Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Treaty Payments Fisheries topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears amendment on treaty payments language; DNR urges caution and fiscal clarity
Summary
An amended bill addressing treaty‑related payments and authorization language was laid over after DNR testimony warned of fiscal consequences, existing statutory formulas and potential tribal disputes; DNR asked the legislature to proceed cautiously.
ST. PAUL, Minn. — Lawmakers laid over House File 820 as amended after discussion about statutory formulas for treaty‑related payments and the fiscal implications of modifying existing agreements with bands that hold retained rights.
Representative Jordan moved an A1 amendment and Republican and Democratic members discussed the amendment’s intent to address timing and authorization questions connected to an underlying 1854 treaty agreement. Reid Lobough, representing the 1854 Treaty Authority, said the amendment was intended to address whether statutory authorization is required before or after renegotiation of a memorandum of understanding tied to treaty payments.
Bob Meyer of the Department of Natural Resources and Assistant Commissioner later briefed the committee on the department’s concerns. DNR testimony explained that Minnesota Statute 97.157 (the statutory framework referenced by the department) ties payments to hunting and fishing license sales and prescribes how treaty payments are calculated. Meyer told the committee that bands received roughly $6 million per year in FY 2024 and FY 2025 under existing arrangements and that the department must follow the statute and the existing memorandum of agreement when calculating and appropriating treaty payments.
Meyer cautioned the committee that any change could have significant fiscal consequences and warned of prior legislative disputes among bands and that the department could not commit to making future payments absent a legislative appropriation. He recommended caution and suggested that arbitration provisions in existing agreements could be used if tribes and the department wished to renegotiate terms.
Representative Jordan said he was willing to work with all parties and emphasized that tribal retained rights are not granted by the state but are retained sovereign rights. The committee laid the amended bill over for further work; both the author and the DNR expressed willingness to continue negotiations and indicated the DNR could engage arbitration processes under the existing memorandum if needed.
