Statutory appropriation of the pollinator account eliminated, and lawns to legumes grant program repealed.
Summary
HF451 eliminates the statutory appropriation for Minnesota’s pollinator account and repeals the state’s lawns to legumes grant program. Under current law, the pollinator account in the special revenue fund is used to support pollinator habitat, with money in the account automatically available for appropriation to the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR). The bill changes that structure so the account remains created, but its funds would no longer be statutorily appropriated; instead, spending would depend on the normal appropriations process. The change is effective July 1, 2025.
The bill also repeals Minnesota Statutes section 103B.104, which authorizes BWSR to provide financial and technical assistance for planting residential landscapes and community spaces with native vegetation, pollinator-friendly forbs, and legumes. That program is intended to support declining pollinator populations and provide related benefits such as water management, carbon sequestration, and climate resiliency. Repeal would end the program’s grant and assistance authority, along with its related criteria, collaboration provisions, and privacy protections for applicant data, as of July 1, 2025.
Impact
HF451 would reduce or remove dedicated statutory support for pollinator-related spending by ending the automatic appropriation from the pollinator account and by eliminating the lawns to legumes grant program. In practical terms, BWSR would lose the specific statutory authority to administer that grant/assistance program, and any future use of pollinator account money would have to be funded through the regular legislative appropriations process rather than by standing law. The bill would amend Minnesota Statutes section 103B.101 and repeal section 103B.104.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be a policy rollback rather than an expansion of environmental programming. No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no documented debate or recorded vote sentiment to summarize. The caption and structure of the bill indicate a straightforward effort to eliminate a dedicated funding mechanism and repeal an existing conservation grant program.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the policy choice to remove support for pollinator habitat and native-plant landscaping initiatives. Supporters of the repeal would likely view the bill as reducing statutory spending commitments and returning funding decisions to the legislature’s annual budget process. Opponents would likely argue that the bill weakens efforts to protect pollinators, including species such as the rusty patched bumble bee, and reduces benefits tied to water quality, carbon sequestration, and climate resilience. No specific named opponents or supporters are identified in the provided materials.