House, Senate far apart on ag bill, leaving path forward 'clear as mud'

Moving forward toward reconciliation of the omnibus agriculture and broadband development policy and finance bill may prove very problematic.

“At this point, it’s as clear as mud,” Sen. Aric Putnam (DFL-St. Cloud) said Friday.

He and Rep. Paul Anderson (R-Starbuck) chair the conference committee on HF2446.

Not that their situation is much different from any other conference committee, it is after all the whole raison d’être of conference committees to come up with compromise legislation.

But this one is lopsided in the policy differences, which was made clear when nonpartisan staff did a walkthrough of House- and Senate-only provisions at their first meeting. There are no overlapping policy provisions between the bodies version of the bill.

Anderson also made note of that unique situation but also commented it’s imperative the committee completes its important work.

“It’s a tough time to show a profit margin in production agriculture,” he said. “We need to do what we can to help agriculture flourish in our great state.”

Both co-chairs said solving the fiscal and policy differences can’t commence until the committee receives its budget target from legislative leaders.

The bottom line

On the fiscal side, the House and Senate differ by $17.8 million, with the House proposing a 2026-27 biennium General Fund appropriation of $172.3 million to fund the Agriculture Department and several other associated state agencies under the purview of the House and Senate agriculture committees. The Senate figure is $154.5 million.

The differences in the bottom lines results from the House committee getting a budget target from House leadership of $17 million over base, while Senate leadership set a negative target of $313,000 for that body’s agriculture budget.

So while there will need to be serious negotiations to solve that difference, the two sides won’t have to agree on how much money to send the Agriculture Department for an operating adjustment. Both bodies propose sending $1.34 million to fund department operations, which is the amount in Gov. Tim Walz’s budget recommendation.

[MORE: See side-by-side appropriations, detailed spreadsheet, change items only]

Agriculture Commissioner Thom Petersen thanked the committee for sufficient operating adjustment for the department and praised the money going to implement mental health programs for farmers.

“These are critical investments for a small amount of money,” he said.

He also lauded funds that would go into the Agriculture Emergency Account.

The House version would appropriate $4 million in the 2026-27 biennium, of which up to $2 million could go to testing for avian influenza in milk, poultry, and pet foods; assisting the Health Department to monitor avian flu in farmers, farm workers and people who process agricultural products; and funding to the University of Minnesota to develop rapid testing to detect bird flu in private wells and urban drinking water and wastewater systems.

The Senate version would fund the emergency account with a one-time $1.5 million appropriation and with no use restrictions.

Other fiscal differences

Most fiscal differences are seen in increases or reductions in specific programs, including these notable House-only provisions where the Senate funding is absent:

• $3.1 million for a dairy processing wastewater treatment facility in Litchfield;
• $2.7 million to establish AGRI support and AGRI works programs;
• $1.5 million to fund county agriculture inspectors; and
• $1.2 million to promote biofertilizer innovation and efficiency.

Other programs get funded in higher amounts by the House, including $2 million for farm-to-schools food programs ($300,000 by the Senate).

However, the House bill would cut funding for the Second Harvest Heartland food bank program by $3.4 million, while the Senate keeps the $3.4 million base funding intact.

Both the House and Senate would cancel a previously appropriated $3 million in fiscal year 2024 to the green fertilizer program.

Notable policy provisions

House-only policy provisions total just four, and these were modest or mostly technical modifications to a farm assistance grant program or to regulations regarding the handling of agricultural pesticides.

Of the more than 100 Senate-only policy changes proposed, some notable ones include:

• adding a new section of law regulating home-based milk marketeers;
• modifying grain license inspection and storage fees;
• prohibiting the declawing of cats;
• amending existing PFAS prohibitions, making them not applicable to certain cleaning products; and
• modifying the rules on who is eligible to manufacture home-processed pet treats.

Broadband development

Each version would appropriate $2 million in the biennium to the Office of Broadband Development to increase high-speed internet access across the state