Pollinator account statutory appropriation elimination and lawns to legumes grant program repealer
Summary
SF1211 makes two related changes to Minnesota law affecting pollinator-support programs. First, it removes the statutory appropriation for the pollinator account in the special revenue fund, changing the account so that money may still be deposited into it, but funds are no longer automatically available for appropriation to the Board of Water and Soil Resources for pollinator habitat activities. Second, it repeals the separate “lawns to legumes” grant program, which had authorized the board to provide financial and technical assistance for planting residential landscapes and community spaces with native vegetation, pollinator-friendly forbs, and legumes.
The bill is framed as a natural resources measure and is effective July 1, 2025 for both provisions. In practical terms, it would end the specific statutory program that supported lawn conversion to pollinator-friendly plantings and would also eliminate the automatic spending authority tied to the pollinator account, leaving any future use of those funds to the normal appropriations process or other legislative action. The repealed program had also included provisions on grant criteria, priority areas for rusty patched bumble bee habitat, collaboration with public and private partners, and data privacy for applicants and recipients.
Impact
SF1211 amends Minnesota Statutes section 103B.101, subdivision 19, by removing the statutory appropriation language for the pollinator account, and it repeals section 103B.104 in full, which is the lawns to legumes program. This changes the legal status of pollinator-related funding and eliminates the board’s express authority to administer that grant program under current statute. The affected parties include the Board of Water and Soil Resources, potential grant applicants, landowners, community organizations, and contractors involved in pollinator habitat and native planting projects.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be a budgetary or programmatic retrenchment rather than an expansion of environmental programming. There are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or support levels in the materials supplied. The bill’s introduction and referral suggest it was considered in the environment-related committee process, but the available record does not show whether it advanced or drew formal opposition.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the elimination of dedicated support for pollinator habitat and the repeal of a program that provided grants and technical assistance for native plant conversions. Supporters of the bill would likely view the changes as reducing statutory earmarks and consolidating spending decisions through the regular appropriations process, while opponents would likely argue that it weakens state support for pollinators, habitat restoration, and climate- and water-benefit landscaping. Because no hearing transcript or vote record is included, the specific positions of legislators, agencies, or stakeholders are not documented in the provided materials.
Environment and natural resources trust fund appropriations allocated, prior appropriations modified, grant programs established, report required, and money appropriated.