The Court of Administrative Hearings (“CAH”) is now reviewing rules proposed by the Environmental Quality Board (“EQB”) that would allow “high-volume” fracking for gas in Minnesota and unlimited gas wells and pipelines without any EIS environmental review.

Tell the CAH to disapprove these weak rules and tell EQB to withdraw its rules and start over to protect Minnesota groundwater, surface water, climate and communities from gas extraction and production.

Your Comment Deadline is July 2, 2026 at 4:30 pm.

Why is it urgent that you Comment and stop weak rules that reject environmental review for gas development?

Minnesota has never had a gas extraction or production project. Yet the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) Proposed Rules would allow “high-volume” fracking for gas in Minnesota. No matter how many production wells, pipelines, and acres of wetlands destruction a gas project would cause, the EQB Rules would never require detailed EIS environmental review of impacts and alternatives

The EQB has used “expedited” rulemaking and none of its rules have had public hearings. The EQB rules conflict with applicable law, improperly rely on the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for standards, and fail to require environmental review of even the most serious threats to Minnesota waters, wetlands, climate, and communities.

Your comments requesting that these EQB rules be thrown out are the best chance we have to stop the EQB proposed gas rules and require that they be changed to protect people and the environment.

How many people have to send a Comment?

EQB has rejected any process to require a public hearing. But we believe your Comment can turn this process around. Our goal is 100 comments.

How do I submit a Request for a Public Hearing on MDH Gas Rules?

You can cut and paste from the Talking Points and draft Comment on this page and submit a Comment on your own using this Court of Administrative Hearings online comment page. Please personalize the draft Comment, whether by talking about your interest or adding/taking away from the points raised, it will strengthen the impact of your comments.

If you aren’t familiar with Court of Administrative Hearings process, scroll down for Comment Process Instructions. Please use these words at the start of your comment “Comment on Environmental Review Program Rules for Gas Resource Development, R-494, CAH Docket No. 23-9008-41570.” If you submit a comment on your own, please email us at info@waterlegacy.org so that we can confirm that your comment was uploaded and can be counted.

Talking Points for your Comments – Specific Parts of EQB’s Proposed Gas Development Rule should be Changed to Protect Groundwater, Surface Water, Climate, and Communities.

• Gas Resource Development in Minnesota will result in extraction of hydrogen, methane, and carbon dioxide. Even if the intended commercial product is helium, 90 percent or more of the gas reservoir will be other gases. Hydrogen and methane are flammable and explosive, and methane and carbon dioxide increase climate crisis.
• “High-volume” Fracking. EQB’s Proposed Gas Rules would only require an EIS (real environmental review of impacts and alternatives) if the gas development project includes “high-volume” fracking. The Legislature passed a law this year to prohibit all fracking. The EQB Rules (4410.0200, subp. 38a and 4410.4400, subp. 29) that would allow “high-volume” fracking if there is an EIS study, must be disapproved or withdrawn.
• Unlimited Gas Wells, Gas Pipelines, Gas Processing, and Wetlands or Forest Destruction without an EIS. EQB’s Proposed Gas Rules never require EIS environmental review of impacts and alternatives no matter how large a gas production project will be. Even a project with dozens of gas wells, miles of drilling and pipelines, a processing plant, and extensive roads and gas pipelines would not require an EIS under EQB Proposed Rules. (no requirements in 4410.4400)
• No Environmental Review for Sensitive Locations or Tribal Resources. EQB’s Proposed Gas Rules include no definition of sensitive environmental locations and reject extensive Tribal input proposing that Tribal reservations, trust lands, Ceded Territories, key resources, and culturally sensitive areas trigger EAW screening or EIS environmental review depending on the project and its proximity. EQB’s Rules defer to unpromulgated DNR rules rather than draft their own protections, and only require an EAW (never an EIS) if DNR decides to prohibit drilling on a site. (4410.4300, subp. 38, items B and C).

Comment by the Thursday, July 2 Deadline – Please provide your full name and address, and feel free to change and personalize your comment.

RE: Proposed Amendments to Rules Governing the Environmental Review Program for Gas Resource Development Projects, Rules Chapter 4410, R-4945, CAH Docket No. 23-9008-41570

Dear Judge Todnem, Mr. Krzenski,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Environmental Quality Board (EQB) proposed rules for development of gas in Minnesota. I believe that these Rules should be disapproved by the Judge or withdrawn by the EQB to start over. They conflict with Minnesota laws that prohibit fracking and improperly rely on another agency, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) rather than setting their own standards to protect the environment.

EQB’s Proposed Rules fail to require EIS environmental review of a new gas industry that has the potential to result in significant environmental harm to Minnesota water, land, air, climate, and rural and Tribal communities. These harms include contamination of groundwater, drinking water, and wild rice beds; destruction of wetlands and forests; fires and explosions; air, noise, and light pollution; and leaks and flaring of toxic and greenhouse gases.

Here are some specific problems with EQB’s Proposed Rules.

1. EQB Rules would allow “high-volume” fracking if an EIS was done, even though Minnesota law prohibits fracking. These Rules in part 4410.0200, subpart 38a and 4410.4400, subpart 29 should be disapproved.

2. EQB Proposed Rules rely on DNR siting prohibitions that aren’t even final rules to decide what locations may require environmental review. This is improper, and DNR siting limits would not protect drinking water, wild rice, wetlands, or Tribal lands and resources. Rules in part 4410.4300, subpart 38 (B) and (C) should be disapproved and EQB should withdraw its Rules and work with Tribes and members of the public to provide both EAW screening and EIS environmental review to protect sensitive locations from gas development.

3. Unless a developer proposes (prohibited) “high-volume” fracking, EQB Proposed Rules would never require EIS real environmental review no matter how many gas wells, pipelines, processing facilities, or acres of forest and wetlands destruction a gas production project would demand. This is irrational, arbitrary, and inconsistent with Minnesota environmental laws and policy.

I respectfully ask the Judge to disapprove EQB’s Proposed Rules for gas development. I also ask EQB to withdraw these Proposed Rules and start over. Finally, I request that EQB hold a public hearing on environmental review for gas projects and listen to the Tribes and other communities that would be harmed by reckless gas development.

Even those of us who may support a new gas industry want strict regulations and thorough environmental review to avoid and minimize harm to our water, wetlands, forests, climate, and neighbors.

Sincerely yours,
Full Name
Complete Minnesota address

If you have trouble using the comment link, please don’t give up.

Feel free to contact Sophia for help at: sophia@waterlegacy.org