A conference committee has approved a plan to improve habitat for bees and other pollinators.
Pollinators around the country are
suffering from a complex set of problems that is causing their numbers
to plummet. This could hurt agriculture, which relies on insects to
pollinate crops.
Rep. Jeanne Poppe, DFL-Austin,
sponsored a bill that requires the Department of Natural Resources and
the Department of Agriculture to ensure they keep pollinators in mind as
they are restoring habitat.
One way to help is by choosing plants to ensure there is always something blooming.
"We have bees that have colony
collapse. We have bees that are impacted by pesticides. We have just a
reduction in the number of pollinators, so this is an attempt to say
throughout the state we have the right habitat," Poppe said. . . .
As farmers get underway with their spring planting, some bee farmers in Minnesota are already counting their losses.
In the last couple days one major producer reported that thousands of honey bees suddenly died.
In 2005, Minnesota was the sixth largest honey producer in the
nation. But since 2006, millions of bee colonies have died off in
Minnesota and across the nation. ...
The
service that bees and other pollinators provide allows nearly 70 percent
of all flowering plants to reproduce; the fruits and seeds from insect
pollinated plants account for over 30 percent of the foods and beverages
that we consume. Beyond agriculture, pollinators are keystone species in
most terrestrial ecosystems. Fruits and seeds derived from insect
pollination are a major part of the diet of approximately 25 percent of
all birds, and of mammals ranging from red-backed voles to grizzly
bears. However, many of our native bee pollinators are at risk, and the
status of many more is unknown. Habitat loss, alteration, and
fragmentation, pesticide use, and introduced diseases all contribute to
declines of bees.
Republicans joked about a "buzzkill" in their tweets about the legislation written by the Austin-based chair of the Ag Policy committee. Apparently, they had no idea about the job-killing consequences of bee loss as they droned on to themselves.
Here's the CBS-MN clip:
Photo: A honeybee helping out an apple grower.
If you appreciate reading posts on Bluestem Prairie, consider making a donation via paypal:
The Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture conference committee meets at 1:00 p.m., and Bluestem hopes that the House conferees--Jean Wagenius, David Dill, Jeanne Poppe, Rick Hansen, and Andrew Falk--can prevail on keeping $190,000 for the Sustainable Agriculture Demonstration Grant Program in the final conference report.
Competitive grants for up to $25,000 are awarded to individuals or
groups for on-farm sustainable agriculture research or demonstration
projects in Minnesota. The purpose of the Grant Program is to fund
practices that promote environmental stewardship and conservation of
resources as well as improve profitability and quality of life on farms
and in rural areas. . . .
Eligible recipients include Minnesota farmers, individuals at Minnesota
educational institutions, non-profit organizations, and local natural
resource agencies. Priority is given to projects that are farmer
initiated. All non-farmer initiated projects must show significant
collaboration with farmers. . . .
The program objectives are to research and demonstrate the
profitability, energy efficiency, and benefits of sustainable
agriculture practices and systems from production through marketing.
Grants are available to fund on-farm research and demonstrations and may include, but are not limited to:
enterprise diversification and organic production using traditional and non-traditional crops and livestock;
cover crops and crop rotations to increase nitrogen uptake, reduce erosion, or control pests;
conservation tillage and weed management;
cropping systems to implement integrated pest management systems for insects, weeds, and diseases;
nutrient and pesticide management including prevention of entry into water bodies;
energy production such as wind, methane, or biomass.
The program does not fund projects that duplicate previously funded projects. . . .
It's not a big program, but one that's useful for farmers, especially those in fast-growing sectors like community supported agriculture (CSA). It's not as if traditional production agriculture is starved in either chamber's bill, so the omission of the program in the Senate bill seems a casual error that can be easily corrected.
Here's the Land Stewardship Project's position on the project (via LSP's lobbyist Bobby King:
Funding for the Sustainable Agriculture Demonstration Grant Program. LSP
supports the House position that provides $190,000/ year funding for
this program. (HF 976 lines 6.7 – 6.20) There is no dedicated funding
in the Senate position.
Here's the House staff comparison and contrast chart. Perhaps the greater problem with the Senate bill is the absence of funding for the Minnesota Agricultural Water Quality Program, which would be developed by the Minnesota Department of Ag and a board composed mostly of farmers and local soil and water commissioners. Oddly, Republicans have objected that farmers would not have a voice in establishing the program's policies. The program is a priority of the Minnesota Farmers Union.
With the suspension of the sustainable food production diploma program at M State-Fergus Falls, a peculiar hostility to toward small-scale, innovative agriculture seems to be gaining steam among some state lawmakers and bureaucrats. This is unfortunate, as the local food movement has been a boon for small business and job creation for those who seek to serve consumer demand.
Update: Those who support fostering our state's sustainable farming sector might consider contact the senators on the conference committee to ask them to agree with the House bill and fund this modest program. Be polite to the legislative aides who answer the phones and listen to the voicemail messages.
David Tomassoni: 651-296-8017
Tom Saxhaug: 651-296-4136
Dan Sparks: 651-296-9248
Jim Metzen: 651-296-4370
Torrey Westrom: 651-296-3826
Photo: Sexy buffer strips, via MnDA.
If you enjoy reading posts like this on Bluestem Prairie, consider throwing some coin in the tip jar:
I spent some time yesterday watching the Minnesota Ways & Means committee debate the proposed minimum wage changes. While there are many things about the debate that caused a spike in my blood pressure, I am really concerned about those who think farm workers do not deserve the same rights as other workers in our state’s economy.
For some reason paying farm workers overtime after 40 hours is sacrilegious. Rep Sarah Anderson (R-Plymouth) tweeted, “When Minneapolis runs the #mnleg, they think farming is a 40 hour per week kind of job.”
Don Davis in his April 29th Capitol Chatter column quotes DFL Rep. Jeanne Poppe, “Ag workers are not necessarily like factory workers where they can clock in and clock out.” No, it is not necessarily a 40 hour per week job. Yes, you have to often “make hay when the sun shines”.
But then, a lot of jobs are like that. It is the beginning of the construction season and you will see workers taking advantage of the daylight and good weather to get as much done as possible.
Electrical workers recently worked seven days a week restoring power in SW Minnesota after the recent ice storms.
I wonder what the difference is between a worker putting in 70 hours a week on the farm and one putting in 70 hours a week paving a road. Both will be tired at the end of the week but the farm worker will get the shaft. Some legislators need to quit fantasizing about the “family farm” and realize that it is a business that should be held to the same standard for workers’ rights as other businesses. Get a clue people. It’s not your Grandpa’s farm.
A couple years ago I posted the lyrics to the song Eight Hours, by I.G. Blanchard, in a note to Facebook. I think it is relevant again today.
Eight Hours
We mean to make things over,
We are tired of toil for naught
With but bare enough to live upon
And ne'er an hour for thought.
We want to feel the sunshine
And we want to smell the flow'rs
We are sure that God has willed it
And we mean to have eight hours;
We're summoning our forces
From the shipyard, shop and mill
A push by agricultural groups to avoid an
evaluation this year by the state's legislative auditor has raised red
flags for some lawmakers.
Lawmakers on Wednesday directed the Office of the Legislative
Auditor to audit agricultural commodity councils, over protests from
some of those groups that the move is unnecessary and burdensome. Rep.
Andrew Falk, DFL-Murdock, said the "rampant amount of lobbying" that
some of the councils did to have their name taken off the short list of
potential audit targets was unusual.
Rep. Rick Hansen, DFL-South St. Paul, said he's
never seen that kind of pushback in his eight years on the Legislative
Audit Commission. Amundson did not immediately respond to a request for
comment.
Falk said he's heard from several farmers who don't understand what the fees pay for and wonder if they're
being used effectively. Falk said he doesn't expect an audit to show
any wrongdoing and that the audit may merely help farmers understand how
each organization works.
Minnesota Public Radio's Tim Pugmire reports in Commission approves nine audit topics:
. . .one commission member said he found it "highly unusual" that
there was some lobbying against an evaluation of Agriculture Commodity
Councils, which the legislative Auditor hasn't taken a look at in more
than 30 years.
Rep. Andrew Falk, DFL-Murdock, said the farmers who fund the councils want to know if their money is being well spent.
"If their books are clean, and if they're doing a good job, they have nothing to fear," Falk said.
Since the councils have power to levy checkoff dollars, that's a good thing.
Photo: Corn. We grow a lot of it in Minnesota, and by statute, a check-off is allowed to be levied by a farmer-led state commodity council.
If you appreciate reading posts on Bluestem Prairie, consider making a donation via paypal:
As Bluestem drafts this, the Legislative Audit Commission is meeting to
approve evaluation topics for 2013.
Unlike emergency audits ordered because of scandal or crisis, the evaluation topics aren't a sign of malfeasance or corruption in the programs under review. It's more of a good government sort of thing.
Ordinarily, the topics are passed without controversy, but the Minnesota Corn Research and Promotion Council (MCRPC), which has legislative authority to levy a check-off fee from all Minnesota corn growers, has raised an alarm about the proposed selection of "Agricultural Commodity Councils" as evaluation topic.
In 2011, there were 79,800 farms in Minnesota. According to MDA
staff, most farmers pay one or
more of the councils’ check-off fees. Nationally,
some have questioned the effectiveness of generic
advertising and whether the
benefits of such efforts
are enjoyed by the producers who pay the fees.
To evaluate the agricultural commodity councils,
we would examine the role of MDA, the process of
collecting check-off fees, and the activities of the
councils. OLA could determine farmers’
satisfaction with the councils’ work through a
survey of a sample of farmers. We could also
analyze select activities of
particular councils to
gauge the effectiveness of their programs.
However, our findings may be limited, depending
on how feasible it is to isolate the activities of the
councils from affiliated organizations and to
attribute outcomes to the councils’ efforts.
Agricultural commodity councils were last
examined by OLA more than 30 years ago.
Because the councils do not receive public
funding, the state’s role with respect to the
councils is minimal. Therefore, an evaluation by
OLA might have a limited impact on the councils’
activities.
Given that the commodity councils are given the power to levy a check-off fee from producers, an occasional review--or one after 30 years--doesn't seem oppressive to Bluestem.
Farmers create an enormous amount of wealth for the state, but we don't know that state-mandated fees for industry councils are required of all other businesses. Another state-mandated fee, the "fair share" dues for representation by unions, is also in the list of topics.
Both groups should have nothing to fear.
Here's the letter from the Council, which seems excessively "confused":
Why should the Agricultural Commodity Councils be exempt from review? It's entirely possible that the OLA might discover that much good occurs because of check-off programs, and the corn growers might gain yet another document to defend themselves against corn's detractors.
Photo: Corn. We grow a lot of it in Minnesota, and by statute, a check-off is allowed to be levied by a farmer-led state commodity council.
If you appreciate reading posts on Bluestem Prairie, consider making a donation via paypal:
Remember when Rod Hamilton and House Republicans got the fantods over an urban, earth-friendly woman chairing the House Environment, Natural Resource and Agricultural Finance Committee? Because she would so not understand farmers?
From December 2012 through January2013, one could scarcely pick up a paper in a swing rural district won by a DFLer in the November 2012 election and not read an example of the collective Republican butthurt.
Looks like Hamilton was just acting like that frienemy who really doesn't wish us well with our new date, despite all the concern trolling.
Both the House and Senate are moving their versions of the omnibus agriculture and environment finance bills authored respectively by Rep. Jean Wagenius and Sen. David Tomassoni. The House version also carries agricultural policy provisions the Senate version does not at this point. The House version has a strong budget for agriculture including full funding for the AGRI fund, and other MFU priorities including sustainable agriculture, dairy development, county fairs, AURI, and Board of Animal Health. Members can track House bill progress here: House Finance bill the Senate version will be released later today. The bill also addresses water usage fees and reduces fees for irrigators from .35 cents to .22 cents per million gallons pumped as originally proposed by Rep. Wagenius. The Senate is not likely to include water usage fees in their bill.
Last year's Farm Bill stalled in the House when Tea Party Republicans decided not feeding the poor was a winning meal ticket in the 2012 elections. That worked well for folks like Allen Quist, sent him back to his rural Nicollet County farm instead of the big hotdish contest in the Beltway.
. . .Some House Republicans, often from the rural Midwest, began proposing
putting food stamps—which make up more than 70 percent of the
Agriculture Department budget—into a separate bill. This would be a way
to reduce food-stamp spending or get the program turned over to the
states. These members seem to have forgotten that Congress created food
stamps as part of the farm bill in the 1960s, when the declining rural
population translated into fewer rural representatives in the House and
fewer votes for the farm bill, and that the number of rural
representatives continues to decline. . . .
. . . The participation in food stamps appears to remain higher than
anticipated, however, because wage rates are so low. Agriculture
Secretary Tom Vilsack has suggested that the way to resolve the problem
is to help food-stamp beneficiaries improve their skills and get better
jobs.
Meanwhile, House Republicans press for cuts and most
Democrats resist. House Agriculture Committee ranking member Collin
Peterson, D-Minn., said he has told his panel’s chairman, Rep. Frank
Lucas, R-Okla., that he wants to be part of any decision-making on
food-stamp cuts. Peterson also defended food stamps with a statement
that is sure to raise hackles in farm circles: “There is less fraud in
food stamps than in any government program. There is five times as much
fraud in crop insurance than in food stamps.”
Even an old Blue Dog can stay on point when the scent's strong even.
Leaders of congressional ag committees from both parties
seem optimistic that there will be a farm bill this year, but tough negotiating
remains, especially if committees have to trim spending even more than they did
when putting together bills in 2012. . . .
The House ag committee's ranking Democrat, Collin Peterson of Minnesota,
seems to be a strong supporter as well. But he is hearing complaints
from some of his farmer constituents about insurance not being limited
for very large farms. . . .
Just as a year ago, negotiating changes to the commodity
title of the farm bill and the spending level for the nutrition title remain
difficult.
Peterson said that more money
could be saved from SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, if the
federal government and not states, determined the income level for eligibility
for what used to be called food stamps.
The federal threshold for food stamp eligibility is 130% of
the poverty level, Peterson said, but in red states, it's actually higher--200%
in North Dakota, 165% in Texas and 185% in Arizona, versus 130% in Peterson's
state of Minnesota.
"The states that you would think would use this (the
lower, federal level) are not," he said.
Peterson said he's urging his committee colleagues "we
should be looking at policy here, instead of a number."
A good point, dawg.
Photo: Minnesota Seventh District Congressman Collin Peterson.
If you appreciate reading posts on Bluestem Prairie, consider making a donation via paypal:
Nothing happens when Dale Jorgenson twists the squeaky valve on a water spigot at his Sparta farm.
“Since 1900, the Jorgensons have owned this farm. We’ve never been without water before,” he said.
Soon, he’ll have a new well, and perhaps the old one will find some new life. But he believes that the company providing the new water source, U.S. Silica, is also responsible for plundering the old one.
On Friday, Jorgenson’s well ran dry for the second time in the past year, and he blames the new sand mine and processing facility about a mile away and its high-capacity well.
“It’s because of the sand mining operation,” he said. “The more they pump, the less water there is.”
U.S. Silica denies that its operations affected Jorgenson’s well. Potential use is estimated at 1 million gallons of water a day, but the plant is not yet fully operational.
“We don’t feel that this issue has anything to do with our mining operations in Sparta,” company spokesman Mike Lawson said.
However, the two parties have come together to reach a fix. U.S. Silica will drill a new well on the Jorgenson property and examine the old one to see whether repairs are possible. . . .
Jorgenson's well first went dry last April when the company started testing its own well. Although the company then offered a new well, the farmer refused the offer because it came with only a one-year guarantee. After this second episode, the sand mining company has installed two tanks and is supplying water for Jorgenson's 100-cow dairy herd.
Hansen's bill didn't get a hearing, but perhaps it ought to have.
Photo: The train wreck of sand mining.
If you appreciate reading posts on Bluestem Prairie, consider making a donation via paypal:
While conservatives like to whine about over-regulation, it's easy to appreciate the manure management advice the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is distributing to livestock farmers.
As a winter of heavy snowfall and freezing
rain gives way to warming temperatures, rapid melting and potential for
flooding pose challenges for manure management among the more than
25,000 livestock farms in Minnesota. Farmers who spread solid manure
during winter must ensure that it doesn’t run off with rapid snowmelt
flowing to ditches, streams and other waters.
Manure-contaminated runoff not only threatens water quality, it
reduces the value of manure as a crop nutrient. If possible, farmers
should refrain from spreading manure during periods of rapid melt. This
may be even more important in some areas this year because of frozen
snow conditions. In January and February the snow was saturated by rain,
and then froze. This prevents surface-applied manure from soaking in to
the soil, and more susceptible to runoff.. . .
In the eyes of the federal government, urban Minnesota has just pushed a little farther into the countryside.
What used to be a 13-county metropolitan statistical area now
contains 16 counties. Mille Lacs, Sibley and Le Sueur counties, which
still look pretty rural if you go driving around the likes of Milaca or
Winthrop, are now considered by the federal Office of Management and
Budget part of the Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington Metropolitan
Statistical Area (MSA).
Part of this is statistical artifice, and at least a couple research
folks I've talked to around town have been scratching their heads about
how meaningful it is. But one thing it says is that the artery of
commerce and commuting that for some time has tied the Twin Cities to
the St. Cloud area is being duplicated in regards to Mankato.
. . . A county
is added to an MSA when more than a quarter of its workforce commutes to
the "core counties" of the statistical area.
While Gruenhagen's insurance office is in McLeod County (notably still not part of the metro), the lawmaker hangs his hat in Sibley County--and so now, he's statistically a metro legislator. (Indeed, all of his old pre-2012 district--parts of Sibley, Le Sueur and Scott Counties--is now part of the Twin Cities statistical metro area).
Does this radical Big Government redefinition of metro threaten Gruenhagen's role as a voice in the wilderness? After all, in his first message home after being sworn in, the insurance salesman wrote:
It was an honor and a privilege to take the oath of office on Tuesday
and be sworn in for the second time to the Minnesota House of
Representatives. One of my highest priorities this session is to be a
voice for rural Minnesota. Agriculture is such an important part of our
local economies, and we must make sure that rural Minnesota is
adequately represented in Saint Paul.
Someone needs to let Glenn Beck know.
For ourselves, we're just worried that hipsters will discover the incredible pie at Lyle's Cafe in Winthrop, itself already an urban island of lavender blue in Gruenhagen's deep red district.
Photo: Lyle's Cafe, future hipster haven? If you call this metro, serve it with a heavy dollop of irony.
If you appreciate reading posts on Bluestem Prairie, consider making a donation via paypal:
LSP "sand lady" on Minnesota Public Radio's Daily Circuit Monday 3/25, 9:06 a.m.
MPR's Daily Circuit outlines issues related to industrial sand mining in Debate continues on frac sand mining's health, environmental impact, but if you want to get the good stuff, tune in to MPR at 9:06 a.m. on Monday, March 25 to listen to Land Stewardship policy organizer Johanna Rupprecht talk about frac sand.
"You
can farm the same land over and over but once you mine it, it's gone," a
Wisconsin woman told filmmaker Jim Tittle. Born and raised on a farm
that's been in her family for generations, she represents one of the
positions explored in his documentary, The Price of Sand, which
focuses on Wisconsin conflict over silica mines, small towns and money —
a conflict now playing out in southeastern Minnesota and in the
Minnesota legislature.
The Price of Sand, an
independently produced documentary examining the human and environmental
costs of silica (frac) sand mining, was shown at an advance screening
in Red Wing, Minnesota on March 22. The film, which offers a broad
overview of some of the tough issues facing rural communities threatened
by mining in the Upper Midwest, played to a packed audience at the
Sheldon Theatre.
The Price of Sand will be screened in St. Paul
on March 28, 7:00 p.m. at the Grandview Theater. A Q & A session
with film director, Jim Tittle is scheduled after the screening. The
documentary was selected for the MSP Film Festival in April and more
screenings along with a DVD release will be coming soon. For more
information about The Price of Sand, go to www.thepriceofsand.com.
Jim
Tittle, the film's director, spoke at a Q & A session afterwards
along with Minnesota State Senator Matt Schmit (DFL, Red Wing), and Jody
McIlrath, representative for Save the Bluffs, a grass-roots
organization based in Red Wing, Minnesota.
Tittle, a videographer by profession, started working on The Price of Sand
two years ago after learning that an oil company had purchased land
close to his mother's home in Hay Creek Township, south of Red Wing,
Minnesota. Initially puzzled by the deal, Tittle soon discovered the
company wasn't interested in oil but in silica (frac) sand, a commodity
widely used by the oil and gas industry for the hydraulic-fracturing (or
fracking) of shale and found in abundance in the blufflands of western
Wisconsin, southeastern Minnesota, and northeastern Iowa. Concerned
about what this might hold for the future of his hometown, Tittle began
digging deeper into the subject and produced a series of YouTube videos
featuring interviews with people living next door to mining operations
across the river in western Wisconsin. These interviews became the
foundation for his film.
Tittle carefully builds an argument against the sudden industrialization of small, close-knit agricultural communities in The Price of Sand.
Over the course of the documentary, we meet the beleaguered residents
of New Auburn, Knapp, Alma, McGregor, Maiden Rock, and Chippewa Falls.
In the tiny village of Tunnel City, Wisconsin, the Connecticut-based,
multi-national corporation, Unimin is constructing a 500-acre, open pit
sand mine. One of its neighbors, an unfortunate woman who lives with her
young family directly across the street from the mine, tells us it will
operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week and there's nothing she can
do about it. Like so many people Tittle interviewed in Wisconsin, she
feels not only helpless but abandoned by public officials who would
prefer to look the other way rather than challenge the status quo and
restrict mining activities through zoning. Another unhappy resident sums
the dilemma up nicely saying, "we place a high value on our freedom and
these companies take advantage of that."
Beautifully shot and edited, The Price of Sand
presents a cautionary tale for Minnesotans currently debating the issue
of whether to regulate mining at the state and local level. The film
begins and ends with a long sequence of aerial shots revealing
wide-spread devastation caused by open pit mining. Throughout the
documentary, one person after another speaks out on such difficult and
thorny topics as the influence of big money on local politics; economic
hardship and the promise of jobs; gag orders and media buzz; and the
inevitable conflicts that arise when corporate interests compete for an
unfair share of the pie in rural communities vulnerable to exploitation –
all topics relevant for a discussion of Tittle's leading question: What
is the true price of sand?
During the Q & A session after
the screening, Senator Matt Schmit (DFL, Red Wing) announced that a bill
he recently introduced in the Minnesota state legislature calling for
more stringent controls on silica sand mining had passed committee
deadlines and would be brought before the Minnesota House and Senate for
further discussion. When asked if he backed Governor Mark Dayton's
stated opposition to a proposed moratorium on mining, Schmit said he
would continue to push for a one-year moratorium and supports an
extension of a rule permitting the Environmental Quality Board to
continue studying the issues.
Carol Inderieden is a writer and photographer from the Twin Cities area living in western Wisconsin.
This post was original published at the Twin Cities Daily Planet; published with permission via our content exchange agreement.
This is a major under-the-radar story. The House Agriculture
Committee, including its Democrats, voted just this week to gut the
Dodd-Frank regulation of derivatives by approving a series seven bills.
Of the seven, six are strongly opposed by public-interest regulation
watchdogs. All seven bills now go to the House floor for a vote there.
This is a bad-Dems story, and also a derivatives story.
Read the details at Americablog.
Minnesota's Democrats on the committee--ranking member Collin Peterson and Tim Walz--aren't among the "bad-Dems." Given Peterson's work on financial reform in 2010 when he chaired the ag committee, the "No" vote isn't a surprise. (The ag committee's oversight of commodity markets gives it the ability to consider legislation related to the financial industry).
The most controversial bill to advance Wednesday is explicitly
designed to expand taxpayer backing for derivatives. It was the only
legislation that lawmakers were required to cast individual votes for or
against; the others were all approved by unanimous voice votes. The
bill to increase taxpayer support for bank derivatives dealing was
approved by a vote of 31 to 14.
Prior to the vote, the top Democrat on the Agricultural Committee,
Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), gave a speech warning that the
legislation could repeat the deregulation debacles of the 1990s.
"Two of the worst votes I ever made in this place was the Commodity
[Futures] Modernization Act of 2000 that exempted all of these swaps
from any regulation or any margins," Peterson said. "I didn't know any
better. The other vote I made that was really bad is eliminating
Glass-Steagall. We should have never done that and I bought into that.
You know, if we had Glass-Steagall back, this wouldn't be an issue here
... You're putting taxpayers on the hook. And if you wanna do that,
fine. But I mean, you know, when I, when a lot of us were here, we
hadn't paid enough attention and this thing blew up on us. At the time
we did the Modernization Act, there were $80 billion in swaps, in
derivatives. We gave 'em legal certainty, we eliminated the regulation
requirements, and it went to $700 trillion and it blew up on us. So just
be careful: You can vote any way you want, but this could come back and
haunt you.
Here's Peterson speaking out about the bills:
Photo: Seventh District DFL Congressman Collin Peterson.
Donate: If you enjoy reading posts like this at Bluestem, consider throwing some coin in the plate at Paypal:
A
number of bills are moving this spring through statehouses across the
country that would, in varying ways, make it a crime to secretly
document animal abuse and food-safety concerns at farms.
This
kind of legislation isn't new to our area. Minnesota lawmakers have
considered it occasionally in recent years, and Iowa last year passed a
law that makes it a gross misdemeanor to sneak into a farm and record
video of animal abuse.
These laws limit the public's right to know where their food comes from, and -- yes -- they are ultimately bad for business. . . .
Let's
be clear: We don't condone strident work produced with little context.
Reasonable things happen on farms every day that would scare a sheltered
little city kid. The vast majority of farms in our area and across the
country are owned and run by reasonable people who would be just as
horrified as the rest of us at the abuse that's been documented. Good
investigative work is produced by somebody who takes the time to gain a
deep understanding of an industry and documents violations, not
incidents worthy only of shock value, to advance the common good. . . .
And the
food industry, starting with the farmer and ending with the grocery
store that sells the product, should welcome any effort toward
transparency that builds trust among consumers. Transparency builds
loyalty, which grows the bottom line.
The argument isn't new--and let's hope legislators remember the lesson from the last time this got thrown in the hopper.
Photo: Happy cattle and farm family pose for the camera.
Donate: If you enjoy reading posts like this at Bluestem, consider throwing some coin in the plate at Paypal:
Hansen shared news of Kelly's approval as the Minnesota House Government
Operations committee heard the amended bill on Friday, March 15.
In the amended bill, the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) retains responsibility for drawing up standards and selecting a seven-member technical assistance team for local government. Drawn largely from state agency personnel, the
team will become involved in projects when local government requests the
help. Making the request voluntary had been a sticking point in earlier iterations of the language.
Plans created by the team will not require review by the EQB.
Also added: a EQB-maintained reference library of local permits and
ordinances and the development of an air
quality health advisory for silica sand by January 1, 2014.
The bill now heads to the House Environment, Natural Resources
and Agriculture Finance Committee, chaired by environmental champion
Rep. Jean Wagenius (DFL-Minneapolis).
Rep. Phyllis Kahn (DFL-Minneapolis) has also added her name as co-sponsor.
In Friday's Politics in Minnesota article, Sand in the gears, staff writer Charley Shaw took a closer look at the politics of the various house and senate bills. He reports:
. . .The frac sand issue illustrates the ingrained power struggle among DFL
committee chairs with respect to the demands of environment and
industry. The third prong of the power struggle is Gov. Mark Dayton,
whose views on frac sand mining remain a mystery at this point. Dayton
signaled his awareness of the issue before the session began when he
told reporters that frac sand mining would be a “huge” issue. And on
Thursday he sent another signal that he’s tuned into frac sand mining,
releasing a revised budget that includes $1.9 million to pay for a team
of six state agencies and boards that would provide technical assistance
to local units of government related to silica sand mining. The funding
would be supported by new fees on the extraction and processing of
silica sand. . . .
Groundwater, sand mining and sinkholes
In other news, Pioneer Press outdoors columnist Dave Orrick links the paper's ongoing investigation into troubling groundwater use to potential demand on aquifers by the industrial sand mining industry. He reports in Sportsmen should pay attention to groundwater issues:
This week, my colleagues and I are writing on
Minnesota groundwater. Aquifers. Water that invisibly flows through
porous (sand), semi-porous (limestone) and surprisingly porous
(fractured shale) layers of underground rock. The stories focus on
public water supplies, conservation at home and whether we're stressing
these subterranean sponges too much. But there are serious impacts for
outdoors lovers and the places we love. . . .
It's also possible that a frac-sand mining
operation that washes sand with well water and then returns that water
to the same ground, could be conserving water and damaging the local
stream trout populations at the same time. In fact, it's possible that
more traditional limestone- and gravel-mining operations could do the
same, said Steve Klotz, the Lanesboro-area fisheries supervisor for the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
"Some of the proposals out there are throwing around some big
water appropriations," Klotz said. "We've got one that could potentially
impact the big spring that supplies water to our hatchery."
Decades of shoreline protection and restoration projects in
southeast Minnesota deserve credit for the area's outstanding stream
trout fishery. But an essential facet of the trout's ability to
reproduce naturally, as they are doing in most waters, is the constant
temperature -- usually about 48 degrees -- that water flows, year-round,
when it emerges from springs in the limestone bluffs of the Driftless
Area. Browns and brookies aren't fans of wild temperature fluctuations.
Water doesn't take long to get from the surface to aquifers in the
porous earth, but it takes long enough to reach that temperature, either
by cooling in the summer or warming in the winter.
But the area is prone to sinkholes, Klotz explained. Pull too much water out of an aquifer, and it can collapse. . . .
Check out the whole column at the PiPress. It's no wonder Trout Unlimited is paying close attention to the issue--and letters from informed citizens are peppering the region's newspapers.
After being approached by township residents and landowners concerned
about property values, traffic, noise, water, dust and rare cacti, the
Ortonville Board of Supervisors enacted a moratorium while they wrote
land use ordinances. The moratorium was recently extend for a year.
In response the landowner, who had agreed to let his land be mined,
divided his property into smallers parcels that touched on the city
limits; the relatives then petitioned to have the parcels annexed into
the city.
Only one ruling--a denial--of one of the petitions was posted online last night. Today, Bluestem has received and posted a copy of Assistant Chief Administrative Law Judge Timothy O'Malley's memo about all of the petitions. While that of Gayle Hedge was approved , the rest were denied.
Not beinga lawyer, Bluestem can't say with certainty what this means, but it appears that Ortonville Township still has jurisdiction over the properties where all of the proposed Strata Corporation's rock processing, storage and shipping was to have taken place, while the property where the hole was to be dug is now part of the City of Ortonville.
Since the land that remains in Ortonville Township is subject to a moratorium, the quarry project can't--for the moment--go forward. We don't know what recourse the landowners, the City of Ortonville and Strata Corporation have at this point, but this is a positive development for the many people who sought to preserve the working landscape just outside of town.
Headwaters of the Minnesota River, Big Stone County is on the Minnesota-South Dakota border, directly west of the Twin Cities.
From the memorandum:
The urban or suburban character of the Subject Area is outside the jurisdiction of the OAH in
proceedings under annexation by ordinance. The OAH must determine that the jurisdictional
requirements for an annexation by ordinance are met before an ordinance is approved. The OAH
cannot conduct a hearing regarding disputes over the propriety of an annexation by ordinance.
Where the presented facts show that there is a jurisdictional defect, the ordinance must be denied.
Docket No. A-7829 has been approved as there are no procedural defects present.
Dockets Nos. A-7830, A-7831, A-7832, A-7833, and A-7834 have been denied as the City did
not receive petitions for annexation from all of the property owners as required by Minn. Stat. 5
414.033, subd. 2(3).
Here's a copy of Judge O'Malley's memorandum about his decision:
IMPORTANT UPDATE: The Environmental Quality Board (EQB) to act as regulatory government unit for the frac sand EIS for the 11 connected MN Sands mines in Winona Co. See section below on Winona County for more details. [end update]
How far in the bag for the Minnesota Industrial Sand Council is Representative Tim Kelly (R-Red Wing)?
Pretty far, judging by the contrast between the bill he's introduced in the Minnesota House with the reality of a snarl of environmental review woes facing projects across Southern Minnesota.
MDH on Jordan Sands: no coherent strategy for water quality
Lime Township’s next decision on the Jordan Sands silica sand mining
project has been delayed until May after the company asked for 60 extra
days to respond to public comments on an environmental study.
Jordan Sands asked for the delay to thoroughly answer questions about the study, CEO Scott Sustacek said.
“We think we can cover all the comments and questions that came up,” he said.
Oh really? And what might those questions be? Free Press staff writer Dan Linehan reports:
State agencies such as the Department of Health, the Pollution Control
Agency and the Department of Natural Resources joined the public in
submitting comments on the study.
The health department’s 10-page comment focuses on the potential for
groundwater contamination at the site, just north of Mankato. It says
the existing study doesn’t provide enough information regarding water
and chemical use to evaluate its risk on nearby wells. The response also
says the study doesn’t provide enough information to determine whether
the company’s proposal for monitoring wells is sufficient.
“It appears that no coherent strategy has been developed for monitoring
potential water quality impacts at this project,” the document states.
Okay then. No wonder residents in the area are hoping for Senator Matt Schmit's SF786 makes it to Governor Dayton's desk:
Lynn Austin, another 3rd Avenue resident, said he hopes the delay will
give the state time to implement more-stringent environmental standards,
especially on airborne silica sand particles.
One bill in the state Senate would establish a one-year moratorium on silica sand mines.
Winona County: Frac sand mines of three counties unite!
THIS SECTION IS UPDATED AND REVISED: The Winona Post's Sarah Schultz reports in EQB takes control of sand EIS:
The Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) has issued an order
whereby it will take responsibility for overseeing an environmental
review of 11 frac sand mines in Winona, Fillmore, and Houston counties
proposed by Minnesota Sands. The agency also found that the 11 mine
proposals should be considered "phased actions" and, therefore, must be
evaluated together in the environmental study.
The order and "conclusions of law" issued by the EQB came after
Fillmore and Houston county officials requested that a state agency
oversee the environmental study, rather than one of the three counties
in which the new mines were proposed. In its order, the EQB asserted
that it "has greater expertise in analyzing the potential impacts of the
proposed project than Fillmore, Houston, or Winona counties." . . .
Read the rest at the Winona Post.
Here's a copy of the EBQ's Draft Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Order on Requests to Designate a Different Responsible Governmental Unit for Environmental Review of Multiple Silica Sand Projects Proposed in Fillmore, Houston, and Winona Counties:
Over in Winona, Daily News staff writer Mary Juhl reports in Review of frac sand mines could extend to 3 counties, but as the Winona Post report indicates, the EBQ did not grant the company's wish about the DNR:
The comprehensive environmental review planned for two Winona County frac sand mines may widen to include mines in two neighboring counties.
Minnesota Sands agreed last month to complete an Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed Dabelstein and Yoder mines in Saratoga Township.
The company also plans to operate four mines in Fillmore County and one in Houston County, and has requested that all the mines be reviewed at the same time.
The company wants the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to lead the review process, a recommendation the counties are expected to discuss soon.
The Winona County Board of Commissioners is expected to weigh in today on whether it agrees with the company’s plan or whether it believes a different agency should lead the process.
It’s ultimately to the state’s Environmental Quality Board [EQB] to pick a government unit to oversee the process. Typically a local government will handle an EIS, but since this case involves multiple counties, it’s likely the board will choose a state agency.
Readers should remember that Minnesota Sands got to this place because review by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Department of Health revealed weaknesses in the company's environmental assessment worksheet (EAW):
Minnesota Sands agreed to the EIS after it came under scrutiny from
state agencies that questioned whether separate and less-intensive
environmental reviews on the mines would be enough. The commissioners of
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Minnesota Department of
Health both expressed concern that if the mines were studied separately,
there would be no way of knowing what cumulative effects could arise
from truck traffic, safety, air and water quality and other issues.
As the Winona Post reported, the EQB will act as the regulatory government unit for the 11 connected mines.
The St. Charles City Council is expected to vote today against
annexing township land for a large proposed frac sand processing
facility, which would leave the future of the facility in doubt.
Minnesota
Proppant made it clear more than a year ago that it wanted the proposed
site annexed into city limits so it could use city utilities.
But that’s not likely to happen, St. Charles Mayor Bill Spitzer said Monday.
“At this particular time, I think it’s time to step away,” he said. . . .
. . .Minnesota
Proppant in the past had said the project’s viability depended on the
ability to get city services. But it was unknown Monday whether the
company plans to move forward. Minnesota Proppant spokeswoman Jennifer
Dessner did not return phone calls Monday. She has not returned phone
calls for comment on multiple stories dating back to early this year.
How nice--but since this is an industrial sand mining and processing company, another shoe drops:
The company’s next move, if it chooses to continue pursuing the
facility, would be to seek a conditional-use permit from Winona County.
The county in the past has told St. Charles to take the lead on
permitting the facility, because if it’s approved and then at any point
annexed into the city, the city would have little control over it.
The
St. Charles Township board voted unanimously last year against orderly
annexation, and township officials have said they don’t want a frac sand
processing plant.
The city council has listened an uproar over
the plant dating back to spring 2012 from residents who don’t want the
plant near or within city limits. There have been two petitions
submitted opposing the plant — one with more than 1,000 signatures from
St. Charles residents.
Bluestem's sources tell us that the Winona County board is very friendly toward sand mining--regardless of what citizens and landowners want--so seeking a permit from the county might be a way around overwhelming local opposition.
This issues surrounding three different project underscore why grassroot citizens groups and Land Stewardship Project want a one-year, state-wide Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) to study issues related to sand mining, while a moratorium is in place for new projects.
Moratorium advocates point to the rush to construct large feedlots during the last GEIS, which didn't impose a moratorium.
Kelly: The Representative from MISC
So what's Representative Tim Kelly's response? According a report in the Rochester Post Bulletin, he's listening to the honeyed whispers of disgraced soon-to-be-former Red Wing Mayor, Minnesota Industrial Sand Council (MISC) Dennis Egan.
Picking dollars over duty, Egan resigned as mayor, effective April 1, following scrutiny over the ethical wrinkles created by serving Red Wing and Mammon.
A Red Wing Republican who opposes a
moratorium on silica sand mining is pushing another approach to deal
with concerns about the mining's impact on the region.
Rep. Tim Kelly, R-Red Wing, has introduced a bill
that would create a Silica Sand Technical Advisory Council comprised of
technical experts from four state agencies — the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota
Department of Health and Department of Transportation.
Note that those dirty hippies from the EQB are missing from this proposal. Dennis Egan couldn't be more pleased:
Dennis Egan, executive director of the Minnesota Industrial Sand
Council, said his organization favors Kelly's bill. They are strongly
opposed to a moratorium, which he said will unfairly penalize mining
companies across the state that have already sunk millions of dollars
into completing environmental reviews. Instead, it makes sense to have a
technical advisory council where local governments can get answers to
their questions.
"If we can find the dollars and the expertise for the
state agencies to drill down and work in those communities on their
specific issues, we think that is a great way to go," he said.
Land Stewardship Project legislative director Bobby King is not impressed:
But critics argue that the bill's failure to include a moratorium and
a requirement for a statewide Generic Environmental Impact Statement
means it won't adequately protect the public from the possible hazards
of silica sand mining.
"We would say it really falls short of what citizens
and local government officials have asked for the state legislature to
do, and the bill really won't prevent the frac-sand industry from
destroying southeast Minnesota like it has western Wisconsin," said
Bobby King, program organizer with the Land Stewardship Project
Read the whole article at the PB.
Grassroots frac sand mining critics mobilize for Wednesday
Local grassroots activists and Land Stewardship Project aren't stopping with criticism--they're mobilizing once again and heading to the capital for Wednesday's hearings in the Minnesota House. In MN House Holding First Hearing on Frac Sand Issue March 13, LSP urges action, favoring amending a bill introduced by Representative Rick Hansen (DFL-South St. Paul):
MN House to Hold First Hearing on the Issue
House File 906,
authored by Rep. Rick Hansen (DFL-Mendota Heights), will be heard
Wednesday, March 13, in the House Environment Policy Committee. House
File 906 calls for the Environmental Quality Board to develop standards
for frac sand ordinances that can be used by local units of government
and to create a technical assistance team to help local units of
government. We must work to strengthen this bill by making sure it
contains the key elements of Senate File 786.
TAKE ACTION
1. Attend the House Environment
Policy Committee hearing on House File 906 on Wednesday, March 13, at 4
p.m., in Room 200 of the State Office Building. If you want to testify on the bill, contact committee administrator Peter Strohmeier at 651-296-5069 or peter.strohmeier@house.mn. If you plan to attend, please let LSP's Bobby King know at 612-722-6377 or bking@landstewardshipproject.org.
2. Contact members of the House Environment Policy Committee. Every committee member needs to hear how important it is that the Legislature take strong action on this issue during this legislative session. (Check LSP's site for talking points.
We'll let readers know if the hearing is livestreamed.
Photo: A frac sand train wreck in Wisconsin.
If you appreciate reading posts on Bluestem Prairie, consider making a donation via paypal:
Minnesotans have a way of forgetting their past sometimes. The hard truths of the 1862 US-Dakota War and its terrible aftermath, lynchings and penny auctions, the guard called out to protect management--these things get buried under Minnesota Nice and then we have a little pie.
Few of those young people we know who've slept in parks as part of Occupy or resisted pipelines have heard of the powerline protests of the 1970s, when farmers objected to a high voltage powerline crossing their land on its way from North Dakota to near the Cities. They toppled transmission towers, they smeared themselves with pigshit and sat in the pathway of construction, and in the end, they lost.
One artifact of that time of struggle is a unique and rarely used Minnesota law called "Buy the Farm," which was designed to require utilities to do just that. With the construction of the CapX2020, a $2.2 billion project to upgrade the Midwestern electric grid, the shortcomings of the law's language have become clear.
Two news reports in the St. Cloud Times and the Winona Daily News tell parts of the story.
When the Lindbergs learned their Clearwater farm was along the route chosen for the CapX transmission line from Monticello to Fargo, N.D., they reluctantly decided to move. They believed a state law known as “Buy the Farm” would require the utility companies to purchase their entire property, not just the strip needed for the power line.
. . .The Lindbergs are among several landowners and attorneys who say the CapX utility companies’ delays, legal challenges and unnecessary burdens violate the spirit of the 1977 Buy the Farm law. They want changes in the law to give landowners affected by a high-voltage transmission line more rights and protections.
Xcel Energy and Great River Energy, two of the 11 utilities building CapX, say they have purchased dozens of properties and have contested only those that either aren’t eligible under law’s requirements or don’t fit its intent.
The utilities say the law hasn’t been tested in 25 years, is vaguely worded and lacks details about how the process is supposed to work.
“Because the law leaves so many blanks, we are trying to figure out where the lines are,” said Steve Quam, lead CapX attorney. . . .
The law was designed to give homeowners and farmers a way to move if they didn’t want to live next to a high-voltage transmission line. If the utility condemns part of a farm or residential property for an easement for a transmission line, the landowner can choose to compel the utility to purchase the entire property.
Some landowners questioned why a power company should have the same authority to condemn property as the government. State lawmakers agreed that the power of eminent domain is necessary for projects such as power lines that benefit the public good, Merriam said, but they decided to give landowners additional rights, too.
“The Buy the Farm provision was an attempt to change a little bit of that balance of power,” Merriam said.
The law applies only to lines 200 kilovolts or higher, of which there have been very few built in the last quarter century. The 345 kV Monticello-to-Fargo line was the first of the four CapX lines that will eventually stretch across the state, so the property owners along that route were among the first to test the law. . . .
Northfield Democrat David Bly has introduced HF0338, which modifies the law. One indication that the law cuts across partisan lines like a high voltage transmission line? Bly, one of the more progressive legislators, is joined by ultra-conservative Glenn Gruenhagen (R-Glencoe) in sponsoring the bill. Marohn reports:
Legislators have introduced several bills that would affect transmission line projects. One sponsored by Rep. David Bly, DFL-Northfield, would require the utility company to tell a landowner within 90 days whether it plans to accept or reject a Buy the Farm election.
The bill also would provide Buy the Farm landowners with all the rights under the state’s eminent domain law, including minimum compensation and relocation expenses. The House Energy Policy Committee heard testimony on the bill Feb. 12 but has not acted. No Senate hearings have been scheduled.
After years of regulatory wrangling, the high-voltage power line known as CapX2020 is about to become more real for Wisconsin land owners along its path.
In the past few weeks, the utilities behind the transmission line have notified hundreds of people who live and own property between Alma and Holmen that 150-foot towers will soon stand in their yards and fields, with 345-kilovolts of power humming along overhead.
Next begins a lengthy process of negotiation for the rights to the land, but unlike their counterparts in Minnesota, Wisconsin residents don’t have the option to sell out and walk away.
A joint initiative of 11 utilities, including Xcel Energy and Dairyland Power Cooperative, CapX2020 is a $2.2 billion project to upgrade the Midwestern electric grid. The 780 miles of new transmission lines will include a 150-mile section of 345-kilovolt line from Hampton, Minn., to a new station to be built in Holmen.
CapX2020 says the project will upgrade an outdated system, meet future demand and deliver alternative energy. Opponents argue energy demand is declining and the lines will actually carry coal power to the east while local customers bear the $500 million cost — an estimated $211 million for the Wisconsin portion — and suffer damage to health and property values.
Though so far unsuccessful, opponents said they aren’t through fighting the line, which received final approval from Minnesota and Wisconsin regulators last spring.
Go check out what's rumbling there.
Photo: Black helicopters and powerline construction. Really. Via KVSC.
If you appreciate reading posts on Bluestem Prairie, consider making a donation via paypal:
Since it's an article by Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism intern Kate Prengaman, one should approach with caution, but an article in today's LaCrosse underscores the need for more than just a list of "best practices" and that promises from the industrial sand mining industry aren't a substitute for strong state oversight.
But with Prengaman, we're supplied thinly sourced, industrial "growing pains" narrative.
And it's curious to note that while the article notes that nearly one-fifth of the active industrial sand operations violated their permits, readers never see a total dollar figure for the fines levied.
Nearly a fifth of Wisconsin’s 70 active frac sand mines and
processing plants were cited for environmental violations last year, as
the industry continued to expand at a rapid clip.
Violations
included air pollution, starting construction without permits and an
accident at the Preferred Sands mine in Trempealeau County, where a
mudslide during a heavy rainstorm damaged a neighboring property.
In
addition, the state Department of Natural Resources cranked out letters
of noncompliance — warnings to fix a problem before it becomes serious
enough to merit a notice of violation — at numerous facilities. . . .
“Some of these companies should have known better,” said Marty Sellers, a DNR air management engineer.
“They seem to put construction and production ahead of regulations.”
Oh, jeepers. What a surprise. Sadly, Prengaman doesn't think to file a data request for the number and location of frac sand mining and processing facilities that received letters of noncompliance, but goes for a hickey beside the jugular with the anecdotal:
Usually, Sellers said, the DNR expects 90 percent of companies in a
regulated industry to comply with rules on their own. But in his visits
to a dozen frac sand facilities, Sellers encountered the opposite
pattern, and he sent letters of noncompliance to 80 to 90 percent of the
sites.
That would be 10 or 11 of the industrial sand sites he visited, compared to the whole of a regulated industry, but as a suggestive but meaningless statistic, 90 percent sure is scary. As well as a distracting cover for the intern's failure to score public records.
The claim is sensational--but it's a minor anecdote. Producing those letters of noncompliance might actually give readers a concrete, documented sense of what the problems actually are--and how frequently they come up under WI DNR oversight.
She didn't do good enough exploration of the public record to prove that WI DNR
actually cares about how badly behaved this industry might be--or what that behavior might be--while just a little digging suggests that the agency is most interested in "partnering" with those it's charged with overseeing.
And buried in the story, after the tale of two Wisconsin Department of Justice (DOJ) investigations and three fines, this:
Nine companies that received violations faced no fines, Dix said. Their
violations were largely either paperwork problems or other easily
corrected issues.
Scott Walker: Emperor of Air
What's Wisconsin's response to the violations? That's a good question. First, let's look at Prengaman's text, which on the surface paints Governor Scott Walker as a real man of action:
Gov. Scott Walker has proposed two new DNR positions in his budget to
monitor the sand industry, by shifting $223,000 from other parts of the
budget.
The Wisconsin Industrial Sand Association, an industry
trade group representing five large companies, applauded the move.
Increasing staff will help to ensure that all mining companies operate
according to state laws, the group said in a press release.
Prengaman both buries and obscures the news that the two new Wisconsin DNR staff
positions in Walker's budget--the ones the Wisconsin Industrial Sand
Association so eagerly welcomes--will be assigned to the Air Program.
Seven paragraphs down from the paragraphs above she writes:
The proposed two new DNR positions would most likely be focused on
mines’ compliance with air quality regulations, said Tom Woletz, the
DNR’s point person for frac sand.
In an effort to expand the state’s management of natural resources in
and around industrial sand sites in Wisconsin, the Department of Natural
Resources has asked for two additional Air Program staff in its
biennial budget request to the Department of Administration.
While the link to the press release is provided on the Wisconsin Watch site, it's on the LaCrosse Tribune article--certainly not in print, and not online. Prengaman's text itself--what most readers will see--simply doesn't adhere to fact.
Moreover, the staff originally weren't envisioned to be working exclusively on industrial sand mining and processing oversight:
. . . Stepp noted that the two new staff will work in the Air Program on
compliance and permitting issues at sites around the state, including
industrial sand sites. . . .
. . .“With this high demand we’ve seen a significant increase in our air and
water permitting programs, as well as an increase in requests for
endangered and threatened species and archeological reviews,” said Tom
Woletz, special projects coordinator in the DNR’s Water Division and the
agency’s frac sand expert.
Read that closely. These new hires are designed to help clear high demand for the industry, far more than they are to protect citizens. It's the sort of mindset that views regulation as hoops to jump through, and the environmental consequences as mere "growing pains."
No wonder the Wisconsin Industrial Sand Association was so delighted with the request to shift funds:
Sand mines must also follow the same state requirements as other
nonmetallic mining operations in Wisconsin, said Woletz, including
getting necessary air and water permits and following state reclamation
laws.
“We’re also working with the newly formed Wisconsin Industrial Sand
Association (WISA),” said Woletz. “By engaging this organization, along
with other groups and the general public, we hope to keep an open
dialogue that helps us provide the best management possible for the
protection of our state’s public health and the environment.”
Governor Walker requests additional staff in state budget in effort to broaden DNR management at industrial sand sites
In an effort to expand the state's management of natural resources in and around industrial sand sites in Wisconsin,
Governor Scott Walker requested two additional staff in the Air Program
to work on compliance and monitoring activities as part of his
2013-2015 State Biennial Budget proposal to the Legislature.
While sand and gravel mining has existed in Wisconsin
for decades, a recent growth in the industry is occurring nationally,
attributed largely to hydrofracking, a technique used by the petroleum
industry to extract natural gas and crude oil from rock formations.
Within
the past few years, more than 70 sand mining and processing operations
either have been constructed or are under construction in the state. The
department estimates 40 additional "frac" sand mining or processing sources could become operational over the next few years.
"This rapid increase and expansion of sand mining and processing operations in Wisconsin has created a significant, new workload, in a compressed amount of time," said DNR Secretary Cathy Stepp. "We are committed to dedicating staff time and resources to protect Wisconsin's public health and the environment."
Staff in these positions will:
* conduct compliance activities for new and existing sand mines and to provide support to monitoring activities;
* conduct full or partial compliance inspections of operational frac sand operations for compliance with air pollution requirements;
* provide compliance assistance and assurance;
*
respond to complaints by following through with investigation and
compliance auditing, which may include partial compliance inspection;
*
ensure proper enforcement procedures are implemented in cases where
non-compliance is found, including referral to the DOJ when necessary;
and
* provide assistance with ambient air quality monitoring activities.
The closer one looks at this new staffing, the less there is to meet the eye. It's compliance and monitoring (DNR budget priority #24) for additional mines that will be coming online, not additional enforcement.
And adding up the handful of fines levied--remember, bureaucracies divide compliance from enforcement--we discover another fact omitted from Prengaman's reporting. For all the millions the industrial sand companies are pulling from the ground, the total fines charged for polluting the water are and the air?
$4127.00, although additional fines might come from the two incidents under investigation. Two of the three fines come from water permit violations--but no additional state resources are going into this area.
We're betting that the industry will point to that figure with pride--while laughing all the way to the bank.
Images: Map of 2012 violations from Wisconsin Watch (above); fines not yet added in for this spill, from which the investigation is still underway (Photo credit: MPR).
If you appreciate reading posts on Bluestem Prairie, consider making a donation via paypal:
In fact, Bluestem hopes you'll don your tinfoil hat and find somewhere as far away from the Minnesota River Basin as possible.
But if you're like the farmers, land owners, river rats and county commissioners up and down the river who've been working to make sure that Lake Pepin doesn't silt up--and dirt stays in your own pasture or field like any sane property owner would desire--the group's new Local Resource Management Scorecard is pretty nifty, packed with helpful information:
To view aggregate results from the counties in the Minnesota River Basin or to read about how the categories we chose relate to sediment, please visit our County Evaluation Overview Page. If you live in the Minnesota River Basin (in blue) you can click on your county . . .! The map also features the overlapping watersheds for every county in Minnesota; hover over your county to see.
...The mission of the Lake Pepin Legacy Alliance in developing this scorecard is to:
1) Recognize county successes in remediation of sedimentation and compliance with state and local regulations and best practices.
2) Recognize accountability in monitoring and enforcement of regulation.
3) Identify county specific obstacles to reducing soil erosion and keeping water on the land.
4) Identify specific opportunities and solutions to address these obstacles.
5) Encourage cooperation and collaboration among local units of government to plan and address the unifying water quality issues of the Minnesota River Basin, where appropriate.
6) Provide a means for counties to more easily share information on their processes, funding sources, success rates, and areas in need of attention.
Go check out the scorecard, which is chock-full of great information. Here's a video from the Alliance with more information about the project:
Much of the citizen and industry testimony--and those testifying--were repeats from the joint hearing the week before. Schmit offered amendments that added a one-year statewide moratorium to the bill, addressing criticism of the original language by Land Stewardship Project.
Grassroots activists shared their concerns about air and water quality, property values, traffic, tourism and the potential destruction of the landscape.
Along with industry and heavy equipment representatives, Republican state senators were skeptical of the need for the bill--or any additional state oversight of the industrial sand industy.
Peder Larson, a lobbyist representing the Minnesota Industrial Sand Council (MISC), noted that the industry group supports "strong state standards" for environmental review that are already in place. Larson recommended spending the money that would go toward a statewide Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) on hiring more staff for state agencies with oversight of sand mining.
Aggregate and Ready Mix Association President Fred Corrigan, geologist Kristen Pauly, and International Union of Operating Engineers Local 49 Legislative and Political Director Jason George reaffirmed their testimony from a week before that the industry will great jobs balanced with environmental protection.
As the committee deliberated the bill, Senator Julie Rosen (R-Fairmont) defended silica sand mining as both an "energy revolution" and "ag," insisting that rural Minnesotans simply accept dust, noise and smells. The activists who formed the bulk of the hearing room audience guffawed until committee chair John Marty (DFL-Roseville) gavelled the room silent.
She recited a litany of questions she had asked the DNR about drinking water, aquifers and wet mining. She noted that the answers were uncertain, and that local governments were often unable to answer complex technical questions.
She also decried bullying by mining corporations:
And then we can add in the intimidation factors. We will sue you or we will ask to be annexed by the city or a different government unit.
All these factors combined illustrate the need for Schmit's bill
To summarize, to protect the people in these communities across the state, we must have a statewide moratorium which gives the state time to prepare a generic environmental impact statement and our regulatory agencies time set and strengthen standards for this industry.
Beyond that, townships and counties need help. Perhaps the PCA and the DNR could establish area teams that could provide assistance in reviewing industry applications. I don't mean at the end of the process. I mean during the process.
Perhaps a list of environmental consultants that don't play both sides of the fence could be developed. Believe me in this, trust is everything.
It's possible that one environmental consultant Proctor had in mind was Kirsten Pauly, who testified later in the hearing on behalf of MISC.
In January, KEYC-TV, Mankato's CBS/FOX affiliate, reported in Frac Sand Review in Lime Township that that Pauly consulted for Jordan Sands:
Residents of Lime Township get their first full look at a proposed frac sand processing plant.
It
was a tough task to take on, as dozens of residents get a crash course
in how frac sand is made, also learning about the environmental concerns
over this particular process.
Numerous problems were mentioned in the environmental assessment worksheet, or EAW, from water to air to traffic.
The focus however, just may come down to a rare little bird.
Kirsten
Pauly, a geologist who gave the presentation of the EAW, says, "The
focus of the EAW then becomes the loggerhead shrike."
Jordan Sands listed several protective measures they would take to protect the protected bird.
Later in Tuesday's hearing, Republican senators started addressing questions about the state environmental review process to Pauly, rather than to state agency personnel who were on hand. Perhaps this line of questioning illustrates the lack of independence Procter testified undercuts the process--or Pauly's professionalism.
The Senate State and Local Government Committee has yet to schedule a hearing for Schmit's bill.
A few highlights of the testimony:
Watch or listen to the entire hearing at the Environment and Energy Committee's media page.
All of the statements, opinions, and views expressed on this site by Sally Jo Sorensen are solely her own, save when she attributes them to other sources.
The opinions, statements, and views of contributing writers are their own.
Sorensen, editor and proprietor of Bluestem Prairie, served as a New Media training and strategy consultant for the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party from October 2009 through mid-April 2010. She now serves clients in the business and nonprofit sectors.
Recent Comments