Permit holders harvesting or destroying aquatic plants required to safely use scuba diving equipment, and commercial diving operation requirements established.
HF1355 creates new workplace safety requirements for commercial scuba diving operations in Minnesota, particularly when scuba gear is used to remove aquatic plants or otherwise perform commercial mechanical control work in public waters. The bill amends the state’s aquatic plant management permit law so that applicants must disclose whether scuba equipment will be used, receive a labor-and-industry safety information sheet, and provide documentation of a recent third-party on-site hazard survey by a qualified safety professional. It also authorizes the Department of Natural Resources to deny, refuse to renew, or revoke certain permits when there are serious scuba-related occupational safety violations, and it bars permits to successor businesses that appear to continue the same operation after such violations.
The bill also adds a new section to Minnesota’s occupational safety law establishing detailed standards for commercial diving operations. Employers would have to ensure divers hold valid scuba certifications, use specified safety equipment, provide additional equipment when requested, maintain a standby diver, and require CPR and first aid training. Violations could be cited and penalized under existing occupational safety enforcement provisions. The new section is named the "Brady Aune and Joseph Anderson Safety Act," and most of its provisions take effect the day after final enactment, while the permit-related changes take effect October 1, 2025.
HF1355 would amend Minnesota Statutes section 103G.615 governing aquatic plant permits and add new chapter 182 requirements for commercial diving operations. It expands the Department of Natural Resources’ permitting authority by tying commercial mechanical control permits to occupational safety compliance, and it creates a new information-sharing role for the Department of Labor and Industry. The bill affects permit holders, employers using scuba divers, safety consultants, and businesses engaged in aquatic plant removal or similar underwater work, while also giving regulators new grounds to deny, renew, or revoke permits based on scuba-related safety violations.
Based on the bill’s progression through the House and Senate, the measure appears to have broad support and moved forward without recorded opposition in the provided history. The bill was amended, passed the House, returned with Senate amendments, and then concurred in by the House, suggesting general agreement on the need for stronger safety standards. The naming of the act after Brady Aune and Joseph Anderson also indicates a memorial or worker-safety motivation behind the legislation.
The main policy tension in HF1355 is between occupational safety enforcement and the practical operation of commercial aquatic plant control businesses. The bill imposes new certification, equipment, standby diver, and training requirements, and it conditions permits on safety compliance, which may increase costs and administrative burdens for employers and permit applicants. Another notable point is the successor-person restriction, which is designed to prevent businesses from avoiding permit consequences by reorganizing under a different name or ownership structure. No specific opposition was recorded in the provided transcripts or votes, but the bill’s detailed compliance requirements suggest that affected employers and industry participants would be the most likely stakeholders to scrutinize it.