Committee hears split testimony on bill to require financial assurance for large feedlots

Representative Luke Hansen introduced House File 47‑40, a proposal to require owners of feedlots with capacity of at least 1,000 animal units to provide proof of financial assurance — a surety bond, certificate of insurance, or statement of net assets — to cover costs of closure and cleanup.

Hansen framed the bill as a protection for taxpayers and Minnesota waters, citing the 2024 bankruptcy of Pure Prairie Poultry and other instances where public funds were used to help manage animal disposal and site cleanup. “Life happens. Things have a beginning, a middle and an end,” Hansen said, arguing that requiring financial responsibility would reduce future public costs.

Witnesses representing farm organizations spoke mainly in opposition. Ariel Kagan, director of Climate and Working Lands for Minnesota Farmers Union, said the MPCA’s existing permits already impose closure requirements and that new financial-assurance obligations would impose a disproportionate burden on midsize and beginning farmers during a difficult farm economy. “Adding additional carrying costs makes it harder for family farms to maintain their businesses and for beginning farmers to get started,” Kagan told the committee.

Lucas Sjostrom, executive director of the Minnesota Milk Producers Association, said modern livestock facilities already must meet high construction and operating standards and that additional bonding and financing requirements risk deterring growth that supports local infrastructure such as creameries and veterinarians. A young-owner testifier who identified herself as Maddy and said she farms near Goodhue argued the requirement would force some families to expand on separate sites or move operations out of state.

Bob Schieffer going (Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation) also opposed the measure, saying statewide one‑size‑fits‑all rules can disadvantage producers in different regions and that competition from neighboring states is a major concern. Several farm witnesses noted MPCA’s annual reporting and permitting processes and said they were unaware of any abandoned feedlots over 1,000 animal units in MPCA records.

MPCA staff testified that closure procedures and rule-based checklists exist for permitted facilities and that the agency does not have records indicating widespread noncompliance among permitted feedlots of the size discussed. Tom Johnson, MPCA director of government relations, said the agency could provide technical assistance if the bill advances but also cautioned the committee that past fiscal notes have shown substantial ongoing staffing costs to implement expanded duties.

Committee members asked about the form of financial assurance (surety bond, insurance certificate or statement of net assets), the incidence of permanent closures among large permitted feedlots, and how public costs are currently incurred when a permitted operation closes without completing closure requirements. Members also noted that ownership models vary — the landowner, building owner and livestock owner may be different entities — and that the bill’s language would need to match the responsible party for risk.

After extended questioning and testimony from multiple agriculture groups and MPCA staff, Representative Hansen renewed his motion to lay HF47‑40 over for further work. The committee laid the bill over.