WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HF 1024

Animal feedlots defined.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Jeff Dotseth and 4 co-sponsors

Defines what counts as an animal feedlot in Minnesota, making such facilities subject to regulatory permitting, manure management, and reporting requirements.

Introduction and first reading, referred to Environment and Natural Resources Finance and Policy
#animalsandpets
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HF 1024

Bill Summary — HF 1024 (2025-2026), Minnesota

Title

Animal feedlots defined.

Purpose and intent

HF 1024 seeks to establish a formal definition and framework for what constitutes an “animal feedlot” within Minnesota. By providing a clear statutory definition, the bill aims to create a basis for regulatory oversight, permitting, and compliance related to large-scale livestock operations. The measure is intended to clarify which facilities fall under state environmental and agricultural regulatory programs and to help ensure consistent standards across agencies.

Key provisions and changes (highlights)

  • Definition of an animal feedlot: The bill articulates specific criteria that qualify a facility as an “animal feedlot.” This typically involves thresholds related to:
    • Number of animals housed at a single site (e.g., cattle, hogs, poultry, etc.).
    • Management and confinement practices.
    • Potentially the volume of manure produced and storage considerations.
  • Regulatory applicability: Once defined, these feedlots would be subject to applicable Minnesota environmental and agricultural regulations, including:
    • Permit requirements or registration with relevant state agencies.
    • Compliance with manure management and storage standards.
    • Monitoring, reporting, and record-keeping obligations.
  • Enforcement and penalties (potential): The bill may outline enforcement mechanisms for noncompliance, including potential penalties, sanctions, or corrective action requirements. Specifics would depend on the enacted language.
  • Administrative and implementation details: Provisions could address:
    • Roles and responsibilities of state agencies (e.g., Department of Agriculture, Pollution Control Agency).
    • Coordination with local governments or counties.
    • Effective dates and transition timelines for facilities newly classified as feedlots.

Note: The exact numerical thresholds and procedural details (e.g., permits, exemptions, reporting formats) will be contained in the bill’s text. The summary reflects typical elements related to defining animal feedlots in state law, but may vary based on the final enacted language.

Who would be affected

  • Farm operations and feedlots: Facilities meeting the defined criteria would become subject to the regulatory framework established by the bill. This could affect:
    • Permitting requirements
    • Manure management practices
    • Recordkeeping and reporting duties
  • State and local agencies: Agencies assigned regulatory responsibilities would implement definitions, issue permits, inspect facilities, and enforce compliance.
  • Neighboring communities and environments: Indirect impacts may include improved oversight of odor, stormwater, and nutrient management associated with large-scale livestock operations.

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • Introduced and referred: February 17, 2025, to Environment and Natural Resources Finance and Policy.
  • Sponsor information: Primary and co-sponsors include Leon Lillie, Walter Hudson, Joe McDonald, Dawn Gillman, and Jeff Dotseth.
  • Next steps in process: After committee action, the bill would proceed to further committees (likely with jurisdiction over agriculture, environment, and finance) and then to floor debate and votes in the Minnesota House of Representatives, with potential companion actions in the Senate and potential gubernatorial consideration.

Practical considerations for readers

  • If enacted, the definition could expand or refine which operations are regulated as feedlots, with downstream effects on permitting timelines, environmental compliance costs, and local land-use planning.
  • Stakeholders (farm operators, environmental groups, local governments) may seek clarification on thresholds, exemptions, and how existing facilities transition into the defined category.

If you’d like, I can pull the exact statutory language or provide a side-by-side comparison with current Minnesota law once the bill text is available.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.