2025 Legislative Session: Overview of Key Changes to Minnesota Environmental and Natural Resources Laws

The 2025 Minnesota special legislative session led to notable changes for Minnesota environmental and natural resource laws. These changes, which are discussed in greater detail below, include, but are not limited to:

• Updates to various Department of Natural Resources (DNR) programs;
• Environmental permitting reforms;
• A firefighting foam exemption to the PFAS ban;
• Changes to retail electric vehicle supply equipment inspections and pricing;
• Exceptions to the lead and cadmium prohibition;
• Updates to data center regulation; and
• Investments in clean water.

For questions about these legislative developments and how they might affect your business, please reach out to a member of Fredrikson’s Environmental Law team.

Updates to DNR Programs

Enhancing Outreach to Culturally Diverse Communities

The Minnesota Legislature introduced and amended several regulatory programs overseen by the Minnesota DNR in SF 3, article 4. For example, the Legislature amended Minn. Stat. § 84.027 to require the DNR commissioner to ensure the DNR’s work is, to the maximum extent practicable, “carried out in a manner that facilitates enhanced outreach to all Minnesotans.” This specifically should include incorporating audiovisual communication components for public hearings, solicitations for grant proposals, and other interactions with the public, and not simply written forms of communication. The Legislature adopted a parallel provision applicable to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), amending Minn. Stat. § 116.07 (2025 Minn. 1st Spec. Sess. Ch. 1, art. 4, §§ 1, 13).

Abandoned Watercraft Penalties and Watercraft Surcharges

The Legislature established new abandoned watercraft penalties and amended watercraft invasive-species surcharges. The new legislation authorizes peace officers to tag watercrafts left on public accesses, lands or waters that are:

• Inoperative and neglected, wrecked, stranded or substantially dismantled;
• In immediate danger of sinking; or
• Unmoored and unattended.

Registered owners who knowingly fail to remedy an issue on a tagged watercraft within fourteen days are guilty of a misdemeanor and liable for enforcement costs. The DNR commissioner must inspect the watercraft fourteen days after providing notice to the registered owner. If the condition remains unremedied, the watercraft is deemed abandoned and must be seized and forfeited.

The Legislature also replaced the flat $10.60 surcharge (Minn. Stat. § 86B.415) for watercrafts licensed under subdivisions 1–5 with watercraft-specific surcharges. The surcharges — which are additional fees imposed upon watercraft licensees to fund initiatives to control invasive species — range from $20 to $60 based upon the type and length of the watercraft. Watercraft licenses are valid for three years (2025 Minn. 1st Spec. Sess. Ch. 1, art. 4, § 4).   

End of “Shotgun Zone” for Deer Hunting; Bass Season Made Continuous

For decades, Minn. Stat. § 97B.318 created a “shotgun zone” in roughly the southern half of Minnesota, in which only legal shotguns loaded with single-slug shotgun shells, legal muzzle-loading long guns and legal handguns could be used for taking deer. By contrast, deer hunters outside the shotgun zone could use any legal firearms, including longer-range centerfire rifles. The Legislature has now removed the shotgun zone by repealing § 97B.318 effective January 1, 2026. In its place, the Legislature added a new subdivision to Minn. Stat. § 97B.031, authorizing county boards located in the shotgun zone to adopt ordinances limiting the types of firearms permitted for deer hunting. The DNR commissioner must notify county boards and sheriffs of this option by March 1, 2026, although counties may begin enacting such ordinances on January 1, 2026 (2025 Minn. 1st Spec. Sess. Ch. 1, art. 5, §§ 7, 26, 28).

The Legislature also amended Minn. Stat. § 97C.395 to make the open season for fishing smallmouth and largemouth bass continuous. Prior to the amendment, the open season ran from two weeks prior to the Saturday of Memorial Day weekend through the last Sunday in February. Id. art. 4, §§ 12, 26.

Increased Water-Use Permit Processing Fees

The Legislature amended Minn. Stat. § 103G.271 to increase the annual processing fees for water-use (or water appropriation) permits from the DNR. Annual fees now range from $200 (for usage up to 50,000,000 gallons/year) to $15 per 1,000,000 gallons (for usage greater than 500,000,000 gallons/year). The amendments to § 103G.271 also increased the cap on total annual processing fees for first-class cities (from $250,000 to $325,000), entities with three or fewer permits (from $60,000 to $75,000), entities with four or five permits (from $90,000 to $125,000) and entities with more than five permits (from $300,000 to $400,000) (2025 Minn. 1st Spec. Sess. Ch. 1, art. 5, § 15).  

Creation of the Minnesota Sustainable Foraging Task Force

In response to the growing “forest to table” movement and concerns that increased foraging of mushrooms, wild rice and other plants from public lands could harm ecosystems, the Legislature established a “Minnesota Sustainable Foraging Task Force.” The Task Force, which consists of Minnesota legislators, scientists, DNR representatives, members of the Minnesota Ojibwe and Dakota Tribes, and other subject matter experts, is responsible for gathering data on the impacts of foraging, reviewing existing regulations and developing recommendations for sustainable foraging, including reduced-price permits. The task force must submit a report to the commissioner of the DNR and relevant legislative committees containing its findings and recommendations by February 28, 2026. Id. § 24.

Environmental Permitting and Review Reforms

The Minnesota Legislature made several targeted amendments to environmental permitting and review procedures in SF 3, article 6, as detailed below. Notably, Article 6 includes a statement of legislative intent, citing the need to grow Minnesota’s economy, keep the state competitive, and foster innovation and creativity. The Legislature also indicated its intent for the state to “meet or exceed efficiency goals, modernize existing regulatory systems, and communicate clearly to permit applicants and stakeholders to ensure a predictable, transparent and fair permitting and environmental review process.” Id. art. 6, § 6.

Permitting Efficiency Goals, Reporting and Supplementing Permit Applications

In 2011, the Legislature adopted Minn. Stat. § 116.03, subd. 2b, which established the goal that environmental and resource management permits be issued or denied within 90 days for tier 1 permits or 150 days for tier 2 permits following submission of a permit application. The statute tasks MPCA with, among other things, preparing an annual permitting efficiency report by August 1 on whether the goals have been met and if not, the reasons why. In the 2025 special session, the Legislature made certain changes to Subdivision 2b, clarifying permitting efficiency goals, adding enhanced agency reporting requirements and establishing the opportunity for applicants to remedy application deficiencies.

First, the amended law clarifies that the 90- and 150-day decision goals for tier 1 and tier 2 permits, respectively, do not apply to permit applications required by an agency enforcement action. Second, MPCA is now required to publish its annual permitting efficiency report by October 1 each year, as opposed to the previous August 1 deadline. Third, the law clarifies that MPCA not only needs to prepare the report, but also submit it to the governor, chairs, and ranking minority members of the house of representatives and senate committees having jurisdiction over environment policy and finance. The report must also be posted on MPCA’s website. Fourth, the law adds new substantive requirements to the permit efficiency report. It now must contain:

• A statement comparing the number of tier 2 applications received during the reporting period versus the number completed, and
• For permits that did not meet timeline goals due to staffing, an estimate of the resources that would have been needed to meet that timeline.

Lastly, whereas the prior version of the statute required MPCA to determine within 30 business days of receiving a permit application whether the application is complete, the amended statute now requires that within that period MPCA must, before determining an application is incomplete, identify specific deficiencies in an application and give the applicant five business days to correct the deficiencies (2025 Minn. 1st Spec. Sess. Ch. 1, art. 6, § 1).

BWSR Legislative Report on Extensions for Review of Wetland-Related Requests

In another effort to improve permitting efficiency, the Legislature added a requirement that the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR), by March 1, 2028, submit a report to the chairs and ranking minority members of the legislative committees with jurisdiction over environment and natural resources policy on the efficiency of processing requests for wetland permits and related authorizations. Specifically, the report must include the number of extensions noticed pursuant to Minn. Stat., § 15.99, subd 3(f) — which allows a governmental entity to extend the 60-day period in which it must make decisions on written requests for government approvals by simply providing written notice of the extension to the applicant —  that relate to decisions made under the Wetland Conservation Act rules in Minn. R. ch. 8420 between January 1, 2026, and December 31, 2027. The report must also include administrative-efficiency statistics on all other decisions made under chapter 8420 for requests that are not subject to § 15.99, including details on the time taken by governmental units to review wetland boundary and type or wetland replacement plan applications. The law requires local government units to provide BWSR with the information needed for the legislative report (2025 Minn. 1st Spec. Sess. Ch. 1, art. 6, § 7).

Availability and Cost of Expedited Permit Requests

The Legislature amended Minn. Stat. § 116.07, subd. 4d, to clarify the availability and cost of expedited permit requests. Under the existing law, permit applicants can offer to pay the costs of MPCA staff or consultants to conduct an expedited review of the application. MPCA may accept the offer if it determines it needs additional resources and that expedited review is “consistent with permitting program priorities.” The amended law removes the reference to consistency with MPCA’s priorities and adds more specificity. Under the new law, MPCA, prior to taking on an expedited request, must first determine whether there are sufficient agency staff to complete the request. If not, MPCA “may” hire outside contractors to conduct the expedited permit review. If MPCA determines that neither agency staff nor outside contracting services are available to take on the expedited review, then MPCA may deny the expedited request (2025 Minn. 1st Spec. Sess. Ch. 1, art. 6, § 2). 

Narrowing Eligibility of EAW Petitioners

The Legislature amended Minn. Stat. § 116D.04, subdivision 2a to narrow who may petition for an environmental assessment worksheet (EAW). Previously, the submission of material evidence demonstrating the potential for significant environmental effects paired with a petition signed by at least 100 “individuals who reside or own property in the state” was enough to necessitate an EAW for a proposed project. Now, the amended provision requires that the 100 petitioners must reside or own property in “a Minnesota county where the proposed action will be undertaken or in one or more adjoining counties” (2025 Minn. 1st Spec. Sess. Ch. 1, art. 6, § 3).

Clarifying Review of Feedlot Permit Applications Pending Environmental Review

Minn. Stat. § 116D.04, subdivision 2b, prohibits starting or approving a proposed project until the environmental review process is complete. The Legislature added a sentence to subdivision 2b clarifying that this prohibition does not prevent a local unit of government from beginning to review a feedlot permit application subject to environmental review before the review is complete (2025 Minn. 1st Spec. Sess. Ch. 1, art. 6, § 4).

Amendments to the EIS Scoping Process

The Legislature made a significant amendment to streamline the scoping process for mandatory environmental impact statements (EIS). Specifically, the Legislature directed the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) to amend Minnesota Rule 4410.2100 to clarify that:

• An EAW is not required for projects falling under a mandatory EIS category (see Minn. R. 4410.4400), and
• The scoping process for such projects must be completed within 280 days of publication of notice of availability of a scoping document in the EQB Monitor.

The current version of Rule 4410.2100 provides that “[a]ll projects requiring an EIS must have an EAW filed with the RGU.” Removing this requirement and adding the 280-day limit for completion of the scoping process should expedite environmental review process for projects falling in mandatory EIS categories (2025 Minn. 1st Spec. Sess. Ch. 1, art. 6, § 5).

Limited Exemptions to the Ban on PFAS-Containing Firefighting Foam and Product Ban List

In 2024, Minnesota prohibited the manufacture, sale, distribution and use of class B firefighting foam containing PFAS (Minn. S. § 375F.072, subd. 3). In SF 3, § 20 and HF 4, § 29, the Legislature amended the law to delay the ban’s applicability to fixed firefighting systems in airport hangars until January 1, 2028. The amendment also authorizes the MPCA to grant hangar operators one-year extensions beyond January 1, 2028, when:

• The need for additional time is beyond the operator’s control and
• Adequate protections for public safety and the environment are in place during each extension period (2025 Minn. 1st Spec. Sess. Ch. 4, art. 4, § 21).

In 2024, the Minnesota Legislature also banned the sale, offer for sale or distribution of 11 categories of products if they intentionally contain added PFAS, effective January 1, 2025 (Minn. Stat. § 116.943, subd. 5). With SF 3, the Legislature made two changes narrowing the scope of the ban. First, the Legislature modified the broad definition of “juvenile products” to exclude children’s off-highway and all-terrain vehicles, off-highway motorcycles, snowmobiles, electric-assisted bicycles and replacement parts for such vehicles. Second, the Legislature added new language clarifying that the ban does not apply to products that contain intentionally added PFAS “only in electronic components or internal components.” Internal components are defined in the statute as internal parts of a product “designed and intended to not be touched by a person during intended use or handling,” including parts of a product used for holding batteries (2025 Minn. 1st Spec. Sess. Ch. 1, art. 4, § 19).

New Inspection, Fee and Labeling Requirements for EV Charging Stations

With HF 4, article 7, § 23, the Legislature established new requirements for electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE), commonly known as “charging stations” or “charging docks.” First, the new law requires the Director of Weights and Measures to conduct annual inspections of retail ESVE, and to charge the owners $100 per retail charging port. Second, § 23 requires retail EVSEs to express electrical energy in kilowatt-hour units and to list the price per kilowatt-hour in whole cents or tenths of a cent. If charging is free or unlimited, that must be clearly indicated in place of a price. Id. art. 7, §§ 15, 23.

Exceptions to the Lead and Cadmium Prohibition  

In 2023, the Legislature banned the import, manufacture, sale, distribution, or offer for use of certain categories of “covered products” containing more than 90 parts per million of lead or 75 parts per million of cadmium (Minn. S. § 325E.3892, subd. 2). The list of covered products focused on children’s toys and jewelry but also included, e.g., keys and certain cookware. The 2023 law provided only a narrow exception for specific products preempted by federal law. In the most recent session, the Legislature amended the statute to add three additional categories of exceptions:

• Covered products that only contain lead in solder used in internal components if:
  • The product is not imported, manufactured, sold, held for sale, distributed, or offered for use in this state after July 1, 2028; and
  • The manufacturer submits biennial reports detailing barriers to and progress on the removal of lead;
• Keys containing lead that are imported, manufactured, sold, or distributed before July 1, 2028; and
• Cast iron or steel pots and pans containing cadmium only in non-food-contacting vitreous enamel, which otherwise meet the statute’s lead limit (2025 Minn. 1st Spec. Sess. Ch. 4, art. 7, § 28). 

Updates to Data Center Regulation

The Minnesota Legislature made reforms to data center permitting processes and taxing procedure. HF 16 addresses environmental concerns caused by data center water usage.

New Requirements for Water Appropriation Permits for Data Centers

With HF 16, the Minnesota Legislature established additional processes for DNR review of water appropriation permit applications for data centers that are anticipated to exceed 100 million gallons of water usage per year. Under the new amendments to Minn. Stat. § 103G.271, the DNR, before issuing a permit, must ensure that:

• Public health, safety, and welfare are adequately protected;
• Technologies or measures that promote water conservation, the efficient use of water and watershed health, are reasonably considered; and
• Water use conflicts are addressed pursuant to Minn. R. 6115.0740 (2025 Minn. 1st Spec. Sess. Ch. 12, § 4).

The DNR also may require an applicant to conduct an aquifer test to determine whether the planned area of construction has an adequate water supply for the data center’s proposed usage. Id.

In addition, to streamlining the water appropriation permitting process for proposed data centers whose consumptive use will exceed 100 million gallons per day, the Legislature amended Minn. Stat. § 103G.265 to allow such data centers to obtain a preapplication evaluation from DNR of factors affecting the ability of a water source to meet a project’s water use needs at a proposed location. The DNR may request information from the project proponent including:

• A project description;
• The project’s estimated water use rates and volumes for the maximum day, maximum month and average year;
• The anticipated source of water; and
• Water quality or temperature requirements.

The law also provides that the DNR may consult with the commissioners of health, agriculture and the MPCA and that any communication made or information exchanged between a data center and a government agency, or between government agencies, as part of the preapplication evaluation process is nonpublic data, as defined in § 13.02, subd. 9 (2025 Minn. 1st Spec. Sess. Ch. 12, §§ 3, 4).

Annual Fee for Large Data Centers

In HF 16, the Legislature amended Minn. Stat. § 216B.72 to add a new annual fee for large-scale data centers. Applicable data center owners will be required to pay an annual fee to the Public Utilities Commission (PUC), scaled by the center’s peak demand. Data centers with a 100 to 250 MW peak demand must pay a $2 million fee. Data centers between 250 MW and 500 MW peak demand must pay a $3 million fee. Data centers between 500 MW and 750 MW peak demand must pay a $4 million fee. And data centers with a 750 MW or greater peak demand must pay a $5 million fee. The PUC commissioner must deposit the fees in the energy and conservation account established in § 216B.241, subdivision 2a, which is used for, e.g., weatherization and energy conservation programs for low-income households (2025 Minn. 1st Spec. Sess. Ch. 12, § 16); see Kristi Marohn, Data Centers Face New Regulations, Some Worry They Fall Short of Protecting Water, Residents, MPR News (June 18, 2025).

Investment into Clean Water

As part of the state’s $700 million bonding package (HF 18), the Legislature established a:

• Statewide drinking water contamination mitigation program,
• An emerging contaminants grant to improve water quality in the state, and
• An expansion of clean water grant funding.

Statewide Drinking Water Contamination Mitigation Program

The Minnesota Legislature established a $6 million fund to support projects to provide safe drinking water where water is contaminated by hazardous substances. The program intends to fund projects such as treatment systems, new drinking water wells, sealing contaminated wells and connecting wells to alternative drinking water sources (2025 Minn. 1st Spec. Sess. Ch. 15, art. 2, § 2).

Emerging Contaminants Grant

The Minnesota Legislature established a new $18 million grant program to develop drinking water infrastructure projects. This program addresses areas in the state that exceed health advisory levels for drinking water emerging contaminants. An eligible project for this program must:

• Be listed on the Drinking Water Revolving Fund Project Priority List;
• Receive priority points under Minn. R., 4720.9020, subp. 4a; and
• Be certified by the commissioner of health under Minn. R., 4720.9060 (2025 Minn. 1st Spec. Sess. Ch. 15, art. 1, § 21 & art. 2, § 8.)

The new law permits the attorney general to recover any money granted through this program to be recovered against a person strictly liable for costs and damages that result from releasing or threatening the release of a hazardous substance from a facility under another statute. Id.

Capital Funding for Clean Water Projects

The Minnesota Legislature established multiple grant projects to fund municipal clean water projects. The Legislature allocated $39 million to the state’s clean water revolving fund, matching recently granted federal funding. The Legislature additionally allocated $32 million to fund municipal grant projects that address point source implementation. For its largest clean water investment, the Legislature established the water infrastructure funding program, dedicating $87 million to fund a variety of projects throughout the state. This fund will disperse $43.5 million towards wastewater projects listed on the PCA’s project priority list under the clean water revolving fund program. The remaining $43.5 million is for drinking water projects listed on the commission of health’s project priority list under the drinking water program (2025 Minn. 1st Spec. Sess. Ch. 15, art. 1, § 21).

For more information, contact Jeremy Greenhouse. This article was co-authored by Claire Carlson and Adam Koch, Summer Associates.