The ban is touted as a way to protect the tourism industry from heavy industrial truck traffic.
Pepin
County only has one operating frac sand mine but people in the towns of
Pepin and Stockholm are worried more will spring up along the bluffs
that line the Mississippi River. Pepin County Board Supervisor Bill
Mavity represents the area and has co-authored an ordinance that would
create a mine-free zone the shore from Pierce County to the mouth of the
Chippewa River.
“It’s a narrow strip of land that
houses a great deal of the tourism business in Pepin County. It’s about
10 percent of the land mass. It produces or provides about 30 percent of
the tax base for the whole county.”
At The Price of Sand, documentary filmmaker Jim Tittle has released seven short YouTube clips drawn from an interview with Dr. Thomas Power, an economist from Montana State University, where he served as Chairman of the Economics Department and taught for 40 years. Power is the author of The Economic Benefits and Costs of Frac-Sand Mining in West Central Wisconsin, a study recently released by the Wisconsin Town Association, the Wisconsin Farmers Union, and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. We've embedded a copy of the study below the seven videos.
The Free Lunch Approach: Public Relations "Economic" Studies by Industry:
Multiplier Liars: Flawed assumptions and analysis in sand happy job talk
Frac Sand industry spokesters claim that every dollar of their payroll is multiplied in local communities. Some claim the value of these dollars is seven, or even sixteen times the amount paid. Here's what Power says about that (and he's not the only one questioning large multipliers):
Who Holds the Dollars? Will the frac sand industry make small town economies stronger?
Double Whammy: Extracting a mineral to extract oil and gas somewhere else?
Smell the Dirt: When a frac sand mine moves in, will it affect property values?
Buy A Truck, Make a Buck: When a new frac sand mine opens, some people borrow money, buy a truck, and go into business hauling frac sand. What's the risk?
Frac Sand See Saw: Powers answers the question, "How long will the frac sand jobs last?"
A divorced single mother in St. Charles, who supports the freedom to marry, received a mailer yesterday from Minnesota for Marriage that she shared via Facebook.
Both sides of the M4M mail piece appeal to fear: one image features a startled blonde toddler and the text: "Which parent do I not need, my mom or my dad?," while the other carries an injunction: "Don't let the metro area force gay 'marriage' on the rest of the state," along with the command to tell Senator Matt Schmit to vote against the Dibble bill.
The quote echoes a statement by 11-year-old Grace Evans in testimony to the state legislature. (However sincere Evans was in asking the question, Bluestem believes it's a red herring, since marriage equality will not change Grace's own family).
A standard trope of the right, the metro v. rural trope roughly reflects the division of the no and yes votes on the marriage amendment, although a number of non-metro counties with larger and younger populations--Cook, St. Louis, Blue Earth, Nicollet, Olmsted, Rice, and Winona counties--voted no.
Bluestem has seen the divisive urban/rural split invoked to spook Greater Minnesota voters into picking Republicans in the past; however, the election of pro-marriage equality DFLers like Vicki Jensen in pro-amendment Steele County suggests that the issue isn't quite the 2014 or 2016 deal breaker that some are suggesting a yes vote might be.
Nor have M4M rallies drawn throngs in rural Minnesota, as we noted in Greater MN leaves M4M road trip out in the cold. Another is planned for this weekend, including a stop in Montevideo. Now that we've relocated to Maynard, Bluestem will be asking our new state senator and representative to vote "yes" in honor of the RV's visit.
Our friend in St. Charles was unmoved by the appeal, and planned to call Matt Schmit to vote yes on the Dibble bill. On Facebook, she writes of the absurdity of the logic in the mailer:
Definitely--the conclusion is that if gay marriage passes, a lot of us will adopt the lifestyle, leave our heterosexual partners and establish same-sex parented households. It's ridiculous. It's a virus..wha, ha, ha. But why do they care, and who appointed them the arbiters and judges of what society should look like? Take the stye outta your own eye...your neighbor is none of your business. And a lot of those rural folk may have gay sons or daughters--big blind spot for the marriage crowd.
Another sign that a "yes" vote might not be a death knell? Tim Kelly, who had introduced a bill that would allow recognition of civil unions, now is revising the language so that it will be civil unions for everyone, PIM's Briana Bierschbach reports in New civil unions bill would remove word ‘marriage’ from law:
Kelly is revamping his proposal to allow civil unions in the state,
which previously inserted “civil unions” alongside any instance of the
word “marriage” in state statute. The bill got a cold reception from
gay marriage advocates earlier this month, but his new bill would
eliminate “marriage” from lawbooks and enshrine “civil unions” in its
place.
“The arguments [from critics] have been that I’ve created a separate
but equal definition,” Kelly said. “Over the last week and a half, that
has been the only real kickback. People said, ‘We understand what you
are trying to do, but what you haven’t done is you don’t call it the
same thing.’ By removing marriage from statute we have the same rights
for everyone.”
Gov. Mark Dayton made an impassioned case Thursday that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry in Minnesota, kicking off a frigid outdoor Capitol rally that intensified pressure on legislators to pass a marriage measure.
“Yes to marriage, yes to same-sex marriage, yes to the constitutional right, the American right, to marry the person you love,” Dayton told hundreds of cheering supporters.
The DFL-controlled Legislature is weeks away from voting on a measure that would make Minnesota the 10th state to legalize same-sex marriage. Legislators are grappling with the issue as the U.S. Supreme Court takes a closer look at restrictions on same-sex marriage.
Dayton dismissed a last-ditch proposal by opponents of same-sex marriage to offer gay and lesbian couples the protection of civil unions.
“People don’t want to be civil unioned, they want to be married,” Dayton said.
The governor urged supporters to meet with legislators and “be respectful, but be persuasive.”
Right now, neither side is declaring victory, and those involved believe the margin will be only a couple votes. That has both sides frantically meeting with undecided legislators.
Perhaps the most encouraging cameo at yesterday's rally was put in by undecided state representative Tim Faust. On Saturday, KARE-11 reported in Anti-gay marriage rally held in Hinckley:
. . .State Representative Tim Faust of Hinckley told the crowd that he was
not entirely sure why he was speaking to them since he had not decided
yet how to vote on the gay marriage bills moving through the
legislature.
"I will always, always give you the opportunity to convince me that
you're right. Always. and the problem is that I also will give the other
side the opportunity to convince me that they're right too. It goes
both ways," said Faust.
He invited those assembled to write and call him with their opinions. . . .
Rep. Tim Faust, DFL-Hinckley, has been one of the most watched members of the House on the marriage issue. He’s an undecided DFLer from a largely rural area that voted overwhelmingly for an amendment in November that would have banned same-sex marriage in the state Constitution.
A week ago, Faust had told a group of gay marriage opponents that he was unsure how he would vote.
On Thursday, Faust said for the first time that he is leaning toward legalizing same-sex marriage — even if many of his constituents disagree.
Faust stood to the side of the rally Thursday, unprotected from the sleet and rain. He said nearly all the arguments against same-sex marriage are biblical but noted that many devoted people view it the other way.
“Then the question becomes, do we have the right to impose our religious belief on others?” Faust asked. “If the reason we are arguing we shouldn’t be doing this is because of religious beliefs, it’s pretty hard to make that argument.”
Moments later, state Rep. Karen Clark walked up to Faust. The Minneapolis DFLer is a lead sponsor of the same-sex marriage legislation.
She locked arms with Faust and smiled. Then the two walked though the driving sleet back to the Capitol.
Perhaps Faust had noticed that in much worse weather than a week ago, far more people from across the state came out to speak respectfully of Minnesota values like fairness and civility than to listen to Colorado resident Glenn Stanton talked about debunked anthropology. KSTP-TV reports in Rain, Sleet, Snow Doesn't Stop Gay Marriage Rally:
When supporters of a bill legalizing gay marriage planned an outdoor
rally at the Minnesota State Capitol for April 18, they probably thought
they had a good chance for decent weather.
It turns out, they couldn't have been more wrong. Of course, no one
was predicting "spring" weather featuring rain, sleet and snow on an
almost daily basis. Despite the weather, hundreds of people showed up
to hear Governor Dayton and gay marriage bill authors voice their
support for the legislation.
Meanwhile, opponents of the gay marriage bill continue a "Minnesota for
Marriage Road Trip" across the state. This weekend a bus caravan will
make stops in Montevideo, Eden Prairie, Owatonna, Austin and Rochester . . .
Some things are just better parked by the side of the road of history.
Photos: One side of the M4M mailer (top) and the anti-gay travel route for this weekend (bottom). Call your state senator and representative and ask them to vote "Yes" for the freedom to marry.
If you appreciate reading posts on Bluestem Prairie, consider making a donation via paypal:
Certain parts of the comparison were picked up by pro-status quo mining folks as evidence that were Minnesota to enact some of the industrial sand mining regulatory bills moving through the state legislature, potential added costs would cause the sandmen to pick up their dump trucks and leave.
Dunbar noted the difference in permit fees:
Permit Fees: Industry officials say environmental permit fees are
generally higher in Minnesota, and sometimes Minnesota bills companies
for the time it takes to evaluate a permit request. For example,
Mankato-based Unamin Corp. said it paid Minnesota officials $150,000 to
evaluate a water use permit, and the water use fees were about 10 times
the cost of Wisconsin's.
Well, that's certainly scary.
Dunbar had noted that Minnesota's review is more stringent, but two new reports from Wisconsin Public Radio suggest that even the Badger State's more lax regulation is a burden to counties. Rick Kremer reports in Even With Hikes, Frac Sand Permit Fees Often Don't Cover Public Cost:
Some counties in western Wisconsin are increasing frac sand permit fees
to keep taxpayers from subsidizing the industry; however, the additional
revenue still is not covering the costs in some cases. . . .
Chase Cummings is the Pepin County land conservationist. He says they
only have one frac sand mine operating, but their permit fee has not
come close to covering the cost: “We spent probably, over 2011 and 2012,
almost 800 hours just on one mine site in our office on a $900 plan
review fee.”
This year, a number of counties in western Wisconsin
have changed their permit review fees including Pepin County, which
increased it to more than $7,000 for large mines. Barron County’s permit
review fee was $750 but now can go as high as $10,000.
Even so,
County Zoning Administrator David Gifford says they are not breaking
even: “I would say at this time we are not covering 100 percent of the
time that is invested into non-metallic mining.”
Also striking is
the difference in permit fees between counties. Last week, a frac sand
mining company in Trempealeau County paid $25,000 to have its permit
reviewed, but just next door in Jackson County, companies need only pay
$350. A 2008 Department of Natural Resources report showed that 13
Wisconsin Counties were operating their reclamation programs at a
deficit. . . .
County conservation officials say keeping tabs on frac sand mining is
taking up nearly all of their time, leaving issues of manure runoff and
farmland preservation on the back burner.
Chippewa County land conservationist Dan Masterpole says since 2008,
his office has been hammered with permit applications for 10 frac sand
mines and at least three processing facilities.He says even with extra
temporary help, other responsibilities like grant-writing and helping
farmers enroll in land conservation programs have taken a back seat.
Even more serious, Masterpole says the sand mining rush has taken away from efforts to manage farm runoff.
“We
curtailed response to public complaints, principally feedlot discharges
and manure runoff. We simply have not been able to work on some of the
worst barnyards in the county, whereas traditionally we always had one
or two of the most serious dischargers putting in best management
practices.”
In Barron County, 13 frac sand operations have been permitted with other applications pending. . . .
It's not just frac sand mining activists and Minnesota local government officials' imagination. Local government in Western Wisconsin is being overwhelmed by the sand rush. The demand for legislative relief before the industry digs up Southeastern Minnesota was triggered by the experience of local citizens sounding an alarm and local government asking for help as the industry eyes Minnesota's silicia sand.
Photo: We don't really want a Wisconsin-style sand train wreck here. A recent sand train wreck near Hatfield, Wisconsin.
If you appreciate reading posts on Bluestem Prairie, consider making a donation via paypal:
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:
While Southeastern Minnesota might be the land of 10,000 sinkholes, Department of Natural Resources (DNR) hydrogeologist Jeff Green tells area residents that they have little to fear.
Though there haven't been any sinkholes
that have swallowed homes in southeast Minnesota recently, that doesn't
mean they aren't present across the landscape.
Jeff Green, a hydrogeologist for the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources, said there are currently about 10,000 sinkholes that
have been inventoried in this section of the state, but it's difficult
to get an exact figure.
. . . Sinkholes are nothing new for residents of Steele County. In March
2004, a portion of County Road 45 — near the interchange with Highway
14 and what is now Federated Insurance Companies' A.T. Annexstad
Building — collapsed, leaving a gap in the road that was 15 feet deep
and 20 feet wide. The collapse happened just moments after a sports
utility vehicle and a gravel truck had driven over that exact spot in
the road . . .
Still Green doesn't fret much:
Green said while the types of sinkholes that occur in Minnesota are
similar to the ones that happen in Florida, they aren't of the same
magnitude.
"We have big sinkholes here, and we have sinkholes
that pop up every year -- we have a very dynamic landscape," Green said.
"It's the same process but it's a different magnitude.
"Put it this way, I don't lay in bed at night worrying that a sinkhole is going to get me."
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.
We're a bit behind the curve in commenting on this story, but the consequences of budget cuts proposed by DFL leadership in the Minnesota House and Senate don't look good for the poor and vulnerable in rural areas.
Add a hike in the minimum wage--which Bluestem favors--nursing home and hospital administrators could be in the untenable situation of having to raise wages while receiving smaller checks from the state. These new cuts will come after a round of cuts from two years of Republican control of the legislature.
Democrats in the House and Senate want to cut $150 million in spending
from health and human services programs. After education, health and
human services is the second-largest portion of the state's two-year
budget at $11 billion in general fund spending. But it is increasing at a
fast rate, and that worries DFL House Speaker Paul Thissen. . . .
The proposed spending cut is troubling lawmakers in charge of crafting
budgets for health services and human services. They have to set
priorities for spending for nursing homes, hospitals, subsidized health
insurance and welfare. The budget is complicated because it includes
money from the federal government and other funds.
DFL Rep. Tom Huntley of Duluth, who
chairs the House Health and Human Services Finance Committee, said he is
unhappy . . .
"I'm very upset. I came close to
resigning as chair," Huntley said. "If that's what the Democrats are
going to do, what's the difference between that and what the Republicans
have done over the last two years?"
Huntley said about 90 percent of the
health and human services budget is directed at programs for the
disabled and the elderly. He said he thinks it will be difficult to cut
$150 million without harming those people.
His counterpart in the Senate, Tony Lourey, isn't any happier. But perhaps the greatest dismay comes from those who work with the disabled and the elderly. Their budgets were slashed two years ago when Governor Dayton and the Republican legislature cut $1.2 billion from health and human services programs.
Bruce Nelson, CEO of the Association
of Residential Resources in Minnesota, which advocates for community
living for people with disabilities, said he was hoping lawmakers would
give nursing home and community-based home workers a cost of living
increase. Now Nelson worries they won't get a raise or may get their pay
cut.
"When they don't see an increase in
their paychecks for maybe now the fifth year in a row, they're going to
move on to other jobs," Nelson said. "And that really does compromise
the quality of care for our most vulnerable Minnesotans."
Rep. Mary Franson, R-Alexandria, said she does not have a problem with cuts, but this area actually needs increased money.
Franson
said, especially in nonmetro Minnesota, hospitals and nursing homes are
having trouble keeping good employees because of the pay, and some
people are not getting the care they need.
“They are really struggling,” she said.
Politics can make for odd bedfellows, and this development is making for some odd bunking arrangements. Franson's no friend to unions, but we've been contacted by a couple of labor activists distraught with these cuts. One pointed out that if the state minimum wage is raised, rural nursing homes and hospitals will face both cuts and the need to pay higher wages.
Another labor leader writes that he's trying to understand the logic, but doesn't.
We don't either. Surely, there are other areas where government can be made more efficient than one that has been cut and cut. We like the governor's target--a modest increase--far better.
Photo: Nursing home residents.
Donate: If you enjoy reading posts like this at Bluestem, consider throwing some coin in the plate at Paypal:
Governor Mark Dayton may have come out against a one-year moratorium on industrial sand mining while a Generic Environmental Impact Statement is conducted, but a story by Stephanie Hemphill at Minnesota Public Radio illustrates why grassroots citizen groups in Southeastern Minnesota are asking for both.
. . .The EQB is a multi-agency oversight
body that received a petition to do an in-depth study of the possible
environmental effects of frac sand mining. . . .
That kind of study would take
several years and cost a lot of money. In the meantime, the agency has
produced a 90-page report that summarizes the issues.
So far the questions outnumber the
answers regarding possible impacts on the environment, the economy and
local communities, said EQB planner Jeff Smyser.
One of those questions involves a very scary thing: sinkholes. Probably not Florida-scale sinkholes--and the water quality concerns that are related to sinkhole-producing karst geology are a whole lot more vexsome:
The report includes . . .maps of
southeastern Minnesota's unusual geology, known as karst geology, where
rich deposits of silica sand are found. That makes it tricky to predict
underground water flows, Smyser said. The limestone bedrock easily
creates sinkholes and causes unpredictable groundwater flows.
"It's kind of difficult to know
where the water's going to go, just what effects use of groundwater,
discharge of processing water is going to have because of that karst
geology out there," he said. "So that's a real tricky question that's
real hard to answer at this point."
A number of silica-sand related bills are working their way through the Minnesota legislature. Senator Matt Schmit's SF786 provides for a GEIS and a one-year moratorium; Schmit has also introduced a bill that creates setbacks to protect fish and sensitive natural areas in the driftless region. Rep. Hansen's HF906 creates standard and a technical assistance team team to help local government regulate sand mining; he also has a bill to protect wellheads and natural areas in the region.
While bills related to regulating the frac sand industry make their way through the Minnesota state legislature, sand mining continues to generate headlines in Minnesota and Wisconsin.
With Republicans Denny McNamara (R-Hastings) and Tim Kelly (R-Red Wing) signed on as sponsors--and most objections (other than having a bill at all) from the silica sand industry overcome, the Rick Hansen (DFL-South St. Paul) bill retains its basic shape: technical assistance for local government in permitting and monitoring under the aegis of the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) but no Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) or one-year moratorium.
Listen to the action at the end of the audio here. SF1018, introduced by Senator Matt Schmit (DFL-Red Wing), is the senate companion bill.
Minnesota Public Radio's Stephanie Hemphill reported on the bills' earlier progress in Frac sand mining bill clears another hurdle. The Schmit bill was heard in committee but audio has yet to be posted.
Permits move ahead in Fillmore and Winona Counties
A quarry southeast of Lanesboro that has
been extracting silica sand since 2008 with little notice is asking to
expand from 18.6 acres to 50 acres.
Reilly Construction Co., of Ossian, Iowa, which operates the mine
on the land of Sandra and John Rein near the unincorporated town of
Highland, submitted an environmental assessment worksheet on Jan. 10.
The public comment period has ended, and Fillmore County is responding
to questions and comments, said Zoning Administrator Chris Graves. About
a dozen people or governmental agencies commented on the document.
It's possible the EAW will come before the county
board at the end of this month or in early April, he said. If it finds
the worksheet meets requirements, the board can approve it and the
quarry can apply for a conditional use permit that would allow the
expansion.
While similar mines that were proposed for south of St. Charles brought
heavy criticism and comment, the Rein mine has been operating without
problems, he said. "They have been a really good mine," he said. . . .
The comments on the Rein proposal centered around many of the same
concerns as those commenting on the Saratoga proposals — traffic,
health, water pollution and noise.
The Rein worksheet also had comments from people who
feared damage to two trout streams — Nepstad and Gribben — because their
headwaters are around Highland.
That's not quite the situation in Winona County, where the small scale of a 20-acre site that will be worked out in three years is meeting little resistance. The Winona Daily News' Jerome Christenson reports in Commission: EIS not required for Nisbit mine:
If the county board’s willing and the state doesn’t intervene, Winona
County’s first new frac sand mine could go into operation this spring.
On
a 5-3 vote, the Winona County Planning Commission recommended that the
county board not require an Environmental Impact Statement for the
proposed Nisbit mine.
Mine operator Tom Rowekamp said he was
pleased with the vote. “We know people have concerns,” he said, “We’ve
done our best to address them. I don’t know what else we could do.”
The
proposed 20-acre mine site is located in Saratoga Township outside
Utica on land owned by David and Sherry Nisbit. The site lies on the
north side of Gethje Lane, a dead-end private road. Current plans call
for about 200,000 tons of sand to be removed each year for about three
years, at which time the commercially available sand is expected to be
exhausted. The mined area will be recovered with topsoil and planted to
native prairie. . . .
. . .Three fourths of the dozen or so who spoke at the public hearing favored
requiring an EIS for the mine, citing concerns about dust, water
quality and increased truck traffic. . . .
Commissioner Jim Hegland said he lived about a mile and a half from the
mine site and shared the concerns of the speakers, but “there’s only so
much research we can do before we have to do something.” He said the
Nisbit mine’s small size and limited prospective lifetime make it a good
test case for silica mine regulations in the county.
Much of the opposition to other proposed projects centers either on their massive scale--as in the moribund proposal for a mammoth processing and mining complex in St. Charles--or their location near homes, schools or sensitive natural areas, along with unanswered questions about the industry's impact.
With Gov. Scott Walker’s new budget including assistance for the sand mining industry, a controversial frac sand operation near the Lower Wisconsin River is moving closer to approval.
The town of Bridgeport Planning Commission has OK’d a conditional use permit for Pattison Sand Co. of Clayton, Iowa, to locate a mine near the Lower Wisconsin State Riverway, setting up a final vote by the Town Board on March 27.
Mine opponents packed the Bridgeport Town Hall for the commission meeting last week but were given little opportunity to speak during the three-hour hearing, according to reports. . . .
“It’s supposed to be ‘For the People and By the People’ but that didn’t happen,” Arnie Steele of Bridgeport Concerned Citizens told the Courier Press in Prairie du Chien.
The group says it will consider legal action but Bridgeport attorney Todd Infield had advised the commission that it couldn’t deny a permit simply based on citizen opposition. Timing may be an issue as well for the town of Bridgeport, with elections scheduled for April 2. The town chairman and two supervisors are facing challenges from mining opponents.
The Riverway Board has urged Pattison to withdraw its application,
saying that while the project might meet the letter of the law, the mine
would detract from the scenic area and potentially conflict with the
federal Highway Beautification Act of 1965.
Last
month, the company was cited by the state Department of Natural
Resources for violating its air pollution permit at a facility in
Prairie du Chien where processed sand is transferred from trucks to rail
cars. Pattison says it is taking steps to address those problems and
has not been fined
The Rochester Post Bulletin reports in Dayton not ready to impose statewide ban on silica sand mining that the governor isn't siding with citizen demands for a one-year moratorium while a statewide Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) is conducted.
Instead, he murmurs sweet sentiments about grassroots citizen opposition to the mammoth St. Charles project. Rural Minnesotans are so cute when we're mad.
PB political reporter Heather Carlson writes:
FL Gov. Mark Dayton said Tuesday he does
not support a statewide moratorium on silica sand mining at this time
but does back tougher regulations.
"If the industry starts to spiral out of control, then I wouldn't
hesitate to call for a moratorium. But I don't think we've reached that
point," he said.
The governor also praised St. Charles officials for their recent
decision not to move ahead with a silica-sand processing and
transportation project.
"The actions the citizens of St. Charles took are
really courageous and compelling," he said, "and it says to the
Legislature that there are a lot of people in that area affected by this
who are very concerned."
Courageous, compelling--and not on the legislative priority lists of most of the state's NGO environmental groups, regardless of how many people mobilize regionally on this issue. That should help out the industry dismiss those grassroots citizens' concerns.
Perhaps Dayton could signal which "tougher regulations" he wants--after all, he was able to write a new sand tax into his budget.
Meanwhile, the industrial sand corporations were crying poor mouth at the hearing for the proposed tax. Carlson reports:
The silica sand mining industry is fiercely opposed to a moratorium,
arguing that companies already spend millions of dollars on required
environmental reviews. Mine owners are also upset at the idea of
additional taxes. On Tuesday, the House Taxes Committee held a hearing
on a bill sponsored by Hansen to impose a $1 per ton tax on the
extraction of silica sand. The bill would also allow counties to impose
an aggregate tax of up to 30 cents per ton of material and add a tax on
the processing of silica sand equal to 3 percent of the sand's market
value. Money raised from the tax would be used to help cover
transportation costs related to mining, acquire land to protect
environmentally sensitive areas from mining and acquire permanent
easements to protect drinking water.
Mike Wallenius, vice president of operations for
Unimin, told committee members the legislation would increase the
Mankato mining company's taxes anywhere from $16 million to $27 million
per year.
. . . House Taxes Committee member Greg Davids, R-Preston,
said this level of taxation would serve as a de facto moratorium by
"pricing folks out of the market."
Hansen emphasized that the bill is not aimed at
stopping silica sand mining in the state. Instead, it is geared towards
protecting residents.
"I don't want to have something happen where we have a
mine and all of a sudden we have a town that has run out of drinking
water because we have impacted the wellhead drinking area," he said.
Hansen's not aiming for a stealth moratorium--and he doesn't support a statewide GEIS. We'd talked one-on-one about the issue last November at the Minnesota Farmers Union convention, and he'd shared the concepts that have worked their way into his bills.
The bill was laid on the table for future consideration as part of a larger tax bill.
What lesson from Wisconsin and Minnesota rules?
A Minnesota Public Radio report from Elizabeth Dunbar, How Minnesota and Wisconsin's frac sand mining rules differ, is likely to be cited by pro-Walker and pro-industry sources as proof that we need to leave this poor little profitable industry alone, but the details suggest that the concerns of the courageous peasants of St. Charles are well-grounded:
Reclamation: Reclamation is
the plan a mining company makes with the government to shut down the
mine and reclaim the land for another use. Wisconsin state law requires
all mining companies to have a plan ahead of time and to provide
financial assurance in case the company goes belly up. Minnesota has no
state law requiring reclamation plans, but many local governments
require it.
State Resources: Wisconsin's
Department of Natural Resources has had a designated point-person for
frac sand mining since August 2011. Sand mining companies can field
questions and permit requests through that staff person. Minnesota has
no designated sand mining staff, and companies must fulfill permit
requirements through two different state agencies: the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources and the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency.
Inspections: Neither state
has designated inspectors to monitor the silica sand mining industry.
State inspections of air, water and other permits are done periodically
across industries.
Reclamation, state resources and inspection are issues citizens have raised locally and at the state capitol--while mining companies push the notion that they can monitor themselves.
Dunbar notes that the two states have much different use levels for triggering a water use permit:
Water Appropriation: Silica sand processing uses a lot of water.
Mines in both states must have water appropriation permits if they plan
on pumping more than a certain number of gallons. The volume of water
that triggers the permit requirement is different in each state:
Minnesota requires the permit for pumping more than 10,000 gallons/day,
and Wisconsin requires it for pumping 70 gallons/minute. (If you pump
water at 70 gallons/minute over a 24-hour period it calculates out to
about 100,800 gallons.
Readers are left to connect another dot on their own with that one. Minnesota's water use has been much in the news of late--and those water permit inspections frequently show that users exceed permit levels.
At a time when drought threatens state water supplies, scores of
water permit holders in Minnesota are illegally using billions of
gallons more water then they're entitled to.
Over the last six years, hundreds of
individuals, businesses and even state government agencies have pumped
more than their permit allows, according to state Department of Natural
Resources records. But violators face few consequences for these
misdemeanor violations. Even in a two-year drought, DNR officials admit
they don't spend much time enforcing permit limits.
Steil points out that the DNR's resources are focused on processing new permits and discovering unpermited wells, rather than enforcement.
In the world of bureaucracy, inspection and enforcement are two different creatures, and so a cautionary lesson emerges from recent coverage of the industry in Wisconsin, Frac sand industry faces DNR violations, warnings.
The much-cited report notes:
Usually, [Air Program officer Marty] 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.
DNR compliance officials acknowledged they have been stretched thin
monitoring the sand industry, which has grown from a handful of sites
five years ago to more than 100 permitted mining, processing or
transport facilities today.
. . . 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.
Bluestem was pretty curious about that anecdote and we've put in a public documents request for Sellers' letters of noncompliance. In talking to Sellers and his supervisors, we've learned that since the state of Wisconsin assigns Air Program staff by region rather than industry--and all of the frac industry is in Sellers' region, he's the only staffer visiting the industry.
The two new positions will help with permitting and compliance--while (if we read Walker's budget correctly) the "other parts of the budget" seem to two enforcement positions.
As the lackadaisical enforcement of the state's water permits suggest, Minnesota must think through not only permitting and compliance issues, but enforcement as well. Hansen's silica tax provides for funding to repair roads and to fund preventative measures to protect wellheads and acquire sensitive natural areas.
All are laudable goals--and given the return on this industry (all poor mouthing aside), it's not unreasonable to ask an extractive industry to pay for the consequences of its activity. What the silica sand tax bill doesn't fund are inspections and enforcement.
Photo: Aerial view of a Wisconsin silica sand mine. Photo by Jim Tittle. Used with permission.
If you appreciate reading posts on Bluestem Prairie, consider making a donation via 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.
Reading around Southern Minnesota's newspapers this afternoon, it's clear--from Red Wing and Winona to Mankato--that the promise of legislative relief at the state capitol has not led to a ceasefire in the field.
Red Wing City Council voted 4-1 to accept the resignation letter of Mayor Dennis Egan Monday night.
Egan made no comment as the motion was brought up for discussion. . . .
Read the entire story at the RWRE. Egan resigned, effective April 1, after he was roundly criticized for accepting a position as the executive director of the Minnesota Industrial Sand Council to lobby for the industry. The city has frequently been at odds over mining, and the council has adopted a resolution supporting a statewide Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) and one-year moratorium.
Lately, I've read a slurry of letters that attempt to diminish
the severity of Mayor Dennis Egan’s ethical breech of conduct in
accepting a lobbying position with the Minnesota Industrial Sand
Council. The writers make inflated references to lynch mobs, freedom,
shame, and disrespect. The most absurd is that he took his new position
to simply “feed his family.”
Such exaggerated versions of
Egan’s victimhood and innocence and Egan’s own exploitation of his
political position for personal gain is the real shame here. Red Wing
citizens reacted no differently than the rest of an appalled Minnesota
at the news that our mayor took a job lobbying on behalf of a mining
council whose mission directly conflicts with city ordinances . . .
Winona state Sen. Jeremy Miller introduced legislation this week that
he says will keep frac sand permitting decisions in the hands of local
governments while giving them greater access to state resources.
Miller
is proposing the formation of a Silica Sand Technical Advisory Council,
which would bring together representatives from state agencies like the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources, and the Minnesota Department of Health to provide guidance
for local governments as they navigate permitting, environmental
reviews, and other issues related to the frac sand industry. Rep. Tim
Kelly, a Republican from Red Wing, has introduced companion legislation
in the House, and both measures have gained early bipartisan support. . . .
He did sign on to two bills that match the paper's description, however: SF1258 (chief author Kathy Sheran, DFL-Mankato) and SF1257 (chief author Matt Schmit, DFL-Red Wing). The latter bill, introduced by Schmit, is the companion bill to Kelly's HF1367.
Neither senate bill has received a hearing--while in the House, Rep. Rick Hansen's (DFL-South St. Paul) bill was heard and moved on Wednesday. It places technical assistance and some environmental review in the hands of the EBQ, but doesn't call for an GEIS or a state-wide moratorium on new projects, as we posted in First MN House committee hearing on industrial sand mining sends Hansen's HF906 forward.
Rather, a far different Schmit bill is making its way through the state senate:
Miller isn’t the
only state senator to direct his attention to the issue this session.
Sen. Matt Schmit, DFL-Red Wing, introduced a bill in February calling
for a statewide environmental review of the frac sand industry, the
formation of a regional council to oversee regulation and development,
and enabling the taxation of sand at the local and state levels.
That
bill has passed out of the Senate Environment and Energy Committee and
the State and Local Government Committee, and will be forwarded to the
Senate Finance Committee for further discussion. . . .
The bill that Schmit is shepherding through is favorably received by citizens across sand country, if letter sections are an accurate barometer. Vince Ready writes from St. Charles to the Winona Daily News to ask that the legislature Help protect our rural way of life by passing Schmit's bill.
A unanimous vote from St. Charles' city
council Tuesday night put the Minnesota Proppant silica-sand processing
and transportation project on life support.
All that is needed now is for Winona County to officially pull the plug.
"On behalf of the Concerned Citizens, I thank you for
adopting the resolution," said Travis Lange, spokesman for Concerned
Citizens for St. Charles, a group that has worked to end the frac-sand
project. "It's in the best interest of the city as a whole."
The collapse of a major frac sand proposal in Winona County has
caused a split among investors in the project, with one faction pulling
out in frustration over Minnesota’s anti-frac sand sentiment.
“Me and my partners split up. They went to Wisconsin,”
said Rick Frick, one of two remaining principals in Minnesota Proppant
LLC. “Were they fed up? Yes, that had a lot to do with it.”
Read the rest at the Star Tribune.
Photo: Yes, it's a frac sand train wreck.
If you appreciate reading posts on Bluestem Prairie, consider making a donation via paypal:
Yet another Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) document related to the denial of five petitions for annexation of land to the City of Ortonville in Big Stone County has been made available. Bluestem Prairie posts it below for the public interest.
After residents of the township brought concerns to the board, the township supervisors imposed a moratorium while they wrote zoning and planning ordinances. Big Stone County's commissioners voted to permit the quarry; to get around the moratorium, the landowner divided his property among relatives, then petitioned the City of Ortonville to annex the site.
While the denial and moratorium for the moment prevent the project from going forward, the long-term consequences of the OAH judge's decision are unknown to Bluestem at this time.
Headwaters of the Minnesota River, Big Stone County is on the Minnesota-South Dakota border, directly west of the Twin Cities.
The memorandum begins:
Two issues, scope of review and determination of property ownership, have arisen in the six matters comprising the City of Ortonville's (City) filings for annexation by ordinance under Minn. Stat. 414.033, Subd. 2(3). The factual background includes the ordinances passed by the City, the objection by Ortonville Township (Township), and the requested additional information received from the City and Petitioners.
It concludes:
CONCLUSION
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. 414.033, subd. 2(3).
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:
Wednesday, March 13, the Minnesota House Environment and Natural Resources Committee heard testimony on South St. Paul DFL Representative Rick Hansen's HF906, a bill that requires silica sand mining model standards and criteria development,
establishes silica sand technical assistance, requires administrative rules
required, and appropriates money for these tasks.
Unlike Red Wing DFL Senator Matt Schmit's SF786, Hansen's bill does not authorize a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) or a one-year moratorium while the GEIS is conducted.
While industrial sand mining representatives had some praise for the bill, neither they nor Republicans on the committee like the involvement of the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) as the agency in charge of developing standards or coordinating technical assistance.
Rather, they like HF1367, the bill introduced by Rep. Tim Kelly (R-Red Wing) which pointedly doesn't include the EBQ. Sources tell Bluestem that the industry and Republicans fear the presence on the EQB of environmentalists and former legislators Ellen Anderson and Katie Knuth.
However, since the real bugabear is the moratorium in Schmit's bill, they were able to utter kind words about Hansen's bill--before standing in the back of State Office Building 200 like scavengers while two rival lions of the House sparred.
Representative Denny McNamara (R-Hastings) attempted to substitute the Kelly bill for the Hansen bill, claiming that there was no need for the board's involvement, since four state agencies could attend to the technical details. HF906, he claimed, only created more bureaucracy.
Hansen pushed back that the Kelly bill itself created a new board, while HF906 did not, and a panel of agency staff assembled before the committe agreed with Hansen. McNamara withdrew his amendment and the bill passed on an 8 to 6 partisan roll call vote. It now moves on to the MN House Government Operations committee.
The expansion of industrial scale silica sand mining in Minnesota has galvanized citizen concern in Southeast Minnesota's driftless area as residents watch what they see as a "wild west" of strip mining in the badger state. At their request, counties, towns and townships have enacted moratoria while they review the industry.
The sheer scale of the projects, some of which sprawl across three counties, have led citizens and local government to call for regulatory relief. The industry maintains that the projects will create jobs while engaging in the "new energy revolution" of fracking for oil and gas.
Here's a Youtube of the second part of the hearing. Bluestem will post excerpts of the testimony and action as the Uptake pulls them for us.
Photo: A frac sand mine in Wisconsin.
If you appreciate reading posts on Bluestem Prairie, consider making a donation via paypal:
Minnesota River rats are cheering Tuesday night's vote by citizens in Renville County's Sacred Heart Township to adopt a resolution opposing a proposed Off Highway Vehicle county park. The river enthusiasts had feared the project would disturb environmentally sensitive areas and the enjoyment of a remote stretch of the middle corridor of the Minnesota River Valley
Sacred Heart Township residents attending the annual
meeting on Tuesday evening voted 14 to 6 to adopt a resolution opposing
the park.
The resolution rescinds a vote by the board of
supervisors made last year supporting the park. It is proposed to be
developed in the Minnesota River Valley in sections 22 and 23 of the
township.
The resolution states that a majority of residents
oppose the project, are concerned about how it would adversely affect
land values, and charges that neighboring landowners and residents were
not contacted or allowed to voice their concerns in advance of passage
of the resolution last year supporting the park.
Landowners adjacent to the proposed site oppose the project, and they brought the resolution for a vote.
Dave Zaske, one of the affected landowners, said the
resolution will be sent to the Renville County board of commissioners.
He said the county board has said the fate of the park was up to the
township. He is hopeful that this resolution will lead the board to
stop pursuing the project.
The resolution raises the hopes of paddlers and anglers worried about plans to turn their stretch of the river into an ATV destination, with connected trails linking playgrounds for the snarly vehicles--and the use of legacy funds intended for preserving natural areas and water quality to create the recreation area. (Read a draft of a suggested bill--not yet introduced--here).
They fear the recreational use will not only echo down the valley corridor, but the opportunity to "mud" the bluffs will destroy natural habitat and promote erosion. Reducing the sediment load in the Minnesota River is crucial for the quality of downriver areas like Lake Pepin.
Bluestem applauds the decision of the citizens of Sacred Heart Township. One of our fondest memories is stopping on the township road that winds toward the Joseph Brown house ruins to watch a flock of 200 migrating Arctic Swans that paused in the flooded river bottoms. Their calls echoed in the valley, while another flock sang from a flooded field a half mile upstream.
Not likely to happen again if the bluffs echo with the sound of ATVs.
Photo: The ruins of an old barn that would be in the park. Phot by Tom Cherveny/West Central Tribune.
If you appreciate reading posts on Bluestem Prairie, consider making a donation via paypal:
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:
As the Minnesota legislature mulls over bills to regulate and tax industrial sand mining in the gopher state, the Rochester Post Bulletin reports (with an unintentionally misleading headline) that For townships, silica not a hot issue at their annual meetings coming up Tuesday.
Read the article, however, and you'll learn why that discussion has cooled:
Silica-sand mines could hit some townships hard with dust, noise
and road damage, but what to do about the mines might not be a major
issue at the township annual meetings planned across the area on
Tuesday.
Most townships are waiting for counties or the state to give them
more information and to act on moratoriums, or to decide how to collect
money to repair roads from heavy mining traffic, county township
officer association officials said. . . .
Instead, it's a hot issue at the state capitol. In an earlier issue of the Red Wing Republican Eagle, state representative Tim Kelly (R-Red Wing) took some heat when a reader perceived that he wasn't being pro-active on the issues. Kelly fights back with Be part of a silica sand mining legislative solution:
Make no mistake, one of the most important issues of this area, at
this time, is silica sand mining. Sen. Matt Schmit and I have been
working with many individuals and agencies to ensure that we have a say
in the standards that need to be met if mining occurs here.
In
any situation, there will be different opinions and strategies. I
commend Jim and Jody McIlrath on their approach and I look forward to
working with them in helping to resolve this issue.
Mr. Sonnek
is completely wrong in his statement that there is no legislation in the
House. In fact, we will all be working off of that legislation as we
move forward.
Kelly introduced HF1367 on March 7, a bill to provide ilica sand project regulation assistance to local governments; Schmit introduced the senate companion bill, SF1257.
A similar bill--HF0906, the companion bill to Schmit's SF1018- includes the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) in the mix was introduced by Rick Hansen (DFL-South St. Paul), who also introduced a bill for an aggregate tax, HF1336, that would go toward protecting wellhead and scientific and natural areas. An earier piece of the puzzle, HF0425, defines how the areas for preservation would be defined, while authorizing bonding.
Although Hansen represents a suburb, he grew up in Southeastern Minnesota, where he still owns farm and hunting land in Fillmore and Freeborn Counties.
in an email alert, Land Stewardship Project urged support of HF906, but also wants it strengthened to become the companion bill for SF786. From an email:
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.
Two senate committees have heard Senator Schmit's SF0786, which creates Southeastern Minnesota sand board, authorizes a Generic Environmental Impact Statement to be completed in a year, and imposes a one-year moratorium.
The bill has been sent to the Finance committee. No hearing has yet been set for the bill.
Photo: A frac sand mine in Wisconsin.
If you appreciate reading posts on Bluestem Prairie, consider making a donation via paypal:
The Wabasha City Council approved its first frac sand moratorium Tuesday night, which halts all new or expanding operations.
The council also approved a second moratorium, which halts companies with significant truck traffic from expanding to more than 500 regular trips a day or more than 30 heavy trips. A heavy truck is one that weighs more than 26,000 pounds. The truck-traffic moratorium only applies to the west end of town, from east of U.S. Hwy. 61 to northwest of Gambia Avenue.
Over 150 citizens petitioned for the city to order a review called an
environmental assessment worksheet, citing health, traffic and safety
concerns. But the council voted 5-1 against ordering the review Monday
night after Superior Sands officials said federal railroad law trumps
the state law under which the citizens filed their petition.
That claim by theCalgary-based company sounds a bit like bullying:
. . . Craig Falkum, a leader of Friends of Wabasha, told the council he
believes the city of 2,500 is ill-equipped to regulate frac sand on its
own and urged a review by experienced professionals who could help the
city determine the operation’s risks, Minnesota Public Radio reported.
“There
are too many residences in the nearby area, as well as prominent
industry and a clinic and a hospital to allow this operation to proceed
without a thorough investigation,” Falkum said.
Paul van Eijl, a
lands acquisitions manager with Superior Sand, said the company is
working with Wabasha’s planning board to address many of the residents’
concerns through the city’s standard permitting process. But he said the
city lacked authority to order the environmental review, citing a
federal law that prohibits states from regulating railroads.
Council member Catherine Gallenberger said ordering the review would have cost too much and risked a legal battle. .. .
The Friends of Wabasha had appealed the earlier decision--and had been turned down--in part because of a local official's involvement with the company. On February 6, Winona Daily News staff writer Tesla Rodriquez reported in Wabasha considers frac sand moratorium, looks at stopping industry growth:
The appeal against Superior Sand Systems was filed more than a month ago by a group of citizens who oppose the frac sand industry.
The Friends of Wabasha based its appeal on several alleged errors in the permitting process, including that the city failed to consider potential job losses related to tourism, any potential impact on property values, that the facility conflicts with the city’s comprehensive plan, and that the applicant falsely represented the need to begin operations by Dec. 20.
The company had argued that it had guaranteed contracts that required it to be up and running by the end of December, but by early January the facility had not yet opened.
The group also alleged that one of the planning commission members, Brian Wodele, shouldn’t have voted to approve the facility last month because of a perceived conflict of interest. Wodele is the office manager at a land surveying and engineering company that Superior Sand Systems has contracted with. Wodele told the commission of his involvement during the early part of the permitting process, and said that since he is an employee, not an owner. Because he didn’t stand to gain financially through the deal, he was allowed to vote on the permit, said city attorney Peter Ekstrand.
With friends like this, the industrial mining industry shouldn't wonder why busloads of local Southeast Minnesota citizens have headed to the state capitol in support of the bill they asked freshman Senator Matt Schmitt to write, then amend.
The Houston County Board of Commissioners passed a resolution
extending the frac sand moratorium for an additional year at its meeting
Tuesday. The resolution was passed following a public hearing to
discuss the extension.
During the hearing, several county
residents spoke out in favor of the moratorium extension. Sarah
Wexler-Mann first thanked the commissioners for supporting the study of
the issue and supporting Sen. Matt Schmit’s bill for a statewide
moratorium.
Although there are currently no permit applications to mine frac sand in Winneshiek County, a number of concerned citizens want to make sure county officials have a plan to deal with them.
At Monday's meeting of the Winneshiek County Board of Supervisors, Decorah resident Rob Carbonell asked the Board to consider an 18-month moratorium on frac-sand mining in the county, similar to the moratorium, which recently went into effect in Allamakee County.
After thanking the Supervisors for their service to the community, Carbonell encouraged the Board to enact a moratorium, explaining, "It helps you buy time to do right by everyone in the county."
Carbonell also commented the Board is responsible for making sure the county's roads are maintained and suggested if they didn't want to make a decision about whether or not to allow frac-sand mining, the issue could be put to a popular vote.
"I'm not a knee-jerk environmentalist. I like my hot water and my gas stove. I would be a hypocrite if I said otherwise," he said. . . .
. . ."I'd be willing to pay a little more for my natural gas bill to know my trout streams aren't going to become over-silted, tourism won't go in the toilet and what used to be pretty is not."
Carbonell added he understands the need for sand mining, but asked that it be done "reasonably, sensibly and sustainably."
While most of those testifying to board of supervisors were in Carbonell's camp, the general manager of Olson Explosives of Decorah argued the industry's case. Go check it out.
Meanwhile, back in Minnesota, Rochester Post Bulletin reporter Brett Boese has tweeted that the Executive Director of the Minnesota Industrial Sand Council Dennis Egan has made his resignation formal:
Red Wing Mayor Dennis Egan has submitted his signed, written resignation to the city, effective April 1, over frac sand concerns.
Republicans on the Senate State and
Local Government Committee worried about the loss of local control. But a
regional approach is needed, said bill author Sen. Matt Schmit of Red
Wing, because the effects of the industry cross township and county
lines.
"You can mine in one jurisdiction,
put it in a truck and cart it around southeastern Minnesota," Schmit
said. "Similar with water impacts, our aquifers and our water tables
don't stop at county lines, so we've really got to have that broader
regional conversation."
Schmit isn't talking in the abstract. People in Houston County--whose commissioners have extended a moratorium--are struggling with a plan by mine operators just across the Houston-Fillmore County line.
Spring Grove's prettiness and neatness may be frayed if plans to haul
120 daily truck loads of frac sand from a mine proposed across the
Fillmore County line come to fruition. The situation underscores why
people from Southeastern Minnesota are asking for state help in
regulating the industrial sand industry.
The Spring Grove Herald's Craig Moorhead reports in Frac sand route to go through downtown Spring Grove
that the pretty neat small town is along the route for the sand's
secondary destination, New Albin, Iowa. The route will be used when
facilities at Winona are beyond capacity:
A Fillmore County frac sand mine could be sending hundreds of trucks
through downtown Spring Grove, Houston County commissioners were told
last week.
"The reason we're bringing this to you is because it's going to have
an effect on residents in Houston County," environmental director Rick
Frank told the board on Feb. 19.. . .
Traffic isn't the only potential problem for Houston County from the Fillmore County site. Moorhead reports:
"This mine is within about two miles of Houston County," Pogodzinski
warned. "Impacts to groundwater sources are not just going to affect
Fillmore (County)."
"Surface water drains down the Root River Valley. We don't want the Root River becoming any more polluted than it already is.
Meanwhile, citizens concerned about unbridled industrial sand mining continue to send letters to the editors of Southern Minnesota newspapers.
. . .Most of this area is underlain with very porous karst limestone
deposits. We are very fortunate that they are covered with heavy layers
of sand which acts as an excellent filtration device, preventing ground
water pollution from contaminating our underground aquifers.
Now you are proposing that we strip mine this natural
filtration system to use as a propellant for forcing more fossil fuel
from the ground — just when we should be doing the opposite and
developing nonpolluting renewable fuel sources.
In 1970, Rochester insisted on putting a landfill on
karst limestone deposits in Oronoco Township without liners in the first
cell, poor liners in the second, and as a result created a Superfund
site for the rest of us to clean up. . . .
. . . My hope is our local state legislators will see the wisdom of giving
the same weight to health and concerns as the sand industry's desire for
a competitive advantage. If so, they will support a measured,
well-researched course of action to address this new industry.
If oil and gas from fracking continue to be an
important energy source into the future, taking a year to ensure
frac-sand mining is safe, and that the costs of the activity will be
borne by the industry, rather than local taxpayers, is a sensible
approach.
In Red Wing, Save The Bluff members Jody and Jim McIlrath write to the editors of the Republican Eagle in We need a three-legged frac bill:
Counties are doing a lot of hard work on their own ordinances. They
do not have the resources to study multi-county cumulative impacts nor
do they possess the authority to establish badly needed air
quality/water quality and quantity standards. This is the crux of the
frac sand bill: We need the big picture.
The frac sand industry
is a gargantuan-sized business. It’s not a “mom and pop” 5-to-10-acre
construction sand mine. Let’s talk thousands of acres.
Comparatively, a large frac sand mine in Wisconsin equals the entire
acreage of the Minneapolis St. Paul Airport. If we have 100 of these
sites in the drift-less area, what’s the impact on the entire river
valley in southeastern Minnesota?
The House of
Representatives is authoring a bill that looks quite different than
Senator Schmit’s. It doesn’t have the “three legs” which would generate
the desired outcome, thus far.
The Senate and House need to work
together on this to produce the correct results. Fix the problems and
take action together. We need a bi-partisan approach and a win-win or
we’ll pay the ultimate price as did western Wisconsin.
Contact
your district’s senator or representative and let them know you want
action. We need protections for all of our southeastern counties and
their citizens.
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