April 21, 2025

The Senate Environment Budget bill (SF 2077) currently contains a provision added by amendment that would make which waterways are protected under state law less clear by repealing a clarification adopted last year. If you feel like you’ve heard this before, then you’re right. At the end of just last session a new law was passed clarifying the statutory definition of public waters, dictating where a waterway is classified, not just if it is included in the published inventory. Public waters are designated to indicate which lakes, wetlands, and watercourses over which the Minnesota DNR has regulatory jurisdiction and are listed in a public inventory. When the Inventory was first published many watercourses were left off that should have been, and the process for keeping the Public Waters Inventory updated was too slow to keep it updated with all the lakes, wetlands, and watercourses that fall under the legal definition. Many of the waterways left off the public inventory were small headwater streams, including our beloved trout streams, which are important for water quality and health of fish and aquatic life upstream.

Minnesota’s state laws protecting public waters are particularly important right now. The federal government is limiting which waterways are protected by federal law, and instructing agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to approve permits that don’t protect public waters. There is no safety net, what Minnesota protects with our state laws is what will be protected. That’s why clarity about what streams, rivers, wetlands and lakes are covered under state law is needed now, more than ever. Ensuring this protection is not rolled back is an important part of protecting our trout streams today and for future generations.

When Minnesota became a state, its waters were transferred to the state government to be held in trust for its citizens. And in Minnesota, where water is central to our identity, the legislature has taken an expansive view of what counts as a public water. That view is expressed in the statutory definition. Minnesota has required permits and environmental review procedures when public waters are impact – but those tools are only effective if all public waters are correctly identified. To ensure that all public waters in Minnesota are afforded these protections, it is critical to preserve the language adopted by the Minnesota Legislature in 2024 and OPPOSE the A30 amendment to SF2077.

Join us in standing up for public waters and the public benefits they provide. Tell your legislators to oppose efforts to muddy the waters about which streams, rivers and lakes are protected under state laws.

Find your State Senator’s contact information here.

Tell them:

1. I am a trout angler from [insert town], Minnesota and I am concerned that public waters, including many trout streams, in Minnesota will not receive the protections they legally should receive if the A30 Amendement to SF2077 is adopted.
2. I OPPOSE the A30 Amendment to SF2077 because it introduces unnecessary ambiguity into the public waters statute, which was fixed just last year.
3. When Minnesota became a state, its waters were transferred to the state government to be held in trust for its citizens. And in Minnesota, where water is central to our identity, the legislature has taken an expansive view of what counts as a public water. That view is expressed in the statutory definition that was adopted last year.
4. Thank you for ensuring protection of our trout streams today and for future generations by OPPOSING the A30 Amendment to SF2077.