The 2007 Agenda, To restrict ATV and 4-wheel drive trucks? (Minnesota)
December 26, 2006
ST. PAUL – Minnesota lawmakers long have debated whether to dedicate part of the state sales tax to natural resources needs.
Likewise, every year they discuss how much to restrict all-terrain vehicles and four-wheel drive trucks on state land.
Both topics will be on their agenda again in 2007.
With Democrats in charge of both houses of the Legislature, there is likely to be more agreement than in the past eight years when Republicans controlled the House and Democrats held the Senate.
“This Legislature probably is the most environmentally friendly Legislature we have had in decades,” said former GOP lawmaker John Tuma of the Minnesota Environmental Partnership.
“Frankly, our natural resources can’t wait any longer,” said Assistant House Majority Leader Frank Moe, DFL-Bemidji.
But they have to wait until lawmakers agree on how to fund needs for outdoors-related interests. The major funding debate probably will center on the sales tax dedication issue.
Then-Sen. Bob Lessard of International Falls started efforts in 1998 to dedicate part of the sales tax to the outdoors for things such as improving wildlife habitat. Over the years, however, lawmakers never quite reached agreement.
In recent years, the amount of the proposed tax has moved around. Lawmakers debated whether it should be on top of current taxes or taken from them. And what would be funded has changed. In recent years, the arts community has found support to share some of the money, which angered many natural resources advocates.
So for the 10th year, the proposal comes in front of lawmakers.
The Environmental Partnership’s proposal, which certainly will not be the only one debated, calls for a quarter-percent increase in the sales tax to provide $187 million a year to fund a water cleanup program, to buy and manage forest and other land, and to invest in parks and trails.
Money to test and clean the state’s water is a prime concern in the Capitol. Minnesota and most other states don’t meet requirements of the 1972 federal Clean Water Act and state officials fear being sued.
Moe said a clean-water act passed last year “is grossly underfunded and possibly illegal.”
About $100 million is needed annually to comply with the federal law, Tuma said.
Sen. Gary Kubly, who will lead a Senate natural resources subcommittee, said he will consider proposals to set aside some tax revenue for outdoors purposes.
“We’re certainly going to hear the dedicated funding issue for natural resources,” Kubly, DFL-Granite Falls, said of constitutionally dedicated money.
Kubly said more outdoors money is critical because funding for natural resources as a percentage of all state allocations is at a 30-year low.
Rep. Al Juhnke, DFL-Willmar, said he expects House Democrats to favor increasing the sales tax instead of the Republican proposal to take it out of the existing revenue.
“We’re not going to increase taxes; the voters will,” he said.
The proposal would put the issue on ballots in 2008. If they approve it, the sales tax dedication would be part of the state constitution.
Moe, however, said many Democrats don’t like putting the funding requirement in the constitution. He and others prefer legislative action.
Sen. Tom Saxhaug, vice chairman of the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Budget Division, said water in his northern Minnesota area already is clean. He wonders if it is fair for all Minnesotans to pay a higher sales tax so western Minnesota gets more duck habitat and the Twin Cities get cleaner water.
The new House Environment Policy Committee chairman, Rep. Kent Eken, DFL-Twin Valley, said clean water funding will be considered alongside issues such as how to deal with electronic waste and all-terrain vehicles.
Eken said he expects to hold ATV hearings.
“What would be the best, of course, is try to find some common ground,” Eken said of the controversial topic. “I think the ATVs do provide an important part of our economy. I think it can be a great opportunity to see the outdoors. But we want to make sure they are being used in a way that is not damaging our environment because, in the long run, that will damage our economy.”
Forum Communications reporter Scott Wente contributed to this story
Readers can reach Forum Communications reporter Don Davis at (651) 290-0707 or ddavis@forumcomm.com
Article Reference:
http://www.in-forum.com/News/articles/150701
ST. PAUL – Minnesota lawmakers long have debated whether to dedicate part of the state sales tax to natural resources needs.
Likewise, every year they discuss how much to restrict all-terrain vehicles and four-wheel drive trucks on state land.
Both topics will be on their agenda again in 2007.
With Democrats in charge of both houses of the Legislature, there is likely to be more agreement than in the past eight years when Republicans controlled the House and Democrats held the Senate.
“This Legislature probably is the most environmentally friendly Legislature we have had in decades,” said former GOP lawmaker John Tuma of the Minnesota Environmental Partnership.
“Frankly, our natural resources can’t wait any longer,” said Assistant House Majority Leader Frank Moe, DFL-Bemidji.
But they have to wait until lawmakers agree on how to fund needs for outdoors-related interests. The major funding debate probably will center on the sales tax dedication issue.
Then-Sen. Bob Lessard of International Falls started efforts in 1998 to dedicate part of the sales tax to the outdoors for things such as improving wildlife habitat. Over the years, however, lawmakers never quite reached agreement.
In recent years, the amount of the proposed tax has moved around. Lawmakers debated whether it should be on top of current taxes or taken from them. And what would be funded has changed. In recent years, the arts community has found support to share some of the money, which angered many natural resources advocates.
So for the 10th year, the proposal comes in front of lawmakers.
The Environmental Partnership’s proposal, which certainly will not be the only one debated, calls for a quarter-percent increase in the sales tax to provide $187 million a year to fund a water cleanup program, to buy and manage forest and other land, and to invest in parks and trails.
Money to test and clean the state’s water is a prime concern in the Capitol. Minnesota and most other states don’t meet requirements of the 1972 federal Clean Water Act and state officials fear being sued.
Moe said a clean-water act passed last year “is grossly underfunded and possibly illegal.”
About $100 million is needed annually to comply with the federal law, Tuma said.
Sen. Gary Kubly, who will lead a Senate natural resources subcommittee, said he will consider proposals to set aside some tax revenue for outdoors purposes.
“We’re certainly going to hear the dedicated funding issue for natural resources,” Kubly, DFL-Granite Falls, said of constitutionally dedicated money.
Kubly said more outdoors money is critical because funding for natural resources as a percentage of all state allocations is at a 30-year low.
Rep. Al Juhnke, DFL-Willmar, said he expects House Democrats to favor increasing the sales tax instead of the Republican proposal to take it out of the existing revenue.
“We’re not going to increase taxes; the voters will,” he said.
The proposal would put the issue on ballots in 2008. If they approve it, the sales tax dedication would be part of the state constitution.
Moe, however, said many Democrats don’t like putting the funding requirement in the constitution. He and others prefer legislative action.
Sen. Tom Saxhaug, vice chairman of the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Budget Division, said water in his northern Minnesota area already is clean. He wonders if it is fair for all Minnesotans to pay a higher sales tax so western Minnesota gets more duck habitat and the Twin Cities get cleaner water.
The new House Environment Policy Committee chairman, Rep. Kent Eken, DFL-Twin Valley, said clean water funding will be considered alongside issues such as how to deal with electronic waste and all-terrain vehicles.
Eken said he expects to hold ATV hearings.
“What would be the best, of course, is try to find some common ground,” Eken said of the controversial topic. “I think the ATVs do provide an important part of our economy. I think it can be a great opportunity to see the outdoors. But we want to make sure they are being used in a way that is not damaging our environment because, in the long run, that will damage our economy.”
Forum Communications reporter Scott Wente contributed to this story
Readers can reach Forum Communications reporter Don Davis at (651) 290-0707 or ddavis@forumcomm.com
Article Reference:
http://www.in-forum.com/News/articles/150701
