The much-ballyhooed "nuclear option" invoked in Washington on Thursday describes the method by which the U.S. Senate might confirm judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.
Time is now for Gov. Mark Dayton to consider a similar ploy — the Big Bang option — in Minnesota, and veto this session's Legacy bill if it comes to him in any form similar to the one the House has passed.
As in Washington, Republicans are in charge in the Minnesota Legislature — for now. And in the House, under the leadership of Speaker Kurt Daudt, R-Crown (Isanti County) they're having some fun this session attempting to unravel the state's environmental protections, as evidenced by the $500 million Legacy bill the House has passed.
Recall the Legacy Amendment was approved by Minnesota voters in 2008 by a wide margin. This was a constitutional revision that nearly 60 percent of voters favored — an amazing statistic, given that the question asked was whether voters wanted to raise their taxes to support stewardship of the state's woods, waters, fields and wildlife; enhance and expand state parks and trails; and promote the state's arts and cultural heritage.
Recall also this was in 2008, in the depths, or nearly so, of the great recession.
Placing the question on the ballot was no small feat. More than 10 years passed from the time the idea was proposed in the Legislature by hunters and anglers to the day lawmakers relented, most of them reluctantly, and allowed Minnesotans, finally, to have their say regarding the welfare of their state.
Now comes Republican control of the Senate and House, and members of the latter chamber are betting they can pull a fast one — or five, or 10 — on Minnesotans by loading up this year's Legacy bill (and other bills) with policy and funding adjustments that inhibit, and even stop, conservation progress in the state.
Exhibit 1: The citizen-dominated Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council studiously examines habitat and other proposals to be paid for by the Outdoor Heritage fund (a Legacy fund), and this year unanimously recommended its slate of projects to the Legislature. But the House substantially altered the recommendations, cutting shallow lake and wetland protections, as well as wildlife management area and scientific and natural area acquisitions.