Krystyne Knutson
DemocraticQ1 If elected, in what capacities would you refer to scientists when you are deciding how to vote on a policy?
“I believe good policy should be grounded in evidence, not ideology. When legislation involves public health, agriculture, water quality, climate, energy, technology, or other scientific matters, I would seek input from qualified experts and consider peer-reviewed research, established scientific consensus, and transparent data. I would also listen to the people and communities directly affected. Elected officials cannot be experts in every field, but we have a responsibility to consult those who are, ask thoughtful questions, and make informed decisions based on the best available evidence.”
KEYWORDS: Evidence. Expertise. Accountability.
Q2 Recently H.J. Res 140 passed, overturning a 20-year mining ban in the National Forest System land surrounding the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. What is your position on mining projects in this region and what policies, if any, would you support to protect the surrounding watershed?
“I support protecting the Boundary Waters and its surrounding watershed from mining projects that pose an unacceptable risk of long-term or irreversible contamination. Mining provides jobs and resources that matter to Minnesota, particularly in northern communities, so I don’t believe the conversation should dismiss workers or communities that depend on the industry. But some places are simply too valuable and too difficult to restore once damaged, to gamble with.
I support strong, science-based environmental review, rigorous water-quality protections, meaningful financial assurance so taxpayers are never left paying for cleanup, and long-term monitoring and accountability for mining companies. I also support lasting protections for the watershed surrounding the Boundary Waters, because pollution does not stop at the edge of a mine site or a political boundary. Economic development and environmental protection do not have to be enemies, but when the potential damage could outlast the economic benefit by generations, we have a responsibility to proceed with extraordinary caution.”
KEYWORDS: Protection. Accountability. Sustainability.
Q3 Contamination from PFAS and other “forever chemicals” in 21 community water systems in Minnesota exceed national regulations, putting residents at risk of negative health impacts. What policies, if any, do you propose to protect Minnesota residents from the potential impacts of PFAS?
“Minnesotans should be able to trust that their drinking water is safe. I support strong PFAS testing and monitoring, transparent reporting, and continued efforts to prevent these chemicals from entering our water.
Minnesota has already taken important steps to restrict unnecessary uses of PFAS. We should continue those protections while helping communities afford the infrastructure and treatment needed to remove existing contamination, particularly in rural areas where resources are limited.
I also believe polluters (not taxpayers) should pay when contamination can be traced to responsible manufacturers or industries. Families and local governments should not bear the financial burden of cleaning up pollution they did not create.
Clean water is fundamental to public health. Our approach should prioritize prevention, early detection, cleanup, and accountability.”
KEYWORDS: Prevention. Accountability. Clean Water.
Q4 There have been multiple hyperscale data centers proposed throughout the state, including one currently under construction. What policies and regulations, if any, do you support to assess and act on the potential impacts of these data centers?
“AI and data centers will be part of our economic future, and Minnesota has an opportunity to benefit from that growth. But development should benefit the communities hosting these facilities…not simply shift costs and resource demands onto residents.
I support requiring meaningful environmental and infrastructure assessments for hyperscale data centers, including their electricity and water consumption, impacts on the electrical grid, backup power emissions, and effects on local water supplies. Communities should know the long-term resource demands before projects are approved.
We should also examine whether existing tax incentives for extremely profitable corporations provide sufficient public benefit. Any public incentives should be tied to measurable outcomes, including permanent jobs, local economic investment, environmental protections, and infrastructure contributions.
Data centers should pay their fair share of infrastructure and energy costs rather than shifting those expenses onto residential customers or small businesses.
Minnesota can welcome technological innovation while setting reasonable guardrails. Economic development should be a partnership.”
KEYWORDS: Accountability (again and again). Public Benefit. Sustainability.
Q5 In 2025 alone, the National Institute on Health (NIH) awarded over $700 million for research grants and contracts to Minnesota universities, which directly supported over 7,000 jobs and $1.79 billion of economic activity in Minnesota. What policies, if any, do you plan to implement or support regarding funding for continued science research either at the state or federal level?
“I strongly support continued public investment in scientific research. Research funding is not simply an expense..it is an investment that creates jobs, drives innovation, improves health outcomes, strengthens our economy, and helps Minnesota remain competitive.
At the state level, I would support funding and partnerships with Minnesota universities, colleges, healthcare systems, agricultural researchers, and other research institutions. I would also advocate for rural Minnesota to share in those investments and benefits. Research into agriculture, water quality, renewable energy, emerging technologies, healthcare access, and rural health can directly improve the lives and economies of communities like those in Senate District 9.
Minnesota legislators do not determine federal NIH funding, but we can advocate strongly for continued federal investment and work to ensure Minnesota remains positioned to compete for those dollars.
Science also requires independence and integrity. Public research funding should support rigorous, transparent, evidence-based work without political interference in scientific conclusions.
When research funding brings billions of dollars into our economy while advancing medicine, agriculture, technology, and environmental protection, supporting science is both good public policy and smart economic policy.”
KEYWORDS: Investment. Innovation. Independence.
Q6 Fatal drug overdoses in Minnesota have significantly declined in recent years, representing a 28% drop from a record peak of 1,392 overdose deaths in 2022. However, compared to White Minnesotans, Indigenous Minnesotans are 7 to 15 times more likely to experience a fatal drug overdose, while Black Minnesotans are 2 to 3 times more likely to die from a drug-related overdose. What policies, if any, do you support to continue the downward trend of overdose deaths for Minnesotans?
“Minnesota’s decline in overdose deaths shows that evidence-based prevention and treatment can save lives, but significant disparities and gaps in access remain.
I support expanding access to naloxone, evidence-based treatment for substance use disorder, mental health services, recovery programs, and harm-reduction strategies. Treatment must also be accessible when someone is ready to seek it…not weeks or months later because there are no available providers or beds.
In rural Minnesota, access is particularly important. Distance, transportation, provider shortages, cost, and stigma can all become barriers to recovery. We should strengthen rural treatment options, telehealth, peer recovery programs, and community-based services.
We also need targeted partnerships with Indigenous and Black communities experiencing disproportionately high overdose deaths, with solutions developed alongside those communities rather than imposed upon them.
Accountability for illegal drug trafficking remains important, but we cannot arrest our way out of addiction. People struggling with substance use disorder need healthcare, treatment, and a realistic path toward recovery.
The first goal is keeping people alive. Then we must make sure treatment and long-term recovery support are there when they need them.”
KEYWORDS: Prevention. Treatment. Recovery.