It’s been said that politics is the art of the compromise. But during the 2026 session of the Minnesota Legislature, that approach to policymaking was undermined by disagreements about the role one particular herbicide should play in the state’s agricultural production system. As the session of the Minnesota Legislature entered its final month, it was clear that things were not looking good for passage of an overall Agriculture Bill as lawmakers representing both parties deadlocked over a proposal to ban paraquat, a toxic herbicide and crop desiccant that has been linked to Parkinson’s disease.

The paraquat proposal was spearheaded by Rep. Rick Hansen, co-chair of the House Agriculture Committee, and Senator John Hoffman, Chair of the Senate Human Services Committee. Both Hansen and Hoffman are DFLers, and a paraquat ban was a non-starter for Republicans. So, just a few days before the session adjourned on May 18, the Senate passed an Agriculture Bill that did not contain the ban, opening up an opportunity for an overall Agriculture Bill to be sent to Gov. Tim Walz that would contain numerous proposals backed by the Land Stewardship Project and our allies. But proponents of the ban stood firm in the House, dooming passage of legislation dedicated exclusively to farm issues. This was a non-budgetary session, which means in theory only policy proposals that do not require new funding are typically passed. That’s why LSP focused on no-cost policy changes to the Farmland Down Payment Assistance Program as our top issue for this legislative session. However, regardless of it being a budget or policy year, it is rare for an Agriculture Bill to not be signed into law during a Minnesota legislative session.

At a time when farmers and rural residents are increasingly feeling left behind by both parties, the failure to pass this legislation is extremely disappointing. Proposals related to supporting farmland access for beginning farmers, securing profitable markets for farmers, feeding low-income people, and developing a more secure local meat processing workforce were left high and dry. On the positive side, clean water and soil health, along with tax incentives for passing farms onto the next generation, received a boost through legislation unrelated to the doomed Agriculture Bill. Here’s a summary of where we ended up:

What We Lost

• Bolstering Farmland Access: Since it was launched in 2022 as a way to provide financial assistance to beginning and emerging farmers who are seeking to purchase their first farm, the Farmland Down Payment Assistance Program has been wildly popular. So popular, in fact, that there are not nearly enough resources available to meet the demand.

“This grant program is vital to many of our farmers,” KaZoua Berry, the farm director at Big River Farms, a beginning farmer incubator, told members of the House Agriculture Committee during testimony she gave in March. “Land access has been named as a top barrier for many of them.”

LSP and our allies pushed for a handful of changes to the program that would make it more effective and ensure all funding allocated to this initiative is spent and applicants are fully ready to take advantage of these grants. During the session, we testified five times on this bill and we worked with the Senate Ag Committee Chair, Aric Putman, along with House Ag Committee co-chair, Paul Anderson, as well as Rep. Samantha Vang, to develop compromise language related to producing a more flexible program and creating readiness requirements for applicants. This compromise language had bi-partisan support, but because no Agriculture Bill was sent to the Governor, $800,000 in funding that would have supported the program was sent back to the state’s general fund. Not doing anything for this program this year will have a real cost — that money could have helped about 40 farmers purchase their first agricultural operation in the coming year.

• Local Food Security & Marketing: In recent years, the USDA’s Local Food Purchase Assistance (LFPA) Cooperative Agreement Program had proved to be a highly effective way to get farmers paid a fair price for food that is then given to food shelves in their communities. As a result of federal budget cuts, during the 2025 session lawmakers created a Minnesota version of the LFPA, called the Farm to Food Security Program. This is an exciting way to get more people fed while supporting a local farm-to-table economy. However, during its first year there were more than $7 million in grant requests for a program that has a budget of only $1.3 million, an indicator of the immense need out there.

On the second-to-the-last day of the session, Rep. Anderson brought forward a floor amendment — where the entire House votes on the provision — that would have, among things, shifted $300,000 from the Green Fertilizer Program to the Farm to Food Security Program. This amendment also had LSP’s preferred changes for the Down Payment Assistance Program as well as the Meat Processing Train and Retain deadline extension (see below). In the final hours of the session, LSP sent out an action alert calling on lawmakers to vote yes on the Anderson amendment. Over 100 LSP members quickly took action on a Saturday and contacted their legislators. But again, those changes were lost when this amendment was voted down by all DFLers and a few Republicans in the House.

•  Local Meat Processing Workforce Development: The COVID-19 pandemic made it clear that our inability to meet the demand for local meat processing makes farmers and eaters incredibly vulnerable, while limiting the ability to advance regenerative livestock production. Recent legislative sessions have resulted in increased resources for supporting processors in their efforts to recruit, train, and retain employees, among other things. Another proposal that was a victim the House’s inability to pass an Agriculture Bill was language that would have extended the fiscal deadline for the Meat Processing Train and Retain Program so that it would have more time to get off the ground and help support the creation of a resilient local meat processing infrastructure and workforce. The failure of the Anderson amendment I referenced above means hundreds of thousands of dollars is canceled for this program this year.

What We Gained

• Clean Water/Health Soil: As was highlighted during a packed special Senate hearing held on April 7, nitrate pollution of groundwater continues to be a serious problem in southeastern Minnesota and beyond. The innovative Olmsted County Groundwater Protection and Soil Health Program has shown great promise for reducing fertilizer runoff by rewarding farmers for putting in cover crops, diversifying rotations, and utilizing regenerative grazing systems. LSP has long advocated for expanding this program beyond Olmsted County. Fortunately, via the Environmental and Natural Resources Trust Fund, the 2026 Minnesota Legislature provided $2.8 million in funding to expand this initiative to 10 southeastern Minnesota counties.

• The Next Generation: During the 2017 session of the Minnesota Legislature, LSP worked with our allies to pass the Minnesota Beginning Farmer Tax Credit initiative. While other states — Nebraska, Iowa, and Wisconsin — have passed similar legislation that this initiative was based on, Minnesota’s law is the first to provide such a tax credit incentive for the sale, as well as rental, of farmland. Under this initiative, there is now a state tax credit for owners of agricultural assets — land, livestock, facilities, buildings or machinery used for farming — who agree to sell or rent those assets to a beginning farmer. There is also a tax credit available for beginning farmers who participate in a financial management program, regardless if they are buying or renting from an asset owner.

The program had an overall spending cap of $4 million, but through the Tax Bill that was passed, the 2026 Legislature has removed that cap for one year. This means anyone who applies on time in 2026 and is eligible will be approved. As it happens, applications are currently open: the deadline for getting a tax credit on a lease is July 17; for sales and beginning farmer tuition reimbursement it’s Nov. 1. It is still not totally clear what funding for this program will look like for 2027.

LSP’s Presence at the Legislature

LSP’s members had a significant presence at Legislature during this session. Besides lobbying done during the Family Farm Breakfast at the Capitol, LSP members and allies communicated their stories to lawmakers via e-mails and telephone calls, as well as by testifying at hearings related to land access, nitrate pollution, support for regenerative grazing systems, and requiring an environmental impact statement for our largest concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), ones that are 10,000 animal units or more.

Sometimes members had to respond at a moment’s notice. For example, Elyssa Eull, a Farm Beginnings graduate who operates California Street Farm in Northeast Minneapolis, traveled to the Capitol just a few hours after hearing about a proposal to modify the Down Payment Assistance Program in a way that would make it more difficult to utilize it on land not zoned agricultural. During testimony before the House Ag Committee, she said her farm, which produces vegetables and flowers on a quarter-acre, is proving one can be profitable in an urban setting on a small parcel.

“Farms needing to be large to be profitable — that’s just not true,” she told the committee.

And at times farmers had a dual message for lawmakers: public support for regenerative practices can produce environmental and economic benefits. While testifying in favor of a proposal that would have created a pilot program for farmers wanting to transition to managed rotational grazing, southeastern Minnesota livestock producer Eric Heins explained to the Senate Ag Committee how over the past 10 years he’s converted row-cropped ground on highly erosive land to perennial forages utilizing rotational grazing.

“By converting some of our more marginal ground into pasture we were preventing a lot of runoff from going down into streams. It’s a huge benefit for the community.” Heins said during his testimony, adding, “We have found those are our most profitable acres.”

LSP also had a chance to give lawmakers a “big picture” view of how public policy can create a more resilient, regenerative future for farming and rural communities. In March, Sen. Putman invited LSP and other agricultural groups to share insights on their members’ concerns, frustrations, and current work in a special “State of Agriculture” hearing at the Capitol. I represented LSP at the hearing, and after describing the various challenges our farmers are facing, as well as highlighting opportunities that are available to innovative, emerging producers, I left the Ag Committee with a question: “How might Minnesota be a leader in supporting the next generation of farmers, creating fair, local markets that feed people and support a type of agriculture that keeps and welcomes new people in our rural towns and communities, and has the health of our people and the land guiding it?”

That’s a question we need to keep asking all year-round, not just during the legislative season. If you are interested in getting involved in our legislative work, I want to hear from you! Feel free to reach out — we’re always happy to discuss possible policy solutions or support you in hosting legislators on your farm or in your community.

LSP government relations director Laura Schreiber can be reached via e-mail. More information on LSP’s policy work is here.