINNESOTA THEY WERE IN MARSHALL TWO AND MARSHALL CHATFIELD MEDINA ST. PAUL FAIRMONT ROSEAU WARREN AND ROCHESTER IN MANKATO AND IT WAS A SCARY NIGHT WHEN I ATTENDED IN MANKATO THE STORM COMING THROUGH VACATE FOR A MOMENT. BUT THEY TOTALLY RESPECTFULLY LISTENED TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT THE KIND THAT MAKES THE DEMOCRACY STRONG AND IN ADDITION THEY RECEIVED 820 COMMENTS FROM MINNESOTANS BEFORE EVEN PROPAGATING THE ROLE AND TO SAY THAT THERE WASN’T PUBLIC TESTIMONY TODAY BEFORE PROMULGATING THAT IMAC AND ASKED MR. MOULTON TO DRIVE ANOTHER FOUR HOURS TO DO THAT TO HIM; I’M NOT GONNA TESTIFY HIM. ARE WE ON TV TODAY? I DON’T KNOW. OK AY FORTUNATELY IT’S ON TV AND HOPEFULLY MINNESOTANS ARE WATCHING BUTTO SAY THAT WE’VE HAD 17 PUBLIC MEETINGS AND SAY WE HAVE THE TAKE EXTRAORDINARY ACTION NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE USING THE COMMITTEE PROCESS THERE’S A DOZEN OF US HERE IN ANOTHER DOZEN MAY BE IN THE SENATE INSTEAD OF THE 201 LEGISLATORS THAT REPRESENT MINNESOTA IT IS A BACKDOOR MEETING IT’S THE KIND OF MEETING THAT IS DONE IN OTHER COUNTRIES TO ME. IT’S A CHEAP WAY OUT IT’S THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE DID AND YOU WANT TO OWN THIS? AND AT THE SAME TIME DOING SOMETHING THAT WE KNOW IS DIVISIVE AND DIVIDING RURAL MINNESOTA ON SOMETHING AS FUNDAMENTAL AS CLEAN DRINKING WATER. WHEN THE GOVERNOR SAYS HE’S APPALLED; I AM APPALLED TOO. THIS IS NOT WHY I CAME TO ST. PAUL AND I WILL TELL YOU; I THINK THAT MINNESOTANS ACROSS THE STATE AND ESPECIALLY WHERE I LIVE; ANYWAY; THE RURAL MINNESOTANS ; THIS IS NOT THE WAY THAT WE CONDUCT BUSINESS AND AS YOU CAN SEE I AM PRETTY UPSET ABOUT THIS AND I THINK MINNESOTANS HAVE A RIGHT TO BE UPSET AS WELL AND I WILL ASK YOU AGAIN TO RETHINK WHAT YOU DOING AGAIN WE DON’T NEED TO DO THIS . WE CAN DO BETTER IN THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE IN MINNESOTA EXPECTS US TO DO THAT.>>CHAIR: THE DOORS OF THIS BUILDING JUST AS A CORRECTION; THE DOORS WERE NOT LOCKED AND THEY WERE ABOUT 50 MINUTES BEFORE BY THE SURGEON OF ARMS OF THE DOORS ARE NOT LOCKED. REPRESENTATIVE MILLER IS UP NEXT.>>REPRESENTATIVE MILLER: THANK YOU MR. CHAIR I APPRECIATE THE LIVELY DEBATE AND THAT’S WHAT WE DO HERE AND THAT’S PART OF THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS. I DO NOT CARE FOR SOME OF THE NAME-CALLING AND NINE WERE ALL LITTLE TIRED AND I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THAT BUT WE NEED TO NOT TAKE EXCEPTION FOR THAT BECAUSE I CAN APPRECIATE THAT TOO BUT WE HAVE A PROCESS AND IN THIS PROCESS WE HAVE LAWS AND WE GOVERN WHAT WE DO BUT THE THING THAT I LIKE BEST ABOUT A REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY IS THAT WE ARE ELECTED AS REPRESENTATIVES AND ARE ASSERTED IN A SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES AT MANY DIFFERENT LEVELS AND I THINK WE HAVE MANY OF THOSE IN MANY DIFFERENT ANGLES IN MANY DIFFERENT WAYS AND WHEN WE MOVE FORWARD WITH ISSUES SOME OF THOSE CHECKS AND BALANCES WHEN THINGS BECOME DIFFICULT; THERE’S CHECKS AND BALANCES BECOME STRAINED TO BECOME DIFFICULT TO DO THIS. MY FRUSTRATION WITH GOV. DEATON WHEN IT COMES TO STUFF LIKE THIS; PARTICULARLY THE ROLES IN THIS AND I’VE SEEN THIS BEFORE AND I’VE ONLY BEEN HERE FOR YEARS BUT I’VE SEEN THIS MANY DIFFERENT TIMES IS THAT IT IS IRONIC THAT WE ARE KINDA GETTING PRESSED HERE IN MR. CHAIR WE ARE KINDA GETTING PRESSED TO PLAY THE GAME IN THE SYSTEM AND WE HAVE A GOVERNOR THAT WANTS TO DO THAT AND MR. CHAIR I QUITE FRANKLY; I’M GONNA BE BLUNT AND IF YOU REMEMBER MR. CHAIR IN THE BEGINNING OF SESSION WE WERE SAYING WHERE THESE ROLES WHERE THESE RULES AND WE WOULDN’T OF GOT THEM IT UNTIL A WEEK AFTER SESSION IF WE HADN’T DONE THAT WE WOULDN’T HAVE THEM NOW IF WE HADN’T DONE THAT. HOWEVER; WE DO HAVE A RULEMAKING PROCESS AND I DON’T WISH TO USURP THAT BUT THERE’S KIND OF AN INTERESTING THING HERE.I HAVE A HIERARCHY HERE. IF YOU HAVE AN ELECTION CERTIFICATE THEN YOU REPRESENT MINNESOTA MORE THAN YOU DO A BUREAUCRAT AND WEAVE THE FINE WAYS THAT THAT ELECTED PERSON SUPERSEDES THAT BUREAUCRAT NOT BY USURPING LAWS BUT WE NEED TO FIND WAYS TO DO THAT. IF WE LOOK AT 1.4126 THIS IS NOT A SLEIGHT-OF-HAND WE FOUND SOMETHING VERY DEEP IN SOME BOOK OF TRADITIONS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT; THIS IS ACTUAL STATUTES IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. AND; BECAUSE W E HAVE NOT USED THIS BEFORE ; MAYBE IT JUST MEANS THAT WE HAVEN’T BEEN PRESSED TO DO THAT. BUT THIS IS PART OF THE DUE PROCESS THAT WE TALK ABOUT AND WHEN I LOOK AT THAT WE ARE EMPOWERED AS THE COMMITTEE IN THIS LAW THAT WAS SIGNED INTO LAW BY DULY REPRESENTED ELECTED OFFICIALS THAT WE HAVE A LAW IN WHICH WE CAN; WHEN WE FEEL THINGS HAVE GONE OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF WHERE THINGS SHOULD HAVE; WE HAVE A TOOL; AND THIS IS A TOOL. I ALSO WANT TO SAY MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE; THIS TOOL JUST DELAYS THIS DECISION. THAT IS ALL THAT IT DOES. IT DOESN’T NEGATE IT. AND GRANTED; ONE WE HAVE A NEW GOVERNOR NEXT YEAR A NEW LEGISLATURE THEN PERHAPS THAT WILL BUT THAT’S PART OF THE RULEMAKING PROCESS BUT THERE WAS A LETTER THAT I WANTED TO BRING AND I WISH I HAD BROUGHT IT BUT I DIDN’T HIM THERE WERE POINTS I WANT TO MAKE THIS BUT THERE WERE POINTS WHERE PEOPLE ACTUALLY SET THESE RULES AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH; AND I HAVE TO BACK UP WHAT I WAS GONNA SAY. BUT THERE WAS A PART OF THIS WHERE IT WAS SAYING ALL THESE PEOPLE WERE KIND OF USURPING THE ABILITY FOR PEOPLE TO COME AND HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THESE RULES WHICH IS PART OF THE RULEMAKING PROCESS AND WE DID NOT DO THAT AT ALL. WE DID NOT DO THAT. WE DID NOT SAY YOU HAVE TWO OR A RACE RULEMAKING WE JUST SET IT CAN BE DELAYED TO THE END OF THE LEGISLATURE AND I WILL TELL YOU PERSONALLY; IF I’M SO HONORED TO BE PART OF THE LEGISLATURE WE’RE GOING TO TRY TO CHANGE THAT LEGISLATIVELY BUT THAT IS TWO DIFFERENT BODIES VOTING ON A BILL AND BEING SIGNED INTO LAW BY GOV. ALL BY ELECTED OFFICIALS. SO; I KNOW WE HAVE A ROLE FOR THESE AGENCIES AND THE BUREAUCRATS THAT WORK IN THEM AND THERE IS A RULE AND I DON’T WANT TO DISMISS THAT AND NOW; WHEN THEY FEEL THAT A DULY ELECTED OFFICIALS DOING SOMETHING OUTSIDE OF WHAT THEY SHOULD BE DOING I’M GOING TO TRY TO ASSERT MY AUTHORITY IN THIS 14.126 AUTHORIZES ME AS A DULY E ELECTE A FISH ALL TO USURP THE RULEMAKING TO SAY THE COMMITTEE DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO THIS FLIES IN THE FACE OF MINNESOTA LAW.I THINK WE SHOULD CERTAINLY MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS AND I COMMEND YOU FOR SAYING HEY WE SHOULD HAVE HAD A PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND I KNOW IT’S NOT IDEAL FOR YOU AND I FEEL BAD ABOUT THAT WHEN WE HAVE PEOPLE LIVE OUT BY US AND MR. CHAIR YOU HAVE SEEN THIS TOO; WHERE YOU HAVE PEOPLE THAT LIVE A LONG WAY AWAY AND YOU HAVE SOMEBODY THAT MIGHT LEAVE FIVE IN THE MORNING AND THEY COME AND TESTIFY FOR TWO MINUTES. SO I GET THAT PRESSURE; AND I THANK YOU FOR FINDING ACCOMMODATIONS TO HANDLE SOME OF THAT BUT I THANK YOU FOR MOVING THIS FORWARD AND LOOKING AT THIS. IF WE ARE PRESSURING THE GOVERNOR TO SAY WE THINK WE HAVE AN AG POLICY TO DO THAT THAN THAT BRINGS THE TOTAL YEARS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. CHAIR. REPRESENTATIVE>>CHAIR: REPRESENTATIVE.>>REPRESENTATIVE: THANK YOU MR. CHAIR AND I APPRECIATE WHAT THE REPRESENTATIVE WAS SAYING BUT WE USE DATA IN THAT IS BEING CONSIDERED AND THE BIGGEST PROBLEM IS FOUNDING COURSE SOILS. THE JUST LIKE IN THE OLD DAYS IF SOMEONE HAD MEASLES THEY SAID QUARANTINE THE WHOLE TOWN AND NOT JUST THE INDIVIDUAL OR THAT PARTICULAR HOUSE AND THAT’S WHAT THIS COMMITTEE IS DOING AND WE HAVE THE RIGHT A LOT OF PEOPLE IN MY AREA SAY THAT WE HAVE LISTENING SESSIONS THAT WE’VE NOT BEEN HEARD AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM THERE’S LISTENING BUT WE ARE NOT BEING HEARD THAT’S WHY WE HAVE TO DO THIS; AND STATING THAT US GUYS ARE IMMATURE MAYBE WERE GOING BACK AND FORTH BUT NO; WE ARE HERE TO REPRESENT OUR PEOPLE. WE CAN MAKE THAT SAME ARGUMENT WITH OUR GOVERNOR RIGHT NOW WITH THIS THING BUT I CANNOT GO DOWN THAT PATH I’LL BE RESPECTFUL OF THE GOVERNOR BUT THE FACT IS; WHY ARE WE QUARANTINING MOST OF THE STATE WHEN THERE’S PROBLEMS ONLY THERE AND THEN THE FACT IS THAT UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA IS NOT THE ONLY SOURCE FOR FERTILIZER APPLICATIONS. FARMERS CANNOT AFFORD TO WASTE NITRATES AND THERE’S THAT DISRESPECT THEY WERE SAYING THAT I TALKED ABOUT ON THE HOUSE FOR YESTERDAY WE ARE SEEING IT AGAIN. AND SO; WHAT WE ARE DOING IS WE ARE ALLOWING OUR; LIKE REPRESENTATIVE MILLER SAID WE ARE ALLOWING OUR AUTHORITY TO BRING THIS DOWN TO EARTH INSTEAD OF BEING DECIDED IN ST. PAUL THAT SCIENCE. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.>>CHAIR: REPRESENTATIVE MAHONEY.>>REPRESENTATIVE MAHONEY: YOU KNOW; THANK YOU MR. CHAIR; I WAS GOING TO GO A WHOLE DIFFERENT WAY I WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO PASS; BUT; NOW WE JUST INSULTED THE MINNESOTA EXTENSION PROGRAM WE INSULTED ONE OF THE MINNESOTA PREMIER AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES IN AMERICA; IN AMERICA; THEY ARE IN THE TOP 10. AND; TO SAY MAPS ARE OUT OF DATE IN 2011; YOU KNOW; TYPICALLY SOIL TAKES A GOOD LENGTH OF TIME TO CHANGE SO I FIND IT KIND OF INTERESTING THAT WE ARE GOING TO DO THOSE KIND OF INSULTS. AND; NOT HEARD; AGAIN; I THINK IT WAS 17 LISTENING SESSIONS; 1000 COMMENTS. I’M SURE THAT THERE WERE COMMENTS THAT DON’T DO ANYTHING PERIOD. THAT’S WHEN PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED ARE FREED OVER COST WERE DOING SOMETHING DIFFERENT; BUT; WE KNOW THAT THE EARTH CAN ONLY TAKE SO MUCH. AND; WE HAVE TO TAKE STEPS IN ORDER TO ASSURE THE SAFETY OF THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THIS LAND . I DO WANT YOU TO REMEMBER WHAT HAPPENED IN IOWA IN A THE LEMOYNE; CLASS-ACTION LAWSUITS AND LO AND BEHOLD ALL THREE BODIES WERE REPUBLICAN; AND YOU KNOW WHAT? THEY PREEMPTED THE ABILITY FOR CITIES TO BRING LAWSUITS OVER WHAT? AND; YOUR PARTY; MR. CHAIR; HAS BEEN PRETTY ACTIVE ON THE PREEMPTING OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS I’M JUST WONDERING CAN WE HAVE A PREEMPTION ON THE CITY BRINGING LAWSUITS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEIR WATER IS CLEAN ? AND THAT IS A CITY LIKE WHETHER IT IS REDWOOD FALLS OR GROSS ROSEAU OR THE CITY OF ST. PAUL AND ACTUALLY WE GET OUR WATER FROM THE AND THE CITY ST. LOUIS RIVER SO WERE A LITTLE SAFER THERE BUT MEMBERS CAN WE DO MORE TALK? YEAH; WE CAN BUT AT SOME POINT; YOU ACTUALLY TO DO SOMETHING. AND AGAIN; 1000 COMMENTS; 18; 19; 15; HOWEVER MANY OPEN HEARINGS THEY HAVE HAD MULTIPLE HEARINGS AND THAT IS AMAZING AND MR. CHAIR I DON’T THINK THAT YOU WILL HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE COMING BACK AT 10:30 PM OR 11:30 PM AT NIGHT TO TESTIFY; BUT IT IS A GOOD OFFER. AND; I THINK YOU WILL GET THE SAME EFFECT FROM JUST SAYING NO.>>CHAIR: THANK YOU; REPRESENTATIVE. AND; I WILL JUST SAY ; I THINK THIS IS KIND OF A COMBINATION OF CONCERNS BUILT UP BY FARMERS AND THOSE IN THE EGG COMMUNITY OVER A SERIES OF THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED THESE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS. AND; I GO BACK TO THE SEED TREATMENT AND THE PUSH TO MAKE MINNESOTA THE ONLY STATE THAT REGULATED SEED TREATMENT. THAT WAS A SHOCK I THINK THAT REALLY IF YOU GO DOWN THE LIST OF THIS WAS DURING AGRICULTURE REALLY DURING THE TIME WE JUST PASSED A QUARTER OF $1 MILLION IN OUR BILL THAT GOT TAKEN AWAY BUT IT WAS MENTAL HEALTH FOR AGRICULTURE BECAUSE IT IS DIFFICULT; IT IS HARD TO TRY TO MAKE A LIVING WIMBERLEY ON THE LAND TODAY. AND; THIS IS A SLOW PROCESS AND I WILL TELL YOU THAT I TOLD THE DEPARTMENT THEY DID A LOT OF THINGS AND I SALUTE THEM THEY DID THINGS THIS IS AN EFFORT TO SLOW IT DOWN AGAIN AND I’M A BIT BEFUDDLED OVER THE HANG-UP OVER WHAT I THI NK IS A SMALL; SMALL OFFER THAT WE MADE ABOUT THE DROPPING THE PROVISION FROM COMING BACK AND FOR THEM ALLOWING THE SOIL LOSS PROVISION TO REVERT BACK TO COUNTY LOCAL CONTROL AND TO ME THAT IS THE CRUX OF WHY WE ARE HERE AND I WILL GET OFF OF MY SOAPBOX NOW IN A REPRESENTATIVE NORNES.>>REPRESENTATIVE NORNES: THANK YOU MR. CHAIR AND I WOULD RETHINK THE CHANGING TESTIMONY DON’T THINK ANYTHING WOULD CHANGE IF YOU DO THAT’S I WOULD JUST THINK ABOUT THAT BUT I HAVE ATTENDED A LOT OF LISTENING SESSIONS THAT I’M ABOUT THE REST OF YOU BUT I’VE HEARD MANY OTHERS IN THERE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT ARE INVOLVED IN WHEN THE FINAL RESULTS ARE IN THERE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT THEY ARE HEARD THEY HAVE LISTENING SESSIONS AND PEOPLE ARE BEING HEARD I THINK THAT WE REALLY NEED TO BE IN CHARGE OF THIS AND I SYMPATHIZE WHAT FARMERS ARE IN CHARGE OF TODAY AND FOR ME IT IS A MINOR THING AS FAR AS POSTPONING THIS INTO NEXT SESSION I DON’T SEE WHY THAT IS A MAJOR HEARTBURN AND AGAIN BASICALLY; THAT IS MY TWO CENTS.>>CHAIR: REPRESENTATIVE POPPE.>>REPRESENTATIVE POPPE: THANK YOU MR. CHAIR AND I THINK YOU THE INDULGENCE OF CONTINUING THE BESTDISCUSSION AND I AM I HAVEN’T GIVEN UP HOPE; THAT THE GOVERNOR WILL LOOK AT THIS AND CONSIDER THIS AN YOU ARE THE GOVERNOR’S KIND OF BUSY RIGHT NOW AND THERE’S LOTS OF THINGS IN THE AIR AND WE ARE ALL PROBABLY TENSE IN A LITTLE NERVOUS ABOUT GETTING TO THE END OF SESSION AND HOPEFULLY; NUMBER OF THINGS COME TOGETHER. AND SO; I GUESS I WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE YOU; AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE; TO HOLD THIS OPEN AND TO REALLY LISTEN TO EACH OTHER. AGAIN; I WORKED AS A COUNSELOR. I DON’T TYPICALLY TALK ON THE HOUSE FLOOR I TALK MORE IN THIS COMMITTEE THAN IN OTHER COMMITTEES BUT I AM A LISTENER AND WE NEED TO LISTEN TO EACH OTHER. AND; I FULLY BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO LISTEN TO OUR FARMERS AND THEY FEEL THAT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN LISTENED TO OVER THE COURSE OF; MAYBE A NUMBER OF YEARS; ON CERTAIN ISSUES. I DO BELIEVE THAT. AND; I WANT TO SAY THIS; I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THAT THE MAJORITY PARTY LOOKED AT THE APPROVAL FOR THE GROUNDWATER PROTECTION AND YOU TOOK THAT OUT OF THE BILL. YOU TOOK THAT OUT OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL BILL AND YOU TOOK THAT OUT OF AGRICULTURAL POLICY BILL; AND SO; I APPRECIATE; BECAUSE I THINK THAT WAS A CONCESSION. I HAVE RELAY THAT MESSAGE AS WELL TO THE GOVERNOR. I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED. AND; I’M NOT SAYING THAT THE BULLIES ARE ONLY IN THIS ROOM; I’M SAYING THERE ARE BULLIES THROUGHOUT THIS WORLD. THERE ARE BULLIES ALL OVER THE PLACE AND PEOPLE MAY BE USING DIFFERENT TACTICS OR WHATEVER; AND I THINK THERE ARE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT ISSUES REGARDING THAT. BUT; I THINK HOLDING THIS OPEN; REALLY HOPING THAT; INSTEAD OF USING THE STICK; LET’S USE THE CARROT AND WHAT CAN WE TRY TO FIGURE OUT HERE AND IS THIS SOMETHING THAT THE GOVERNOR WITHBE AGREEABLE TO TO SIGN THE BILL AND IT JUST SEEMS A LITTLE LIKE THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE AND WERE KIND OF MOVING FORWARD ON SOMETHING THAT MAYBE WE SHOULDN’T; AND AGAIN; MAYBE WE SHOULDN’T AND I GET TO KNOW IF THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY KNOW PEOPLE ARE HERE AND WANT TO TESTIFY; IT IS NOT NECESSARILY ABOUT CHANGING PEOPLE’S OPINION IS ABOUT HEARING AND LISTENING TO WHAT PEOPLE HAVE TO SAY AND I THINK THAT’S REALLY WHAT WE ARE HERE TO DO WHEN I JUST ENCOURAGE YOU AND YOU MAY BE SAID WE WERE GOING TO TAKE A BREAK HERE AND I JUST WOULD STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU AND MAYBE EVEN GIVE IT AN OVERNIGHT; BECAUSE; MAYBE WE ALL NEED TO SLEEP ON SOMETHING HERE AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE NEXT MOVE IS GOING TO BE OR IF WE CAN ACTUALLY STOP AND LISTEN TO EACH OTHER AND COME UP WITH GOOD SOLUTIONS RATHER THAN JUST BULLYING SOLUTIONS. SO; THANK YOU AGAIN; MR. CHAIR.>>CHAIR: THANK YOU AGAIN ALL OF YOU FOR ALL OF YOUR COMMENTS WE DID GET SOME DIRECTION ON THE TAKING TESTIMONY ASPECT WHICH WILL BE PART OF OUR TOPIC TODAY. AND AGAIN; MY THOUGHT WAS THAT WE WERE NOT HERE TO DEBATE THE NITROGEN RULE; WE WERE HERE TO DEBATE THE RESOLUTION AND TO GIVE IT AN UP OR DOWN AND RESEARCH FOLKS TELL US TELL US THAT THE STATUTE 14.126 REFERS TO THE POWER OF THE COMMITTEE. THE POWER OF THE COMMITTEE. AND; TO ME; THAT SAYS WE ARE HERE FOR ONE PURPOSE; AND THAT IS TO ACT ON THE RESOLUTION. NOW; WHAT I’M GOING TO DO; OVERHEARING POSSIBLY THAT THE SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET BILL MIGHT BE ON THE CALENDAR TONIGHT WHICH COULD MAKE IT LATE AND IT HAS NOT BEEN CALLED BACK YET BUT I WILL CALL FOR A 10 MINUTE RECESS AND HOPEFULLY COME BACK IN 10 MINUTES AND GET SOME MORE CLARIFICATION AND I WOULD JUST SAY THAT IF WE DO TAKE PUBLIC TESTIMONY OF CAN BE A TWO MINUTE LIMIT; AND AGAIN; BUT IT’S GOING TO GET LATE AT NIGHT OR COME BACK TOMORROW WITH THE SAME ISSUE LIKE YOU SAY THE DOORS NOT OPEN OR THINGS LIKE THAT; IT’S KIND OF UP TO THE COMMITTEE MY THOUGHT WAS WE WERE COMING IN HERE TO TAKE CARE OF THIS ONE PURPOSE AND IT WOULD BE DONE. BUT; IF WE FEEL THAT WE HAVE TO TAKE TESTIMONY; PUBLIC TESTIMONY;AGAIN THIS 14.126 REFERS TO THE POWER THE COMMITTEE AND WITH THAT; WE WILL RESIST THE MEETING AND BE BACK AT 5:10 PM.>>[GAVEL]