Deal perhaps within reach on Lessard-Sams "definitions'' conflict

It appears the definitions conflict dividing anglers, hunters and other conservationists and the state House of Representatives over expenditures from the Outdoor Heritage Fund might soon be resolved.

Conferees from a House-Senate panel seemed to be closing in on a deal late Monday evening, ironing out differences between bills already passed by the two chambers.

The Senate version guiding expenditures from the OHF would allow the Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council to define ways the habitat money would be spent. The council's definitions are OK with the Department of Natural Resources and, generally, with resource professionals, as well as non-profit groups such as The Nature Conservency and Ducks Unlimited, among others.

The House version, meanwhile, is not supported, in large part because it injects into the habitat language terms that are overly broad — definitions that ultimately could allow for expenditures not only outside the scientific norm, but in defiance of the Minnesota voting public.

The OHF was created after the Legacy Amendment was approved overwhelmingly by voters in 2008.

A lot is on the line for everyone involved.

Stakeholder groups that helped sell the Legacy Amendment to Minnesotans —about 60 percent of voters approved the amendment — did so by stressing the money would be used to complete in-the-ground habitat projects. The groups want to keep the public's trust by ensuring such projects go forward.

Hansen, Wagenius and Murphy have made some good points over the past year or so in this debate. But theirs have been opinions generally outside the norm, and largely without voter or stakeholder support.

Upshot: The Senate has the better position here, and its version of the two bills in question should hold the higher ground.

Stay tuned. "Close" deals still often go unresolved in the Legislature.