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.
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
A new proposal to limit frac sand mining has surfaced in the state
Senate. The Senate Environment and Energy Committee on Tuesday night
passed a game and fish bill that would significantly restrict mining
activities in southeastern Minnesota . . .
he point person on frac sand bills in the Senate, Matt Schmit,
DFL-Red Wing, is carrying a game and fish bill that raises
water-related concerns about frac sand mining. The bill would prohibit
any industrial silica sand mining in an area that’s referred to as the
Department of Natural Resources Paleozoic Plateau Ecological Section if
its located “within one mile of any spring, groundwater seepage area,
fen, designated trout stream, class 2a water as designated in the rules
of the Pollution Control Agency, or any perennially flowing tributary of
a designated trout stream of class 2a water.”
The Paleozoic Plateau encompasses much of southeastern Minnesota.
Schmit said the porous type of geology in southeastern Minnesota
makes the region susceptible to water pollution that harm its unique
cold water fishery.
“There is no guarantee that we are going to have any other bill on
silica sand mining pass out of the Legislature this year, so this is I
think an appropriate place for some standards regarding our waters and
our trout fishing,” Schmit said.
Trout Unlimited has been particularly aggressive in testifying about the potential threat that unchecked industrial sand mining might posed to trout in southeastern Minnesota. Back in February, Star Tribune sand reporter Tony Kennedy reported in Trout group fears frac sand damage to streams:
. . .Besides holding vast reserves of the world's best frac sand,
southeastern Minnesota also is home to an extensive network of
ecologically fragile trout streams.
John Lenczewski, who heads the state chapter of Trout Unlimited,
told a joint Senate and House hearing Tuesday that Minnesota's streams
are spring-fed by the same drinking water that frac sand processing
facilities want to pump out of the ground in huge volumes. Mining
companies use the water to separate valuable silica sand from waste
material. There are fears that the reserves will be depleted to the
extent that stream flows are reduced, endangering fish habitat.
"The industry does not need to use our future drinking water to wash sand,'' Lenczewski said.
He also called on the Legislature to prohibit sand mines from digging
within 25 feet of the water table. Some new frac sand mines in
Wisconsin have been permitted to dig nearly all the way to ground water
-- giving pollutants a direct path to aquifers.
In addition, Minnesota's trout anglers want the state to keep frac
sand facilities far away from surface waters by writing new setback
guidelines, Lenczewski said.
"The state does not have adequate regulation for our groundwater,'' Lenczewski said. . . .
A crowd of around 80 residents and concerned neighbors came to
the Rock Creek Town Hall on March 8 to hear an update on a proposed
Highway 70 reconstruction project, and to share concerns about plans to
use that road as a route for trucks bringing frac sand from Wisconsin to
Minnesota.
State Representative Tim Faust introduced MnDOT District Engineer Duane Hill.
“I don’t think I need to tell anyone in this room how dangerous this stretch of highway has become,” Faust said.
How dangerous?
“On Highway 70, the accident rate is one accident per million vehicle
miles,” Hill said. “That equals out to about one crash per month.”
He said the statewide average for roads like Highway
70 is half of a crash per month, or only half of the accident rate on
Highway 70.
Before MNDOT begins to make the road safer, frac sand trucks will be traveling the crumbling road. Faust's constituents aren't happy. The Pioneer continues:
In response to questions, Hill said he did not know exactly how many
of the 80,000 pound frac sand trucks would be traveling along Highway
70, but that he had heard it would be 12 trucks per hour. This would
double the amount of heavy truck traffic currently on the highway. He
asserted that the road is designed to handle those kinds of loads.
One resident at the meeting said that though the
trucks are tarped, that doesn’t mean they don’t spread the sand through
the air as they pass through.
“They come by with spillage all over them,” he said.
“This sand, they’ve done studies on it ... silca sand. If there’s
someone allergic to it, it can hurt them. Seal them up and wash these
trucks off.” . . .
. . .Some residents expressed frustration and anger about the condition of Highway 70.
“In the spring, the water will boil up out of it and the pavement will move,” one man said.
“That road hasn’t been touched ... since I’ve been
born,” another man said. “Nobody’s dug that swamp up. They don’t even
know what’s down there. It’s been this way for 60 years, nothing
changes. All of a sudden the fracking sand comes in.”
What could possibly go wrong?
Clarifying geology: Unimin mines in the Minnesota River Valley
The largest active mining operation is
located along the Minnesota River between Mankato and St Peter, not in a
bluff landscape, but on a flat landscape. In that kind of setting the operators dig excavations below the surrounding mostly flat landscape.
Listeners would be forgiven if they came away with the idea that the Unimin mines weren't in the Minnesota River Valley, but "along" the way.
In fact, both mines are located on flat terraces below the bluffs. While the exact site of the mine is on the flat "prairies," the terraces are part of a valley landscape.
Photo: A brown trout taken from Whitewater State Park.
Donate: If you enjoy reading posts like this at Bluestem, consider throwing some coin in the plate at Paypal:
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.
A friend in Southeastern Minnesota sends along an email invitation from the Rochester Area Chamber of Commerce to a lunch event on Friday, March 22: "What the Frac?"
While the title of the gathering is by no means original, it's definitely an occasion to ask "What the Frac?"
Here's the text:
What the Frac?
Mining in Minnesota: Economic Opportunity, Environmental Challenge or Both?
What's the big deal about frac (silica) sand mining? Some see opportunity: we have the sand, companies want to mine it and people need jobs. Others worry it's a health hazard, damages the environment and leads to costly road repairs. Join us as we hear from the experts about this hot button issue and what it may mean for southeastern Minnesota, our communities, and you. We'll also weigh in on the intriguing debate over the potential new copper mine in northern Minnesota.
Panelists: Vern Baker, President: Twin Metals Dave Christianson, Project Manager: Minnesota Department of Transportation Jeff Broberg, Geologist: McGhie & Betts Dennis Egan, Exec. Director: Minnesota Industrial Sand Council
Back in high school when Bluestem's editor was earningher double-ruby from the National Forensics League, she learned that debate involved two sides of an issue.
But perhaps, like the "new energy revolution" that involves digging up or breaking everything, we're playing by different rules--a "new debate revolution." Let's take a look at the players.
Dave Christianson famously participated an industrial sand mining "community" forum organized by Red Wing mayor Dennis Egan after the November election. As Rob Meyer wrote in his letter to the editor, Our voices silenced at frac forum:
. . .Unfortunately what the public received from the panel of “experts”
was a lot of propaganda that was long on language and short on solid
answers leaving little time for audience participation. Just another
well-rehearsed play written by the oil and gas industry.
Dave
Christianson, from Minnesota Department of Transportation, acted as the
industry’s best sales rep as he jovially mentioned how much money his
high school buddy is making off of sand mining. . . .
It's no wonder that Rochester-based development company McGhie &
Betts representative Jeff Broberg was booed by the crowd that packed the
a Winona County Planning Commission meeting Thursday night.
Broberg’s time at the podium eventually caused contention, and after
he was challenged to stick to the recommended two-minute time limit, he
responded:
“As the applicant’s representative, I have a higher level of rights on these issues,” Broberg said.
The crowd booed.
With the event costing $25 for chamber members, and $25 for nonmembers, we doubt there will be any of that.
Speaking of higher level of rights, the mayor of Fracsandville himself is on the docket, though billed by his proper lobbyist title, although he's still Red Wing mayor until April 1st. Perhaps he'll mention the City of Red Wing's resolution supporting a GEIS and one-year moratorium. Or maybe discuss the ethics of mining.
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:
Former Red Wing resident Jim Tittle received a call from his mother
two years ago that an open-pit frac sand mine was being considered for
the Hay Creek bluffs south of the city.
“It really threw me for a loop,” said Tittle, who remembered the area well from his youth.
The curious Tittle set off with a video camera to research the issue of
frac sand mining. His work culminated into the documentary film “The
Price of Sand,” premiering Friday March 22 at the Sheldon Theatre in Red
Wing.
The documentary film will also be screened at the Grandview Theater, 1830 Grand Avenue, in St. Paul on March 28, 7:00 p.m.
Brun describes the film-making process:
The documentary features interviews with people on both sides of the
frac sand debate, from displaced homeowners to drivers who found work
with mining companies. The goal of the film was to raise awareness of
the human impact of frac sand mining, Tittle said.
“I want people
to see other peoples’ stories,” Tittle said. “Wherever I could find a
person affected by this, I’d go there and talk to them.”
Tittle
first traveled to mines in Le Sueur County and western Wisconsin,
resulting in a series of YouTube videos that garnered more than 10,000
views in the summer of 2011. But he did not stop there.
“I came
to realize I could either make more YouTube videos or explore the issue
deeper,” Tittle said — and explore he did. Over the next 15 months he
would travel the region interviewing people for a full-length
documentary.
Tittle crowdsourced some of the production costs. Read the whole story at the Republican Eagle.
Here's the freshly edited trailer:
Photo: Bird's eye view of a Wisconsin sand mind. Photo by Jim Tittle. Used with permission.
If you appreciate reading posts on Bluestem Prairie, consider making a donation via paypal:
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:
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 official action follows the sand storm of criticism that swirling after he accepted the job as Executive Director of the Minnesota Industrial Sand Council. Critics felt that Egan couldn't serve two masters in the heart of Minnesota's battleground over the expansion of sand mining.
A preliminary timeline for the special election to replace Egan sets the special election for Tuesday, June 11.
Here's the text of the letter:
To: Lisa Bayley, President Red Wing City Council
Kay Kuhlmann, City Administrator
From: Mayor Dennis P Egan
RE: Resignation April 1, 2013
Red Wing has been home for my family the last 14 years and I have worked hard to ensure Red Wing is viewed as a special place to live, visit, and work. I am proud to serve as Mayor, and take my responsibilities as mayor very seriously.
In the last few weeks, people have expressed concern that I have recently taken work for the Minnesota Industrial Sand Council that may conflict with my duties as Mayor. I am pleased that the city attorney opined via letter that there is not a conflict of interest in my position, and I can continue to serve the city as its mayor.
Yet, I believe that a mayor must live to a higher standard than just avoiding conflicts of interest.
The position of Mayor is one of public service, and if a mayor' s activities serve as a distraction or roadblock for the city, the public is not well- served. The last few weeks have demonstrated that my new position can serve as a distraction to the city and my family, something that I cannot tolerate as Mayor.
Therefore, I will be resigning as Mayor of Red Wing on April 1, 2013. I will work with the City Council to ensure a transition that will not jeopardize the work we need accomplished at City Hall.
After then, I will refocus my time towards my family and growing my small business. I am confident I will stay involved with the Community of Red Wing just in a different capacity.
We should never lose our willingness to maintain the balance of interests, that has made Red Wing a strong city. This city on the working Mississippi River supports jobs, economic opportunity, a strong community and respect for the environment. We must never lose the ability to bring people together to look at facts, share information and make decisions that are in the best interest of our community.
I am honored to have had the opportunity to be the Mayor of Red Wing, and I look forward to continuing to serving this community.
There's a resolution accepting the resignation prepared for the city council's approval on Monday, March 11, 2013:
The resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 6536
Resolution Accepting Resignation of Mayor and Ordering a Special Election
WHEREAS, Mayor Dennis Egan submitted his resignation from the office of mayor in
writing on March 7, 2013 to be effective April 1, 2013;
WHEREAS, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Section 351. 01, subdivision 3( b), a
resignation may be made to take effect on a future date and is deemed effective at 12: 01 a. m. on the stated date;
WHEREAS, Section 2. 06 of the Red Wing City Charter provides that a vacancy in the
office of mayor shall be filled by a special election;
WHEREAS, when a future vacancy becomes certain to occur and the vacancy must be filled by special election, Minnesota Statutes Section 351. 055 authorizes the City to begin procedures leading to the special election so that a successor may be elected at the earliest possible time;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Red Wing, that:
1. The Council hereby accepts the resignation of Mayor Egan, effective at 12: 01 a.m. on April 1.
2. The Council hereby directs the City Clerk to begin procedures leading to the special election so that a successor may be elected at the earliest possible time.
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.
Wednesday at 3:00 p.m., the Minnesota senate State and Local Government committee will meet to consider the Family Child Care Providers Representation Act, and to take testimony on the parts of the frac sand mining bill, S.F. 786, related to state and local government.
The bill calls for a year-long Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS), a statewide moratorium on new projects during the GEIS, the creation of a Southeastern Minnesota silica sand mining board and other measures.
What have editorial boards across Southern Minnesota written about the bill (others on the industry are on the way, we're told, and there's already a house bill introduced to protect wellheads and scientific and natural areas in the region).
In the heart of the sand lands, the Winona Daily News favors the bill. Speaking for the editorial board in Only one chance, Jerome Christenson writes:
We’ll only have one chance to get it right.
In testimony before his colleagues, Sen. Matt Schmit likened the sudden interest in silica sand mining to a new gold rush, but cautioned that while there may be gold in “them thar hills” how we go about getting it will shape those hills and the entire region for decades to come.
Schmit’s bill -- SF 786 -- will give the people ofMinnesotaa chance to get it right. It gives state agencies and local governments up to a year to develop and put in place uniform, statewide guidelines and regulations for silica sand mining inMinnesota. The bill passed its first hurdle Tuesday when it was approved by the Senate Environment and Energy committee on an 8 - 4 vote that split along party lines and now continues through the legislative gauntlet.
We urge support for Schmit’s bill -- and congratulate the rookie legislator for his work. . . .
Read the whole thing at the WDN. On the western edge of Minnesota's silica sand zone, the New Ulm Journal's board writes in Time for study of frac sand mining:
People who live in the region, though, are concerned about this boom.
What effect will frac sand mining have on their land, on their air
quality, on their roads and rail lines?
It is certainly time for the state to conduct a study on the issue,
to determine what will be allowable mining practices, and what rules
need to be in place to protect those who will live through the mining
and its aftermath.
The state should undertake this study quickly and do a thorough, yet expeditious job of it.
Mining
is important to the state, and so are Minnesota's natural resources. We
can't afford risk the latter in a rush to feed the oil boom.
One of the strengths of Schmit's bill is that it outlines the "scoping" of the GEIS; earlier studies for the forest industry and livestock feedlots were not so well-defined and so lingered on.
Moving out of the sand belt to what Bluestem jokingly labels "the bad," we turn to the Journal's sister paper, the more conservative Fairmont Sentinel, home to Senator Julie "Rural Minnesota Should Smell Bad and Look Awful" Rosen.
It is horrifying to see the state of Minnesota ready to jump in to slow
down, or stop, the sand mining taking place in the southeastern part of
the state. A state Senate committee this week OK'd a one-year moratorium
on new silica sand mines. . . .
. . Minnesota needs to make sure sand mines are operated safely. It also needs to make sure they are free to operate.
We find it horrifying to imagine Southern Minnesota's river bluffs and rolling hills ending up looking like Wisconsin's pillaged hills, lined by corrupted local officials, with rivers and groundwater threatened, while little return comes back to local communities.
And finally: the fugly.
The Mankato Free Press editorial board produced a piece that about as fugly as it gets. Six days after the state's first hearing on issues related to industrial February 25, 2013 Our View: Review sand mining regulation
—
The mere term "frac sand" conjures danger in many people's minds. The
reason is the concerns that have been raised about fracking, in which
the sand and a mixture of chemicals are injected into oil wells to help
draw more oil from the ground.
That's misleading to put it charitably. The issues being brought up about "frac sand" in Minnesota have little to do with fracking, although industrial sand mining advocates would love to make folks imagine that's the problem.
As Bluestem has noted repeatedly, happy sparkleponies could shoot from oil and gas fracking rigs bearing world peace and kittens for everyone, but the environmental, health, safety and long-term economic development issues related to industrial-scale sand mining will remain.
There is no fracking done in Minnesota but the fine, hard silica sand
is abundant in many bluff regions of the state, including here in the
Minnesota River valley and around Red Wing and Winona.
That means mining companies are eager to extract the valuable sand,
which is in high demand. Locally, the Jordan Sands project is being
considered north of Mankato in a former limestone quarry. Some neighbors
in the area and some other residents oppose the project.
The mining of silica sand is hardly new to the area. Unimin in Ottawa
has been mining silica for use in glass making and more recently for
fracking for decades with little if any controversy.
Odd, given that it's the one just one river town away, unlike Ottawa.
But putting a moratorium on mining -- absent any credible evidence of
negative effects -- unnecessarily harms economic development. Local
governments are still best for deciding their local land-use rules and
putting reasonable restrictions on companies. If they choose to permit a
sand mining operation, any state standards that are developed can and
will be applied to those operations.
It's easy to dismiss "credible evidence." Just pretend there's no local corruption, corporate bullying, permit violations or the other concerns attending the process.
We urge the committee to vote for Schmit's bill tomorrow--and for the Minnesota House to get moving on its version of the bill. This is the time to get it right.
Photo:A frac sand mine 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:
Minnesota's oldest Norwegian-American town, Houston County's Spring Grove, bills itself as a "pretty neat small town," and we've learned about its citizens' fondness for Norski street festivals and parades from watching a dear friend's Facebook page.
But 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.
Probably not, although Houston County doesn't have any say in approving or denying the permit:
"Ultimately, it's up to them to approve or deny the EAW," Pogodzinski said. "We don't have a say in what they do."
Neighboring counties are still hammering out plans to address joint impacts, Frank added.
"We realize that a lot of these companies are going to utilize county roads and township roads maybe. We need to make sure that the applicant comes to the next county or city that they're affecting."
Commissioner Dana Kjome asked that the EAW address diesel fumes from trucks passing just a few feet [from] Spring Grove's public school. . . .
Oh, good. However, Spring Grove may have something of a reprieve because of the actions in Iowa's premier tourism destination county:
A letter from Allamakee County [Iowa] engineer Brian Ridenour was referenced for commissioners, stating that "mining, processing, trans-loading, stockpiling, etc. for frac sand has an 18-month moratorium in effect for Allamakee County."
The Allamakee County Board of Supervisors imposed the moratorium on February 4 after hearing citizen concerns about the industry, the Standard reports:
Allamakee County stakeholders will have additional time to explore the pros and cons of frac sand mining, following the passage of a moratorium on that mining process by the Allamakee County Board of Supervisors that will be in effect until July 1, 2014.
At its Monday, February 4 regular meeting, the Allamakee County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted to approve the moratorium, following a public hearing Thursday, January 31 which drew more than 40 people. . . .
. . .Jeff Abbas of Dorchester reminded the Supervisors frac sand mining is a “boom and bust” industry, which lasts from two to five years. “Once they’re done, they’re gone. We do not regain business we lose from hunting, fishing, hiking or camping,” said Abbas. “It’s time to put the laws of man aside and put the laws of God in place, because what we’re leaving behind is garbage.”
No wonder, then, that Houston County and other local governments support Senator Matt Schmit's bill to impose a one-year moratorium while conducting a GEIS. The Star Tribune's Tony Kennedy reported in
Houston County’s Board of Commissioners, the Red Wing City Council, a
city councilor from Wabasha and elected township officials from Fillmore
and Goodhue counties all voiced support for more state study and a
moratorium on the permitting of new frac sand mines and facilities.
On Tuesday, February 26, the Senate Environment and Energy Committee sent SF786 to the State and Local Government Committee, which will hear the bill Wednesday, March 6, at 3:00 p.m. Room 15 in the State Capitol.
Photo: Frac sand train wreck in Wisconsin, a metaphor for our times.
If you appreciate reading posts on Bluestem Prairie, consider making a donation via paypal:
In another, We should be ashamed, mining professional John Litsenberger notes that with the pending April 1 resignation as mayor by Dennis Egan, the City of Red Wing will lose a front row seat for insider intelligence from the industrial sand industry:
I dare say
Red Wing lost a strong ally with the resignation of Mayor Dennis Egan.
From my perspective, we would have had an inside track on what was
occurring within the ranks of the Minnesota Industrial Sand Council and
having the mayor there to report back would have been very advantageous.
That window of opportunity is gone now.
Egan's critics should feel bad:
All Red Wing citizens should be ashamed of the way we've treated our duly elected mayor — those that raised the cry of "conflict of interest" and called for his removal/resignation and those of us who failed to come to Egan's support.
Because having Egan bring the industry's perspective to the City isn't a conflict! It's an opportunity!
Author John Litsenberger introduces himself:
As a local citizen who's been quite involved in the issue of silica sand mining, I would like to add some comments to several of the letters that appeared in the Wednesday Feb. 27 edition of the Red Wing Republican Eagle.
I have over 40 years of underground mining experience and have worked in the frac sand industry, so I do know what mining companies are capable of achieving. I also know that an uninformed public is one that deals with hysteria rather than facts.
Who are you going to believe? His "facts" or your lying eyes as you as you look across the river at Wisconsin?
The only way to get a sound view of mining, Litsenberger suggested, was to ask a mining company for answers:
My advice to the area’s citizens is to learn about the frac sand industry, talk to Windsor Permian and listen to their ideas and goals, but become informed and be prepared to present this company with your list of how you expect them to operate in your neighborhood.
So, again, the lynching metaphor -- a "lynch mob" got Egan. Way
inappropriate, in my book, whether you agree that Egan was treated
fairly or not.
In the end, even the "former publishers" acknowledge he put himself
and the city in a tough spot by taking the top job with a mining
industry trade group, at a time when Red Wing and Goodhue County
residents are deeply concerned about frac sand mining.
So, why the extraordinary defense and the comparisons to "lynching"?
Good question.
Photo: Who are you going to believe about the wonderfulness of silica sand mining? An engineer or your lying eyes when you look at this picture of a mine in Wisconsin? Industrial sand mining lobbyist Dennis Egan figured out he needed his new job like he needed a hole in the ground, so he's quitting as mayor.
If you appreciate reading posts on Bluestem Prairie, consider making a donation via paypal
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