Alex Falconer

“I earned my biology degree from St. Olaf, so I was trained to start with the evidence: ask questions, understand what the data can and cannot tell us, and change course when the facts demand it. That is how I try to approach my work in the Legislature, too.

Scientists and subject-matter experts are especially important when we are making decisions about public health, clean water, emerging technology and our natural resources. On the Environment Committee, I regularly hear from scientists, agency experts and people directly affected by the policies we are considering. Their expertise helps us understand the likely consequences of a decision and where uncertainty remains.

Science does not make every policy choice for us. Legislators still have to weigh cost, implementation and the lived experiences of the people we represent. But good policy should begin with an honest understanding of the evidence.”

“I spent nearly a decade professionally working to protect the Boundary Waters before I was elected, and my position has not changed: sulfide-ore copper mining does not belong in the Boundary Waters watershed.

This is not about opposing mining everywhere. It is about recognizing that some places are too valuable and too vulnerable to put at risk. The Boundary Waters is a connected system of lakes, rivers and wetlands with water so clean we can drink straight from the source. Pollution upstream does not stay neatly contained at a mine site.

That is why the first bill I introduced in the House was legislation to permanently protect the Boundary Waters watershed from sulfide-ore copper mining on state lands. I have also supported permanent federal protection, because protections that can be reversed from one administration to the next are not truly permanent.

Minnesota has an obligation to honor our treaties with tribes, protect clean water, wild rice and the places we want our kids and grandkids to inherit. I will keep working for permanent protection at every level of government.”

“Minnesota has been a national leader in addressing PFAS, and I want us to continue reducing these chemicals at the source while identifying and cleaning up contamination that already exists.

I serve on the House Environment and Natural Resources Committee, where we have heard directly from scientists and state agencies about PFAS pollution, prevention and management. I have opposed efforts to weaken Minnesota’s PFAS restrictions, including voting against legislation that would have created additional exemptions for commercial and industrial products.

Going forward, I support strong, science-based drinking-water standards, continued monitoring and testing, reducing unnecessary uses of PFAS before they enter our water, and making sure the companies responsible for contamination contribute to the cost of cleaning it up. Protecting Minnesotans from PFAS means addressing both the contamination we have inherited and preventing more of it from entering our water in the first place.”

“Minnesota should not mistake a promise of economic development for proof that a massive data center is good for the communities being asked to host it. These projects can require extraordinary amounts of electricity, water and public infrastructure, and those costs and consequences deserve the same scrutiny as the benefits companies promise.

I support rigorous environmental review of proposed data centers, including their water use, energy demands, infrastructure needs and impact on surrounding communities.

If a project moves forward, the corporation should bear its full costs. Minnesota families and small businesses should never find themselves subsidizing Amazon’s utility bill or paying for infrastructure built primarily to serve a billion-dollar corporation.

Minnesota should welcome economic development that strengthens our communities, but you and I as average residents should never pay a single dime out of our own pockets so the richest corporations in the world can make another billion dollars while we struggle to pay our bills.”

“I fully support continued public investment in scientific research at both the state and federal levels. Minnesota’s universities and research institutions are economic engines, but their value goes well beyond the jobs they create. Their research improves healthcare, protects our environment, drives innovation and helps us solve problems that affect Minnesotans every day.

As someone with a biology degree, I also understand that important research often takes years to produce results. Researchers and universities need stable, predictable funding that allows them to pursue that work rather than lurching from one funding crisis to another.

I would oppose efforts to politicize or arbitrarily cut federal research funding, and at the state level I support continued investment in Minnesota’s universities and research capacity. We should treat scientific research as part of the infrastructure that keeps Minnesota healthy, innovative and economically competitive.”

“Minnesota should build on the progress we’ve made by making it easier for people struggling with substance use disorder to get treatment before a crisis becomes fatal. That means expanding access to mental-health and substance-use treatment, reducing financial barriers to care and supporting prevention and recovery services in communities across the state.

The disparities in overdose deaths among Indigenous and Black Minnesotans also make clear that statewide progress is not reaching every community equally. We need to understand where those gaps are coming from and make sure prevention, treatment and recovery resources are reaching the communities experiencing the greatest harm.

My broader goal in healthcare is universal access that includes mental healthcare. Substance-use treatment has to be part of that. No Minnesotan seeking help should be unable to get treatment because of cost, insurance coverage or where they live.”