by Sen. Keri Heintzeman Senate District 6
Near the end of the 2026 legislative session, I offered an amendment to remove $1.2 million in funding for Friends of the Boundary Waters from the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund.
The amendment received bipartisan support, and that funding was ultimately removed from the final bill signed by the governor.
Since then, I’ve received questions about why I brought the amendment forward.
Let me start with what this was not about. I believe most Minnesotans value the Boundary Waters and want future generations to have the opportunity to experience and enjoy it. Organizations that introduce young people to the outdoors, conservation, canoeing, camping, and appreciation for Minnesota’s natural beauty can play a very positive role. Some of my favorite family memories have been made enjoying the outdoors with my children.
The canoe trips were never the issue. My primary concern was Friends of the Boundary Waters’ use of the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund logo in a political advocacy video urging people to oppose mining projects. The Trust Fund belongs to the people of Minnesota.
It was created to protect and improve our natural resources, not to give the appearance of state support for political activism.
When concerns were raised, we were told the video had only been online for a couple of hours. In reality, it remained posted for nearly a week. That may not seem significant to some, but it should matter to anyone who cares about accountability and the proper use of public resources.
Friends of the Boundary Waters has every right to advocate for its views. It can lobby, organize campaigns, file lawsuits, and oppose mining projects.
That is protected speech, and I respect that right.
What I do not support is using taxpayer- funded conservation programs and state resources in ways that blur the line between education and political activism.
Unfortunately, this was not an isolated concern. Over time, Friends of the Boundary Waters has increasingly evolved from an organization focused primarily on outdoor education and stewardship into a highly partisan political organization.
Much of its public activity today centers on lobbying, political advocacy, and campaigns designed to influence public policy.
That reality makes continued taxpayer funding increasingly difficult to justify.
The funding request itself also raised questions. Of the $1.2 million requested, nearly $900,000 was slated for administrative costs rather than directly serving participants. Minnesotans have a right to ask whether conservation dollars are being used effectively when such a large share never reaches the actual program.
Supporters argued that the funding was necessary to help children experience the Boundary Waters. I support that goal. But Friends of the Boundary Waters is not the only organization capable of providing those opportunities. There are many organizations across Minnesota introducing young people to the outdoors without massive administrative overhead and without becoming deeply involved in partisan political activism.
Protecting Minnesota’s natural resources should not require turning every issue into political warfare. We can support conservation, protect the Boundary Waters, and provide outdoor opportunities for young people while still demanding accountability, transparency, and respect for the public trust.
At the end of the day, this was not about canoe trips or kids experiencing the outdoors. It was about whether taxpayer dollars intended for conservation should continue flowing to an organization that increasingly functions as a political advocacy group and then used a state-funded trust fund logo in a political call to action.
I believe Minnesotans expect better stewardship of their tax dollars than that. Apparently, a bipartisan majority of legislators agreed.
