My hope is that those that really believe that the environment is important and that it is critical that we protect our natural resources, that they sign onto this bill.”

Rep. Tom Dippel (R-Cottage Grove)

For more information on Hastings PFAS visit the city’s website at www.hastingsmn.gov/city-government/city-departments/public-works-and-engineering/pfas

Hastings City Hall
101 4th St. E
Hastings, MN 55033
View larger map

From the Hastings City Hall, Rep. Tom Dippel (R-Cottage Grove) held a press conference to announce a new bill that would allocate funds from the Legacy Fund’s Clean Water Fund towards Hastings’ construction of water treatment plants. At the Feb. 17 event, Rep. Dippel spoke to the new bill, as well as answered questions regarding the other avenues available to Hastings and the conspicuous lack of cooperation between Hastings’ two elected officials regarding this issue.
According to a draft of the bill provided to the Hastings Journal, the new bill seeks to appropriate $45.7 million in fiscal year 2026 “from the clean water fund to the public facilities authority for a grant to the city of Hastings to predesign, design, construct, and equip the Eastern Water Treatment Plant and associated piping.”
The Clean Water Fund is a part of the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment to Minnesota’s constitution passed in 2008. The amendment’s goal is to “protect drinking water sources; to protect, enhance, and restore wetlands, prairies, forests, and fish, game, and wildlife habitat; to preserve arts and cultural heritage; to support parks and trails; and to protect, enhance, and restore lakes, rivers, streams, and groundwater,” according to the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment website.
The amendment increased the state sales tax by three-eighths of one percent starting in July of 2009 in order to raise money for four separate funds: the Clean Water Fund, Outdoor Heritage Fund, Arts and Cultural Heritage Fund, and Parks and Trails fund.
One-third of all the funds raised from the sales tax increase go into the Clean Water Fund. According to the most recent Clean Water Fund report, from the fiscal year 2020-2021 biennium, the legislature appropriated $138.424 million towards “planning and implementation of nonpoint source pollution reduction programs.”
Each year, at least 5% of the Clean Water Fund must be spent to protect drinking water sources, which is exactly what Rep. Dippel seeks to leverage for Hastings.
“My hope is that those that really believe that the environment is important and that it is critical that we protect our natural resources, that they sign onto this bill,” he said.
Dippel referenced the looming state deficit as requiring that he be “as creative as I possibly can to create funding sources for Hastings,” rather than relying on the money coming from the general fund or a future bonding bill from the legislature.
According to City Administrator Dan Wietecha, the Legacy Fund was not a source of funding previously considered by the city, calling it a “less direct or proven shot than the capital bonding, but we are certainly interested in any number of funding sources.”
Dippel unveiled this “outside the box” idea for funding Hastings’ water treatment plants after a standoff with Sen. Judy Seeberger (D-Afton) with both legislators submitting separate and overlapping bills that allocate funds to Hastings in various ways.
Sen. Seeberger has submitted two bills (SF 549 and SF550) that allocate $16.6 million to Hastings for water treatment plants via the general fund and a future bonding bill respectively.
Rep. Dippel has submitted a bill (HF348) that seeks to transfer $45.7 million from the 2018 3M settlement fund to Hastings, with two separate bills similar to Sen. Seeberger’s bills that allocate $16.6 million from the general fund and a future bonding bill respectively that are drafted but lack house files at time of writing.
While Sen. Seeberger has agreed to sign Dippel’s bills allocating funds from a bonding bill and the general fund whenever they are ready, she has criticized HF348 saying it would “effectively be stealing from communities like Cottage Grove, who have already made plans for their own infrastructure improvements.”
Rep. Dippel on the other hand, has refused to sign SF549 and SF550 citing Article 4 Section 18 of the Minnesota Constitution that according to Dippel necessitates revenue bills to originate in the House of Representatives. For this reason, Rep. Dippel called SF549 and SF550 “originating in the Senate unconstitutionally.”
Article 4 Section 18 of the Minnesota Constitution states: “all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose and concur with the amendments as on other bills.”
The lack of cooperation between Hastings’ state legislators over the issue of PFAS was a point of focus in the press conference. When asked about refusing to sign SF549 and SF550, Dippel referenced conversations he had with nonpartisan staff within the House of Representatives regarding the threat of future lawsuits over revenue bills originating in the Senate rather than the House:
“Parties would be uncomfortable purchasing bonds from Minnesota, if they didn’t originate in the House. Sen. Seeberger originating the bill in the Senate would put in jeopardy institutions that would buy our debt […] I wanted to make sure any bill that did get passed wouldn’t get tied up in the courts and leave Hastings high and dry.”
According to a statement provided by Sen. Seeberger to the Hastings Journal regarding the issue of originating revenue bills in the Senate:
“What Rep. Dippel doesn't seem to realize is that my bonding and cash bills will be coming from the House, as is the process set forth in the Minnesota Constitution. The jackets he refuses to sign would be taken up by the House, passed, and sent to the Senate for voting. This is the process contemplated by the Constitution and is how the Minnesota Legislature has done business for years.
“By refusing to sign the green jackets – which are the House counterpart bills for my SF 549 and 550 – Rep. Dippel is unnecessarily delaying a tried-and-true funding mechanism for the City of Hastings. He has asked an already-overwhelmed Revisor of Statute's office to draft bills similar to, if not identical to, SF 549 and 550, so that he can claim these bills ‘originated in the House.’ This is a misreading of the Constitution, and a failure to fully understand how legislation is passed.”
For more information on Hastings PFAS visit the city’s website at www.hastingsmn.gov/city-government/city-departments/public-works-and-engineering/pfas