Minnesota cities push for billions in water infrastructure funding in state bonding bill

State officials say water projects dominate Minnesota’s $1 billion bonding bill requests, as rapidly growing communities such as Big Lake, Henderson and Becker scramble for state aid to upgrade aging wastewater and drinking‑water systems. Lawmakers are debating whether to approve the funding, with some Republicans warning that the bill could be used as political leverage, while local leaders stress the urgency of securing clean water for expanding populations.

Minnesota’s Management and Budget commissioner, Erin Campbell, highlighted the “huge demand” for water‑infrastructure funding when she presented Governor Tim Walz’s proposed budget. She noted that one‑third of the nearly $1 billion in local‑government requests received by her office were for water projects, a share that reflects a broader statewide need.

A MinnPost analysis found water‑related projects made up 34.7% of all bonding requests, amounting to roughly $1.1 billion. The majority of these requests came from Greater Minnesota communities, where population growth and industrial expansion are straining older treatment facilities.

In Big Lake, a city that grew from about 2,200 residents in 1980 to 11,700 in 2020, the wastewater plant now handles between 800,000 and 850,000 gallons of wastewater per day. City administrator Hanna Klimmek warned that another large employer could push the system beyond capacity. The city is therefore seeking $25 million to expand and modernize its plant, which dates back to 1980 and shows visible signs of aging, such as cracks and peeling paint.

Henderson, located along the Minnesota River, faces a different challenge: high iron and manganese levels that discolor the water. Mayor Keith Swenson said a recent federal earmark helped fund a filtration plant, but the city still needs $3.2 million from the state to complete the $7 million project.

Becker, about eight miles from Big Lake, is drilling test wells to locate water sources that require minimal treatment. City administrator Greg Lerud hopes a modest $1 million state grant will help design a treatment plant, noting that some discovered wells contain costly nitrates, while others have lower iron and manganese levels.

Republican Rep. Mary Franson, who co‑chairs the House Capital Investment Committee, warned that using the bonding bill as a political bargaining chip would be inappropriate, especially when clean drinking water is at stake. Fellow Republican Rep. Roger Skraba suggested a dedicated $300 million annual allocation for water infrastructure would ensure steady progress, adding that such a fund would let projects near readiness receive timely awards through the state’s Public Facilities Authority.

Democratic Rep. Ned Carroll agreed that the bonding bill is essential to meet basic water‑system needs, noting that without it many communities would struggle to fund critical upgrades.

If the bonding bill fails this session, Minnesota could miss a crucial opportunity to address a mounting water crisis that affects everything from municipal drinking supplies to agricultural runoff and industrial wastewater. The debate continues at the Capitol, with lawmakers weighing the bill’s cost against the pressing demand for safe, reliable water across the state.