WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HF 821

Nitrate private well mitigation funding provided, and money appropriated.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Paul Anderson and 5 co-sponsors

Provides state funding to mitigate nitrate contamination in private wells, enabling treatments, replacements, or upgrades for affected households.

Author added Myers
#agricultureandagriculturedepartment
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HF 821

Summary of HF 821 (Minnesota) — Nitrate Private Well Mitigation Funding Provided, and Money Appropriated

Basic information

  • Session: 2025-2026
  • Jurisdiction: Minnesota
  • Short Title: Nitrate private well mitigation funding provided, and money appropriated
  • Committee reference: Agriculture Finance and Policy (introduced and referred at first reading)
  • Authors/Co-sponsors: Primary author initially, with subsequent co-sponsors including Steve Jacob, Samantha Vang, Andy Smith, Paul Anderson, Andrew Myers, and Kristi Pursell

Purpose and intent

HF 821 aims to address nitrate contamination in private wells by providing funding for mitigation efforts. The bill intends to distribute financial assistance to property owners who rely on private wells that are affected by nitrate levels, supporting measures to reduce nitrate exposure and ensure safer drinking water for affected households.

Key provisions and changes (high-level)

  • Funding authorization and appropriation: The bill authorizes the use of state funds (likely a specific appropriation) to support nitrate mitigation projects for private wells. Details such as total dollar amounts, funding caps, and duration of the program are typically specified in the bill text.
  • Mitigation measures covered: Eligible mitigation activities may include well improvements, water treatment systems (e.g., nitrate-removal units), well replacement, or other remediation strategies that reduce nitrate concentrations to safe levels. The bill would define which measures are eligible for funding.
  • Eligibility criteria: Homeowners or entities responsible for private wells would need to meet criteria (e.g., location in designated nitrate-impacted areas, proof of private well ownership, demonstrated nitrate levels above health-based thresholds). There may be income-based or household-based limits, maximum grant amounts, or cost-sharing requirements.
  • Administration and oversight: The program would be administered by a state agency or department (e.g., Department of Agriculture or a related agency). The bill likely specifies application processes, timelines, reporting requirements, and oversight to ensure funds are used for eligible mitigation activities.
  • Priority considerations: The bill could include prioritization for households with urgent health risks, multi-family or multi-well systems, or communities with higher exposure to nitrate contamination.
  • Related program integration: Potential alignment with existing water quality or agricultural programs, and coordination with local governments, groundwater management entities, or public health agencies.

Who is affected

  • Private well owners: Residents and property owners who rely on private wells and have nitrate contamination above recommended health thresholds.
  • Households and families: Individuals who rely on private wells for drinking water and may require mitigation or treatment systems.
  • Local and state agencies: Agencies charged with administering funding, processing applications, and ensuring compliance.
  • Water treatment and service providers: Contractors and vendors supplying treatment systems or well upgrades funded under the program.

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • Introduction and referral: Introduced February 17, 2025; referred to the Agriculture Finance and Policy committee at that time.
  • Action history: Amendments or additional authorship added through March 2025–March 2026, indicating ongoing consideration and potential revisions.
  • Implementation timeline (typical for such bills): Upon enactment, programs generally begin accepting applications within a designated start window, with funding disbursed on a schedule (e.g., quarterly or upon project completion) and annual reporting requirements for program outcomes.

Potential impacts and considerations

  • Public health benefit: By reducing nitrate exposure in private well water, potential improvements in health outcomes for households relying on private wells.
  • Equity and access: Provisions may address disparities in access to safe drinking water, prioritizing high-need areas.
  • Fiscal implications: State budget impact due to appropriation; ongoing costs for administration, monitoring, and potential matching requirements.
  • Implementation challenges: Ensuring eligible costs are properly defined, preventing misuse, and coordinating with local health departments and water utilities.

If you’d like, I can pull the exact fiscal amounts, eligibility thresholds, and program period details from the bill text to provide a more precise, line-item level summary.

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

Sign in to ask a question.