Committee advances bill to require scuba training, safety checks for lake weed-removal work

The Minnesota House Environment and Natural Resources Policy and Finance Committee on the morning moved House File 1355, as amended, to the general register after testimony from state agencies and family members of two young men who died while performing aquatic weed-removal work.

The bill would add a new Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA) provision regulating commercial diving operations used in aquatic plant control and would require the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to check for scuba use and related safety documentation before issuing a commercial mechanical control permit for aquatic plant work.

The DNR’s John Waters, government relations unit supervisor, told the committee the bill requires the DNR, before issuing a commercial mechanical control permit, to confirm whether companies are using scuba equipment and to require a hazard information sheet that the Department of Labor and Industry (DLI) will provide. Waters also said the bill would require proof of a third-party, on-site hazard survey completed within the prior year by a qualified safety professional.

Josiah Moore, legislative director at the Department of Labor and Industry, told members the bill adds a new section under Minnesota OSHA law that defines which operations are covered and sets minimum safety standards. Moore summarized provisions that would require a scuba certificate before underwater work, require a buoyancy control device (BCD) to be worn during scuba work, require a spotter outside the water, and require first aid and CPR training for personnel performing the work. He said the bill also adopts a penalty structure consistent with Minnesota OSHA practice and directs the department to prepare an employer information sheet.

Family members of the two men who died gave emotional testimony describing the incidents and urging quick passage. A man who identified himself as the father of Brady Ani told the committee he believed his son had not received adequate training and said, "You senators and representatives now have the power to save lives." Brady’s mother, Dina Aune, described investigative findings she said showed a lack of basic safety measures and told the committee her son died on his fourth day of employment. David and Lori Anderson, parents of Joseph Anderson, said their son was 18 and had been told he would receive training; they urged a permit requirement as an annual safety checkpoint.

Representative Baker, who introduced the bill to the committee, said the fiscal notes were minimal and the agencies expected to absorb related costs. Committee members who spoke in support noted the bill closes a safety gap specific to the lake-weed removal industry while noting other diving work (for example, underwater pile driving or public-safety dive teams) typically already operates under higher safety standards with certification and training requirements.

Representative Jordan asked whether there are other work areas in Minnesota where scuba is used without certification; Josiah Moore replied that the main gap identified in agency conversations was the aquatic invasive species (AIS) lake-weed removal industry and that other commercial diving activities generally have higher safety standards in place.

Following testimony and discussion, the committee voice-voted to recommend House File 1355, as amended, to the general register. The motion was carried by voice vote; no roll-call tally was recorded in the committee minutes.

The bill language under discussion would (1) require proof of scuba certification for employees who perform underwater work; (2) require wearing a buoyancy control device; (3) require an outside spotter; (4) require first-aid/CPR training; (5) require an annual, third-party hazard survey; (6) bar issuance of a commercial mechanical control permit to employers with previous willful citations involving scuba; and (7) authorize permit revocation for violations. The Departments of Natural Resources and Labor and Industry described a required employer information sheet to accompany the new obligations.

No formal roll-call vote was recorded in committee; the committee chair announced the bill "is on its way to the general register." Committee members and agency witnesses said they expect the bill to proceed quickly given the seasonality of the work.

The committee did not adopt funding for the new requirements; witnesses said the agencies expected to absorb minor administrative costs, according to the testimony.

Next steps: with the committee recommendation the bill moves to the House general register for further floor scheduling and consideration.