By Rep. Paul Anderson
All of the major finance bills have been passed out of the two chambers of the Minnesota Legislature. After returning from the Easter break, conference committees will be announced, and they will begin the work of negotiating with the governor and his staff to craft bills that he will sign. It’s hoped that agreements can be reached, but in all likelihood, several face a veto threat and may need to be re-worked. The Environment bill is an example in that it contains language that slightly modifies the buffer requirement facing farmers this year. Gov. Dayton has said on at least two occasions that he will compromise no further on buffers, so we will see what develops in that area.
The flap earlier this year caused by MnDOT announcing strict requirements for ditch mowing in its right-of-way has resulted in a bill the governor enacted on Friday. It doesn’t go as far as I’d like, and basically calls for a one-year time-out from the issuance of permits for the right to mow state ditches. The bill says that by March of 2018 the commissioner of transportation must recommend to the Legislature the establishment of a permit or notification system to mow or hay in truck highway right-of-way. The recommendation must contain, among other things, the ease of permit application, the frequency of permits, and priority for the owner or occupant of private land adjacent to state highways.
An interesting part of the Agriculture Policy bill passed last week has to do with Minnesota’s long-standing fencing provision. With its earliest parts dating back to our state’s territorial days, the law basically said that two adjoining land owners must equally share the cost of building a fence on the property line. That made sense in earlier years when most rural residents farmed and had livestock. The law was challenged some years ago when a paper company refused to pay for a fence in northern Minnesota. Because of that court case, St. Louis County was given an exemption from the state’s fence law.
Today, many residents living in the rural areas don’t necessarily farm or have any kind of livestock. That has resulted in disputes over who pays for a fence that only one party needs. The proposed change in the statute says that land owners will share the cost of fencing only if the adjoining lands are both used in whole or in part to produce or maintain livestock for agricultural or commercial purposes.
The long-awaited “alternative practices” guide for buffer implementation was released last week by BOWSR. It doesn’t contain any big surprises, although it will give guidance to local SWCDs on quantifying how an alternative practice stacks up against buffers in terms of reducing erosion and run-off. Grassed waterways will suffice where there is no clearly defined bed or ditch bank. Negative slopes running down and away from the ditch or waterway will also be accepted if the ditch bank is stabilized with vegetation. If side inlets are utilized in this type of system, those inlets must be buffered.
The alternative practice that gives the most flexibility in terms of narrower buffers pertains to those who practice conservation tillage. Along public waters, the width of the buffer can be reduced to 25 feet for those who utilize no-till or strip-till in their operation. Other reduced tillage practices could also be used, but a technical analysis would have to be run to determine the exact width of the buffer.
***
May you have a blessed Easter.
-30-