The Outdoors

By Scott Rall, Outdoors Columnist

Minnesota’s legislature is now in session and as always there are bound to be some issues that surface when it comes to natural resource funding. When it comes to funding sources, Minnesota has done a pretty good job of protecting much of these funds from diversion to other non-related spending. The Land and Legacy amendment that was passed in 2009 was passed by a constitutional amendment to the State of Minnesota’s constitution.

It effectively raised the sales tax in Minnesota by 3/8th of one percent and dictated where these funds could be spent. 1/3 went to game, fish and wildlife, another 1/3 went to the Arts and Cultural Heritage and the last 1/3 went to parks and trails of regional significance. I was very involved as a local sportsman to help make sure this amendment passed.  On the wildlife 1/3, it stated that the funds could only be spent to protect, restore or enhance forests, prairies, wetlands and other habitat for game, fish and wildlife. It also mandated that the new funds raised were to supplement (be in addition to) current funding and could not be used to supplant (be used instead of current funding) the monies currently being directed to these same natural resources.

There were some efforts early on to divert these funds to other governmental spending priorities, but for the most part all of these failed. The reason they failed was the intense push back pressure they received from constituents to back off of these diversion efforts. One big one early on was that if we take these new wildlife and habitat funds and fund education efforts, that the kids would be better stewards of our natural resources and thus would qualify as protecting natural resources. When you read the constitutional language this kind of diversion would have never passed muster.

A few years back, the Republicans tried to divert money from the Environmental Trust Fund. These are the dollars dedicated to the environment from the Minnesota State Lottery proceeds. They figured stealing a bunch of millions and using it to fund waste water treatment plants would improve water in our rivers and streams, thus an environmental cause. These projects have always and historically been funded by bonding dollars. Another attempt by politicians to subvert the will of the people who voted overwhelmingly for dedicated and restricted funding to be used only for Minnesota’s natural resources.

In Minnesota, before the Land and Legacy amendment passed, the state would dedicate regular amounts in each bonding bill (they happen every other year) for the acquisition of Wildlife Management Areas. Since the passage of the Legacy amendment guess what happened. Not a single dollar of traditional funding has been used for this purpose. The new dollars were supposed to be added to the existing funding streams to increase overall funding for conservation. In this example there has been a 100% supplanting of traditional funding sources. How does this remain a hush-hush issue?

I just read an article today about a politician from Nebraska who wants to, as he put it, “take very dime” he can from the Nebraska game and fish fund. He claims they don’t do a good job and thus should have no funding. I have spent more than enough time in the state of Nebraska to know that his assertions are by no means true. Just because he can’t catch any fish does not mean there are no fish there to catch.

We need to remain constantly vigilant in watching over conservation dollars. Not only the dedicated funding pots, which are better protected but not impenetrable, but also the overall budgets of the different state agencies that are responsible for carrying out natural resource management. State agencies rely on license sales and other user generated funds for much of their annual budgets. Other general funds are allocated by the legislature. Last year the Minnesota DNR got a huge boost from the governor to fix up all kinds of way past due infrastructure needs. Fish hatcheries, parks, roads and lot of other stuff that had been ignored for about three decades.

I was glad to see it, but you cannot say we had a good year and then just forget about it for another decade. There will always be some elected official that wants to divert natural resource money to their pet projects. Be knowledgeable and informed and follow the money to be sure it goes where it supposed to. Here’s to having a legislative session in Minnesota that does not include any diversion clown acts. I’ll be watching and you should be too.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you have any questions, reach out to me at scottarall@gmail.com.