It's only fair to point out that in the same article, Rep. Paul Torkelson (R-Rural Hanska) and Sen. Gary Dahms (R-Redwood Falls) also broke with Republican ridicule of bee habitat legislation. Moniz reports:
Torkelson and Dahms also supported the legislation that plants new
habitats for bees and provides efforts to research why the bee
populations are dramatically dwindling. The legislation was a source of
ridicule by some Republican legislators and political workers as an
example of "overreach by the DFL."
Torkelson defended the
legislation, which eventually passed in a omnibus bill, as essential for
Minnesota's agriculture. He explained the bees pollinate one-third of
all food crops. He said the ongoing phenomenon of bee habitats dying off
or collapsing puts this important process at risk.
"I understand that at first, you can think, 'we have funding for bees?' But, the bees are vital for the state," said Torkelson.
He
also said a large industry of bee keepers in Minnesota helps crops here
in the summer months, then they take their bees down to states like
Texas or California in the winter months. He said that helping the bees
in Minnesota can have a large impact around the country.
The
final bill seeks to have plants to provide food for bees planted in
state parks and provides for reports on the issues facing the bee
populations.
Readers know Bluestem has a bee in our bonnet about the House Republican Caucus using new legislation and funding for pollinator habitat as an example of "waste," when bees and other pollinators are an important part of the ag economy, as well as a key link in food production.
Many believe the insecticide’s spread to other plants has caused a
recent increase in bee deaths. The European Union passed a two year ban
on neonicotinoid pesticides in April.
While Sundberg is concerned, he still isn’t completely convinced. He will, however, take caution in the future.
“I’m not ready to point the finger and say corn farmers are killing
our bees,” he said. “But it does affect how I’m going to run my
business.” . . .
Habitat is a greater concern for the beekeeper:
Sundberg said he believes the biggest reason for losses could be a
lack of available food sources in the area. A recent trend of farmers
planting crops instead of renewing CRP contracts and cutting in road
ditches has meant less alfalfa, sweet clover, buckwheat, basswood trees
and other plants where bees collect pollen and nectar.
“It could be related to a lack of nutrition and diversity,” Sundberg
said. “We’re dependent on all this land that we don’t have control
over.”
Who represents this area? Bud Nornes. While he didn't join in the vocal, public bee-bashing, he voted against the Omnibus Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture Finance and Policy Bill, which funded bee habitat.
Photo: A bee helps out an apple tree.
If you enjoy reading posts like this on Bluestem Prairie, consider throwing some coin in the tip jar:
It's not enough, apparently, that much of the groundwater in Southwestern Minnesota is so naturally awful that the Lewis and Clark Regional Water System has to be built.
Officials in Nobles County fear a manure spill from cow dung stockpiled too close to a small private gravel pit may threaten area wells drawing from the local aquifer, as well as nearby creeks that are home to the federally-protected Topeka Shiner, the only endangered fish living in Minnesota.
Those who argue against the need to regulate anything anywhere might want to consider what would happen were no regulations in place for manure management.
A large stockpile of cattle manure, coupled with recent rains, has
led to a significant manure spill in Nobles County’s Little Rock
Township.. . .
The manure, which had
come from a large, rural Rushmore cattle feedlot, was being stockpiled
at the edge of a farm field in the northwest quarter of Section 25,
Little Rock Township. Several yards to the south of the stockpile is a
privately-owned gravel pit filled with water.
County ordinance
states manure stockpiles be at least 300 feet from a road, buildings or
waters. This stockpile was in violation in both proximity to the
township road and the water body. . . .
There are two main concerns about the manure spill, the first being
that it occurred in an area of Little Rock Township that has a shallow
aquifer.
Craig Schafer, state program administrator-principal with
the MPCA’s Emergency Response Program in Marshall, who was notified
immediately of the spill, said it has the potential to impact
groundwater.
“Just because of the geology there, we know there is
the potential to impact the aquifer,” Schafer said. “The water table in
that area is fairly shallow. We take those groundwater incidents very
seriously.”
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Area
Hydrologist Tom Kresko, who was briefed on the spill late Wednesday,
said he planned to look into the potential impact to the aquifer today
and determine whether there are any wells affected by the spill.
The
second concern, according to Kusz, is the proximity between the spill
area and the Topeka Shiner habitat. The federally-protected minnow is
known to be in streams a mile and a half away. . . .
While it’s too early in the investigation for Kusz to say whether people
will be prosecuted for the manure spill, she said county ordinance
states a misdemeanor can be charged for every day manure leaks into the
water body. . . .
Read the whole article. Minnesota is the only place in its range where the Topeka Shiner is doing well.
Bluestem's editor is a member of the Minnesota Farmers Union and passes along this statement about ag funding and policy in the session that wrapped up last week.
The passage of language tweaking "Buy The Farm," the extension of the Farmer-Lender Mediation Act and the authorizing of funding of the new voluntary Agriculture Water Quality Certification Program (with guidelines set by a board that's peopled largely by active farmers, watershed activists and soil & water types) are all good things.
The statement:
Minnesota Farmers Union (MFU) applauds action of Legislature.
“MFU thanks the legislature and Governor Dayton for
passing a strong agriculture budget,” said Doug Peterson President of
the Minnesota Farmers Union. “MFU is also pleased that the Farmer-Lender
Mediation Act was extended for an additional
three years, allowing time for farmers and lenders to find solutions
when financial stresses hit rural Minnesota.”
Key legislative actions:
·
$20 million in the AGRI-fund, which can be used for livestock, NextGen energy grants, and farm to school programs;
·
$2 million for educational and cultural programs at fairs;
·
The current wolf hunting and trapping season
was not eliminated, however, MFU was disappointed wolf depredation
funding was decreased;
·
Buy the Farm legislation passed which
provides landowners facing the threat of high voltage power lines more
rights regarding attorney’s fees, appraisals, relocation and a
reasonable time frame;
·
Farmer-Lender Mediation Act was extended for an additional three years;
·
authorizing language and funding of the new voluntary Agriculture Water Quality Certification Program; and
·
language that clarifies estate tax by saying
agriculture land held by farm trusts and other business entities will
qualify for the extra $4 million exception from the state estate tax.
Photo: A riparian buffer zone.
If you enjoy reading posts like this on Bluestem Prairie, consider throwing some coin in the tip jar:
Notwithstanding Minnesota Statutes, section 18B.05, $150,000 the first year and $150,000 the second year are from the pesticide regulatory account in the agricultural fund to: develop and use best management practices that protect pollinators by providing habitat necessary for their survival and reproduction; incorporate these practices into pesticide applicator and county agricultural inspector training; and increase public awareness of the importance of pollinators and pollinator habitat. The commissioner may transfer a portion of this appropriation to the Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota to design habitat and measure and report the outcomes achieved under this paragraph. This is a onetime appropriation.
And this:
POLLINATOR REPORT REQUIRED. No later than January 15, 2014, the commissioner of agriculture must submit a pollinator report to the legislative committees and divisions with jurisdiction over agriculture and natural resources. The commissioner of agriculture must develop the report in consultation with the commissioners of natural resources and the Pollution Control Agency, the Board of Water and Soil Resources, and representatives of the University of Minnesota. The report must include, but is not limited to, the following:(1) a proposal to establish a pollinator bank to preserve pollinator species diversity;(2) a proposal to efficiently and effectively create and enhance pollinator nesting and foraging habitat in this state including establishment of pollinator reserves or refuges; and (3) the process and criteria the commissioner of agriculture would use to perform a special review of neonicotinoid pesticides registered by the commissioner for use in this state currently and in the future.
And this:
Article 4 (DNR Policy), section 12
Sec. 12. [84.973] POLLINATOR HABITAT PROGRAM. (a) The commissioner shall develop best management practices and habitat restoration guidelines for pollinator habitat enhancement. Best management practices and guidelines developed under this section must be used for all habitat enhancement or restoration of lands under the commissioner's control. (b) Prairie restorations conducted on state lands or with state funds must include an appropriate diversity of native species selected to provide habitat for pollinators throughout the growing season.
Doubtless we'll continue to hear the same talking point repeated; perhaps those repeating the mantra should be asked where exactly the "signage" language actually appears in statute.
So what do they have against food and the bees that help plants produce it?
Photo: A honeybee helps an apple tree produce apples.
If you enjoy reading posts like this on Bluestem Prairie, consider throwing some coin in the tip jar:
A year ago, the Minnesota
Legislature blocked a grant that [University of Minnesota associate professor of entomology Vera] Krischik received from the Minnesota
Legislative Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources to study how
treating trees for emerald ash borer is affecting bees.
This year the Legislature passed a
pollinator habitat bill. It appropriates $150,000 a year to improve bee
habitat and increase public awareness of pollinators. The legislation
also requires state agencies to create a report on pollinator habitat
and to establish a process for reviewing the safety of neonicotinoid
insecticides.
The legislation reflects a growing
public concern about bees, said Marla Spivak, a Distinguished McKnight
Professor in the University of Minnesota's entomology department.
When Republicans controlled the Minnesota legislature, they blocked bee research. Thrown out of office, they chose to use the common-sense bee legislation--introduced by Ag Policy chair Jeanne Poppe (DFL-Austin), a Greater Minnesota lawmaker the Republicans had early on praised for her knowledge of farming (Mountain Lake Republican Rod Hamilton wanted her committee to handle all ag finance)--as the mascot for endless prattling about wasteful spending.
There's more of the cheap sound bites from House minority leadership, then this curious exchange:
There is Republican support for legislation to help pollinator habitat. Rep. Paul Torkelson (R-Hanska) co-sponsored
HF595,
which would direct DNR to establish criteria for a program to provide
enhanced habitat for honey bees, and other pollinators, on state lands.
But that language was not included in Wagenius’ bill. . . .
Language is one thing, but bees don't feed off words, however much those words might be fodder for Republican talking points. The article continues:
Wagenius said educating people about the importance
of pollination and pollinators was a good idea and that, while she
shared Torkelson’s concerns, her bill does more than the original
legislation asked for, directing DNR to include growing plants that are
good for pollinators throughout the growing season when doing
restorations.
“You did not include any money,” Wagenius said. “We spent some money and we changed policy.”
Words are like honey, but money will actually sweeten the hive. Is that wasteful spending? Bees are an economic driver:
Bluestem believes it's better that the Republicans are left in the minority to whine about bee research, rather than controlling the legislature and blocking it outright, as their buzz is far worse than their sting these days.
The ban is touted as a way to protect the tourism industry from heavy industrial truck traffic.
Pepin
County only has one operating frac sand mine but people in the towns of
Pepin and Stockholm are worried more will spring up along the bluffs
that line the Mississippi River. Pepin County Board Supervisor Bill
Mavity represents the area and has co-authored an ordinance that would
create a mine-free zone the shore from Pierce County to the mouth of the
Chippewa River.
“It’s a narrow strip of land that
houses a great deal of the tourism business in Pepin County. It’s about
10 percent of the land mass. It produces or provides about 30 percent of
the tax base for the whole county.”
At The Price of Sand, documentary filmmaker Jim Tittle has released seven short YouTube clips drawn from an interview with Dr. Thomas Power, an economist from Montana State University, where he served as Chairman of the Economics Department and taught for 40 years. Power is the author of The Economic Benefits and Costs of Frac-Sand Mining in West Central Wisconsin, a study recently released by the Wisconsin Town Association, the Wisconsin Farmers Union, and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. We've embedded a copy of the study below the seven videos.
The Free Lunch Approach: Public Relations "Economic" Studies by Industry:
Multiplier Liars: Flawed assumptions and analysis in sand happy job talk
Frac Sand industry spokesters claim that every dollar of their payroll is multiplied in local communities. Some claim the value of these dollars is seven, or even sixteen times the amount paid. Here's what Power says about that (and he's not the only one questioning large multipliers):
Who Holds the Dollars? Will the frac sand industry make small town economies stronger?
Double Whammy: Extracting a mineral to extract oil and gas somewhere else?
Smell the Dirt: When a frac sand mine moves in, will it affect property values?
Buy A Truck, Make a Buck: When a new frac sand mine opens, some people borrow money, buy a truck, and go into business hauling frac sand. What's the risk?
Frac Sand See Saw: Powers answers the question, "How long will the frac sand jobs last?"
St. Paul documentary filmmaker Jim Tittle was one of the first to take a close look at "The Price of Sand" when he learned in 2011 that energy production company Windsor Permian bought land near his parents' home in Goodhue County's Hay Creek Township, but isn't the last person asking that question.
A pair of stories in the LaCrosse Tribune extricate some of the price of sand in Wisconsin. In Natural gas boom fuels frac sand mining, political spending, staff writer Chris Hubbach reports that political spending by industry interests increased 21 times since 2007:
Just as frac sand mines have popped up across western Wisconsin in
the past half decade, so too has political spending from the sand and
natural gas industries.
Since 2007, contributions from industry
interests ballooned more than 21 times, from just $18,762 to more than
$413,000 last year, according to analysis by the Wisconsin Democracy
Campaign. . . .
A total of 100 Republican candidates and committees received
$710,790, while 44 Democratic candidates and committees received just
$47,104. Nearly 70 percent of the contributions — totaling $520,266 —
went to Gov. Scott Walker during the past two elections.
With
$8,525 in contributions, former Sen. Dan Kapanke of La Crosse was among
the state’s top five recipients in the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign
analysis. The others included Sen. Alberta Darling, Lt. Gov. Rebecca
Kleefisch and Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, all Republicans.
In
addition to oil and gas companies, the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign
based its findings on contributions from 17 companies — or their
employees — with interests in sand mining. . . .
However, it excluded some large donors — such as Wisconsin Manufacturers
and Commerce — that support frac sand mining but also lobby for other
interests, said Mike McCabe, director of the nonpartisan campaign
finance watchdog group. . . .
Read the whole thing at the Tribune. Bluestem will be curious to see if the flow of contributions and lobbying spills across the Mississippi and St. Croix Rivers.
The paper also ran a story from the Associated Press, Wisconsin budget committee approves frac sand mining plan, which details how nearly $447,000 is being pulled from the state's state’s environmental management fund to inspect frac sand mines:
Money in the environmental management fund comes from a number of
sources, including fees landfills pay the state, vehicle environmental
impact fees and pesticide fees. The money goes toward recycling,
cleaning up contaminated land and fighting pollution run-off from farm
fields.
It's curious that not only is money being pulled from the environmental funds, other industry is paying for the frac sand interests. That's Walker's Wisconsin.
A scenic 10-mile stretch of Wisconsin bluff land would be off-limits to frac-sand mining under a proposed ordinance that has strong local support but must overcome a pro-business climate that has made the Badger State the nation’s hottest silica sand-mining range.
If the proposed no-frac-sand zone succeeds in the eclectic Lake Pepin shoreline corridor anchored by the villages of Stockholm and Pepin, it will be rare, if not unprecedented. Wisconsin has approved about 100 frac-sand projects in the past four years — more than any other state — and no Minnesota or Wisconsin county has flatly banned frac-sand mining in an area that covers multiple local jurisdictions.
Unlike the environmental concerns expressed in many failed frac-sand fights, the argument in the Stockholm-Pepin area is economic.
A study commissioned from two University of Wisconsin-Madison professors by Lake Pepin Partners in Preservation found that frac-sand operations “have the potential to significantly impair property values and tourist activity in Stockholm and Pepin districts.”
Mavity said the study’s details should matter to the 12 elected supervisors who will decide the issue in the coming months. That’s because the area outlined in the proposed ban is a prime economic engine for Wisconsin’s smallest county, population 7,390. . . .
But the Stockholm-Pepin study quoted a real estate agent who said that the mere possibility of frac-sand mining already has damaged the local housing market, where values and unit growth were the highest of any sector in the county from 2000 to 2010. . . .
“For these particular communities, the costs of local frac-sand activity may exceed the benefits in both the short and long run,” the study said.
The study comes on the heels of a report issued last week by the Institute for Trade and Agriculture Policy, the Wisconsin Farmers Union and the Wisconsin Towns Association that challenged conventional wisdom about the economic benefits of the sand industry.
Bluestem suspects that industrial-scale sand mining is great for large corporations, lobbyists, legislators' campaign committees and flacks, but not so much for many of the rest of people in the Driftless region.
. . . Heading into conference committee, the Senate reached a deal to
require frac sand operators to get a permit from the state Department of
Natural Resources if the mine is within 1 mile of a trout stream. The
permit approach was a compromise from an earlier proposal by Sen. Matt Schmit, DFL-Red Wing, to prohibit silica sand mining within 1 mile of a trout stream.
“I don’t want to say I’m 100 percent satisfied, but I think this
gives us a lot of tools to make a difference in southeastern Minnesota,”
Schmit said. “The trout stream setback language we agreed to earlier
this week is going to make a big difference in protecting the most
sensitive regions in southeastern Minnesota.”
The bill makes lays the groundwork for establishing protections for more than just trout streams. Rep. Rick Hansen,
DFL-South St. Paul, contended the trout stream issue was too narrow of a
focus. He successfully pushed for the establishment of a model
ordinance for local governments that looks at setbacks for things like
wellhead protection areas in addition to trout streams. The standards
also call for air and water quality protections for frac sand that’s in
temporary storage.
The breadth of conference report, Hansen said, goes farther than any other state that has faced frac sand mining controversies.
“It’s the first of its kind, to our knowledge, in the country for
silica sand. It’s comprehensive so we’ve got air, water—the whole
picture,” Hansen said. . . .
Shaw reports that the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) will be leading the effort across agencies to set the standards and to provide technical assistance to local government. It's something, since the industrial sand mining special interests and hostile legislators repeatedly tried to cut out the EBQ from the mix.
Meanwhile, the state Chamber of Commerce's lobbyist whined to Shaw that the industry is unfairly singled out for its water use. Orchards use water, he noted, and they're not being asked to apply for water permits.
Bluestem agrees: the next apple orchard that strips off hundreds of acres of soil, digs a ginormous hole in the earth that's open for years, and washes sand should so be required to apply for a permit with the DNR. Fair is fair.
So what's missing in Shaw's report? The name of Senator Jeremy Miller (R-Winona). In Miller's misleading frac sand statement, a letter published in the Sunday Winona Daily News, local activist Jane Cowgill writes:
I couldn’t believe it when I read Sen. Miller’s statement trying to take credit for the frac sand legislation that passed on Monday. Getting out a press release taking credit for something he had nothing to do with is almost the only initiative he has taken on the frac sand issue.
. . . Miller was the key vote in committee killing the state standards proposed by Sen. Matt Schmit of Red Wing and Trout Unlimited, and endorsed by the DNR. These standards were the result of work with experts and would have put the most sensitive areas of southeast Minnesota -- those near trout streams -- off limits to frac sand mines.
The provisions that did pass are not everything we wanted, but some will be very helpful. Again we have Matt Schmit of Red Wing to thank for this. Schmit worked all session and moved bills forward even when some leaders of his own party disagreed with him. That’s because he was representing and fighting for his district. I can’t say that about Miller. He carried water for the frac sand special interests all session. Now he wants us to think that he actually cared about what his constituents wanted.
We aren’t fooled.
It will be interested to see whether the impressive grassroots organizing by citizens in Southeastern Minnesota will carry forward into electoral politics. Neither party will be able to leverage it, given the way the DFLers on the Range rushed in to prattle about the frac sand mining industry creating "empathy" for their region. Schmit's a clear winner in his first term.
Photo: Jane Cowgill at the state capitol, promoting protection for trout stream and other living things. Photo by John Kaul.
If you appreciate reading posts on Bluestem Prairie, consider making a donation via paypal:
An frac sand industry-friendly compromise has been reached in the Minnesota legislature over mining near trout streams. Meanwhile, a new report commissioned and published by the Wisconsin Farmers Union, the Wisconsin Towns Association and the Minneapolis-based IATP suggests that industrial sand mining falls short as an engine of job creation.
The lawmaker who has pushed this year for tougher state regulation of
the frac sand mining industry said DFL legislative leaders have reached
a compromise on the legislation.
Lawmakers agreed Tuesday to create a
new Department of Natural Resources permit for companies hoping to mine
silica sand in certain sensitive areas in southeastern Minnesota, said
Sen. Matt Schmit, DFL-Red Wing. Schmit said the regulations will be part
of the spending bill that covers natural resources, the environment and
agriculture.
Schmit and DNR Commissioner Tom
Landwehr had been pushing to prohibit sand mining within one mile of a
trout stream or spring in the "Paleozoic Plateau Ecological Section" of
the state, which includes Dakota, Goodhue, Houston, Fillmore, Olmsted,
Wabasha and Winona counties. The compromise expected to gain conference
committee approval would instead require a hydrological study and DNR
permit for any mine within a mile of a trout stream but not springs,
Schmit said.
"What this gives us is stricter
scrutiny in the most sensitive regions of southeastern Minnesota,"
Schmit said. "If that study proves that mining will have no or limited
impact on our waters, then we can move forward with the DNR permit, so I
think this is a good compromise. I do think it gives notice that the
areas around our trout streams are going to be watched very closely and
creates an incentive for mining to take place elsewhere.". ..
In a retreat from tough language that would have put much of
southeastern Minnesota off limits to frac sand mining, state officials
have reached a compromise that will allow mines near the region’s trout
streams, but only if companies follow new permitting rules.
As part of a deal announced Tuesday, Sen. Matt Schmit,
DFL-Red Wing, said he’ll drop his effort to ban frac sand mining within a
mile of any trout stream in the southeast corner of the state. The ban
was embraced by Gov. Mark Dayton until a compromise emerged at a recent
meeting with Schmit, industry lobbyists, three state agency heads and
organized labor.
If the deal goes as expected, the 2013 legislative
session will end without sweeping statewide environmental protections
sought by a throng of “fractivists” from areas around Red Wing, Wabasha,
Winona and other parts of the bluff country known as Minnesota’s
Paleozoic Plateau. . . .
New report challenges industry gospel on job creation
Those cheerleading the strip mining of Minnesota's Bluff Country carry on about jobs, usually citing figures promotedby the Heartland Institute, but those projections have their critics. Yesterday, the WFU and other organizations released a new report about the economics of Wisconsin's industrial sand mining.
The study, conducted by Thomas
Power, a retired University of Montana economist and an expert on the
economics of mining, concluded that the economic effects of silica sand
production used in mining is likely to be quite small.
Drawing from data collected by the
federal government and the state of Wisconsin, production could create
about 2,300 jobs, but that's less than one percent of total employment
statewide. The frac sand region creates about the same number of jobs in
all categories every two months, Power said.
Power cites the following as reasons
for mining's poor performance in creating healthy economies:
• Fluctuations in demand
• Increasing mechanization
• Mines depleted more quickly
• Workers commute long distances, families live elsewhere
• Small local economies can't supply mines
• Impacts on the environment make the region a less attractive place to live and visit
• Can discourage other businesses by paying high wages and degrading the environment
Photo: Citizens seeking legislative relief for themselves and trout were disappointed by a compromise with weak protections for trout and other living things.
If you appreciate reading posts on Bluestem Prairie, consider making a donation via paypal:
Meanwhile, Schmit lanuched an air war, the Red Wing Republican Eagle's Michael Brun reports in A bird’s-eye view of mining:
While debate over mining policy continues in St. Paul, Sen. Matt
Schmit chartered flights out of Red Wing Regional Airport Friday for
reporters to get a bird’s-eye view of the impact frac sand mines are
having across the river in Wisconsin.
The roughly hourlong flight,
piloted by Jim McIlrath from Frontenac in his homemade, single-engine
plane, toured more than a dozen mines dotting the Wisconsin countryside
around Menomonie and Eau Claire. . . .
. . .The Red Wing Democrat has been an active proponent in the Senate for increased regulation for frac sand mining in Minnesota.
He
has been involved with a number of mining-related bills in his
inaugural legislative session, including sponsoring an amendment to an
environmental bill that would prohibit frac sand mining within a mile of
state trout streams in southeastern Minnesota.
Read the rest at the Red Wing Republican Eagle. Meanwhile, in the Fillmore County, rural Houston resident Joan Redig noted in a Letter about Senator Miller and sand mining:
Sen. Matt Schmit of Red Wing, working with Trout Unlimited, has proposed provisions to protect trout streams in Southeast Minnesota from damage resulting from frac sand mining. He wanted these provisions included in the Game and Fish Policy Bill, Senate File 796. Pristine cold water springs in our karst area create some of the best trout streams in the United States. Frac sand mining threatens to pollute this water, and disrupt the flow of springs in ways that would raise the water temperature. Death for our trout. Our state has invested millions in stocking and protecting these streams. Trout fishing has provided over a billion dollars in economic activity in the Driftless Area. These special provisions in SF 796 only apply to the Paleozoic Plateau, which is our part of the Driftless Area.
We live within a mile of an old quarry being considered for frac sand mining. It is at the head of a drainage system which feeds our springs and a stream which flows into Money Creek, a tributary of Root River. All of this is threatened because we have no state level standards to protect our region’s trout streams. Sen. Schmit proposed: a mile setback from trout streams; a limit on how much groundwater frac sand facilities could use; and limiting mining to within 25 feet of the water table. DNR Commissioner Landwehr testified we need all of these provisions to protect the trout streams and groundwater. Despite this knowledge, Sen. Miller cast the deciding vote to kill these provisions. . . .
Finish reading the letter at the Journal. Bluestem understands that there's been discussion in the environment, natural resources and ag bill conference committee, but audio archives have yet to be posted. We'll listen to see what of interest was said and report back as they become available.
Photo: A silica sand mine near Menomonie, Wis. Aerial photo by Michael
Brun/Republican Eagle.
If you appreciate reading posts on Bluestem Prairie, consider making a donation via paypal:
Today the Star Tribune newspaper ran an editorial in support of strong regulation of the frac sand industry. The editorial, entitled "Minnesota Legislature must protect trout streams," says in part:
“Schmit’s common-sense legislation, which
will likely face a critical Senate floor vote today, proposes a
reasonable 5,000-foot-setback for sand mines from trout streams and the
springs that feed them. Mining also couldn’t occur within 25 feet of the
water table. The aim is straightforward: to protect the flow of the
cold, clear waters that are the lifeblood of the region’s renowned trout
fishery and, by extension, the jobs dependent on angling tourism.
Cutting off springs or groundwater flow through careless excavation
could reduce stream flows and increase water temperature to levels
lethal to trout...The setbacks called for in the legislation are based
on the best available research and would significantly reduce the risk
of environmental damage. Waiting years to gather data for a more
tailored approach isn’t practical. The damage to critical trout habitat
may already have been done by then."
This vote is happening today on the Senate floor as early as
mid-morning. Sen. Matt Schmit of Red Wing will offer his amendment on
the Senate floor to the Omnibus Game and Fish Bill (Senate File 796) to
protect southeast Minnesota trout streams from frac sand mining and
processing.
Take Action. Contact your Senator immediately and
urge them to support Sen. Schmit’s amendment. You can find your state
Senator's name and contact information onlinehere, or by calling 651-296-0504 or 888-234-1112.
Suggested message: “Today Sen. Matt Schmit will
offer an amendment on the Senate floor to protect southeast Minnesota
trout streams from frac sand mining. I strongly encourage you to support
this amendment, which will include a setback from trout streams for
frac sand mines. The Star Tribune editorial had it right today
when it said that these setbacks "are based on the best available
research and would significantly reduce the rise of environmental
damage." I will check back in tomorrow to see how you voted on this
amendment."
You can watch the debate on the Senate floor online here.
The DFL legislature is prepared to sell out Southeastern Minnesota to industrial sand mining interests, despite widespread grassroots appeals for relief.
Environmental activists who pushed ambitious legislation to slow the advance of frac sand mining in Minnesota have been soundly defeated on their central proposals and, with less than two weeks left in the 2013 legislative session, are clinging to a fragile game and fish amendment as their last hope for a substantial breakthrough.
The amendment, which would block excavation within a mile of any trout stream in southeastern Minnesota, is strongly backed by Gov. Mark Dayton as a way to prevent an explosion of sand mining in a region where the state has invested millions of dollars over decades to nurture a blue-ribbon fishery.
But as the session winds down, even that idea is meeting resistance in a Legislature that has been largely receptive to the industry’s message that more regulation is unnecessary and will only kill jobs and economic growth.
“It’s the only substantial [frac sand] standard left this session,’’ said John Lenczewski, executive director of Minnesota Trout Unlimited.
“Everything else is just fluff,’’ said Amy Nelson, a frac sand opponent from the Red Wing area. The trout stream language, which could face a critical vote on the Senate floor as early as Thursday, has been painted by opponents as a de-facto mining ban in southeastern Minnesota. Industry supporters also say the measure is a “slippery slope’’ that could potentially hurt taconite mining on the Iron Range and even the construction aggregate business.
Another factor that the article doesn't take up is that few of the state's major environmental groups issued public
policy statements or provided testimony on the proposed legislation.
With the exception of Trout Unlimited and Land Stewardship Project, the
citizens were largely on their own. (It will be curious to see which groups that stood silent will use this issue for fundraising--we'll let you know).
Kennedy reports that the governor will meet with industry reps today to push for the pro-trout legislation:
But Dayton told reporters Wednesday that he is cautiously optimistic the legislation will move forward.
“I strongly support that position and will do everything I can in conference committee to get it enacted,’’ he said.
Meanwhile, the governor scheduled a private meeting for Thursday with industry representatives, labor leaders and the commissioners of the Department of Natural Resources, Pollution Control Agency and Department of Health.
Bluestem hopes that he'll succeed in swaying the legislature where thousands of concerned citizens have failed. Praise goes to freshman senator Matt Schmit for listening to his constituents, unlike Winona area senator Jeremy Miller, who cast a deciding committee vote to kill Schmit's trout stream protection.
Photo: On Tuesday, St. Mary's prof Jane Cowgill, who favors Schmit's bill, held up a "fishstick." The legislature favors Mrs. Paul's over Southeastern Minnesota's trout. Photo by John Kaul.
If you appreciate reading posts on Bluestem Prairie, consider making a donation via paypal:
The Minnesota River has long been praised as one of the great North American flathead cat fisheries, but the dam at Minnesota Falls near Granite Falls marked the end of the cat's upstream habitat.
To celebrate the history-making return of great fishing in Granite Falls, the Chamber of Commerce is sponsoring a unique contest, said Nicole Zempel, director. Beginning with the Minnesota fishing opener on May 11, the first person to catch a flathead catfish in the stretch of the Minnesota River from Memorial Park to the dam in downtown Granite Falls will be awarded a prize befitting the importance of this occasion.
Read the article to learn how to enter the contest. Since photographic evidence will be proof enough, it's a contest those who catch-and-release can enjoy.The article continues:
The removal of the Minnesota Falls dam about three miles downstream of Granite Falls has re-opened this section of river to the natural migration of fish. For over a century, the Minnesota dam served as a substantial disruption to the annual migrations of flathead catfish, walleye, sauger, paddlefish, shovelnose and lake sturgeon to this stretch of river.
The Minnesota River is famous for its trophy, flathead catfish population. But for more than a century flathead catfish have not been found above the Minnesota Falls dam.
Now, fisheries biologists are confident that these and other game fish will be drawn upstream to the Granite Falls area. There is an approximate, 17-feet gradient change in the river from Granite Falls to the Minnesota Falls rapids, creating riffles and other desirable fish habitat.
It’s also a great section of river to paddle, said Zempel.
Bluestem thinks there's little we can write about publicly that's as enjoyable as a good night spent going after cats, except perhaps a paddle down the river.
Image: A flathead cat.
If you enjoy reading posts like these on Bluestem Prairie, consider throwing some coin in the tip jar:
In St. Paul, the state legislature's picking sand mining lobbyists over trout, while back in greater Minnesota, conflict continues to flare as citizens scrutinize the industry.
Despite a series of political defeats, a Red Wing lawmaker vows to keep fighting for legislation to protect trout streams from silica sand mining.
Sen. Matt Schmit, DFL-Red Wing, said he will keep pushing to prohibit silica sand mining within a mile of trout streams, springs and fens in southeastern Minnesota.
"Hopefully, people realize that we are not asking for the world here. All we're asking for is to be proactive and to give our agencies the tools they need to do their job and give our local decision makers the assurance that we are getting this right," he said.
But the first-term senator faces a tough fight. Republicans and Iron Range Democrats have teamed up to defeat the proposal. Last week, the measure was stripped out of the Senate's game and fish bill. On Tuesday, an attempt by Schmit put the regulations back into the bill failed by one vote in the Senate Finance Committee.
Sen. Jeremy Miller, R-Winona, was among those voting against the trout stream language. He said he wants to protect trout streams but believes other legislation will address the issue by helping set model standards and making agency experts available to help local governments. Local officials he talked to said Schmit's proposal goes too far and would amount to a de facto moratorium on mining in Fillmore and Houston counties.
"That would eliminate just about any opportunity for industrial sand mining in those two counties," he said. . . .
Twin Cities bicyclists will be among those gathering at an event tonight to raise concerns about frac sand mining.
Several silica sand mines close to
the Mississippi River in western Wisconsin are near areas where cyclists
like to ride and stay in bed-and-breakfasts. Some of the proposed mines
in southeastern Minnesota are also located in scenic areas where
cycling is popular. . .
"Bicyclists care about frac sand
mining for the same reasons that I've heard a lot of southeast Minnesota
residents testify at the State Capitol, and that's health, safety and
scenery," [Tracy] Sides said. "Degraded scenery undermines the cycling and
tourism. I've visited mining locations in Wisconsin, and industrial frac
sand mines look like open sores on the land."
Sides said increased truck traffic
from sand mining threatens a resource on both sides of the river. . . .
Can the pristine St. Croix River experience and the silica sand mining operations expected to proliferate near the riverway, co-exist? As industrial silica sand mining expands in this region, that’s ripe with geologic formations that support silica sand deposits; will local officials be prepared for this vastly more intensive form of mining?
Leaders from towns and counties all along the Wisconsin-Minnesota border and in the St. Croix watershed came together last weekend to learn about what’s being done to regulate silica or “frac sand” mining. Some who have been involved in this issue for several years came to share their personal experiences with this industry. The conference was hosted by the St. Croix River Scenic Byway, and River Coalition and was held in St. Croix Falls’ Public Library. Frac sand or silica sand mining is causing concerns for local zoning authorities, public health officials and for citizens suddenly finding their farms, homes or cabins on the edge of a sand mine. . .
Residents in Winona County have asked the Minnesota Court of Appeals
to reverse a decision that would allow a proposed frac sand mine to move
forward without an in-depth environmental review.
The Winona County board voted last
month that the proposed Nisbit frac sand mine in Saratoga Township does
not need to complete an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
But 12 residents backed by the Land Stewardship Project say the county
failed to address concerns about the mine's potential impact. They say
the county needs to take into account the potential cumulative effect of
several mines opening nearby. . . .
Here's the Land Stewardship Project press release:
One of our favorite poems is Wendell Berry's "The Peace of Wild Things." A lifelong Baptist, man of letters, academic, cultural and economic critic, and farmer, Berry has been a strong moral voice for traditional agrarian values and the environment for many years.
Thursday's Winona Daily News includes a letter from Berry to John Heid, Right and wrong:
The following letter was written by Wendell Berry, author, farmer and environmentalist, to John Heid (formerly of Winona), in support of the Catholic Worker campaign against frac sand mining.
Dear John,
You have offered me the privilege of joining by letter with you and your friends in Winona in opposition to "frac sand mining." and I am happy to accept.
I will say, first, that there is never, for any reason, a justification for doing long-term or permanent damage to the ecosphere. We did not create the world, we do not own it, and we have no right to destroy any part of it.
Second, most of our politicians and their corporate employers are measuring their work by the standards of profitability and mechanical efficiency. Those standards are wrong. There is one standard that is right: the health of living creatures and the living earth.
Third, we must give our need to eat, drink, and breathe and absolute precedence over our need for mined fuels.
I wish you well.
Sincerely,
Wendell Berry
It's not likely this will discourage those looking to loot a piece of wild things, but the gesture may give grassroots activists courage.
In a recent radio interview broadcast by KDIO, Ortonville mayor Steve Berkner inveighed against "intimidation tactics" that had supposedly by used by "special interest" opponents of the Strata Mining Corporation's plan to open a granite quarry in a cow pasture that contains some of Big Stone County's namesake granite outcroppings.
Those tactics? "Busing in" people, carrying signs, chanting, swearing, pounding on tables, grandstanding. For this, Berkner cautions that the city attorney and Ortonville police have been ordered to prevent "intimidation" at the next hearing about Stata, on May 7. Berkner encouraged citizens to submit written remarks, since apparently speaking in public at hearings can be confrontational.
Now, Bluestem attended a number of the zoning and county board hearings on the matter last year, and doesn't remember seeing anyone being "bused in." As for the signs, those carrying them in February 2012 did sing on their way from the Land Stewardship Project's office in Clinton to a zoning meeting about a block and a half away, but set them outside before entering the hearing.
Law enforcement officials were present at that meeting and others, but that's not unusual for large public meetings. Berkner was accusing outside "special interests" (apparently Land Stewardship Project, which maintains a local foods program in Western Minnesota and Clean Up the River Environment, an Upper Minnesota River Valley watershed restoration group based in Montevideo, MN) of using "intimidation tactics," although he doesn't name names.
Since the singing sign carriers and those speaking at the meetings all seemed rather decorous, Bluestem contacted Big Stone County Sheriff John Haukos to see if his department had received complaints or reports of bad behavior. After reviewing his records, Haukos returned our call. No complaints or reports had been filed, although the presence of deputies at meetings were duly recorded.
Indeed, Sheriff Haukos, who had attended many of the meetings, thought that they could be models of public discussion of an issue. He had not observed swearing, pounding of fists, or any such behavior that could be charactized as "intimidation," although he did watch one confrontational exchange after a zoning meeting in Clinton between a citizen and a county commissioner. He determined that the exchange wasn't going to escalate and moved on.
Since Bluestem was there, we too observed that verbal jousting between Dakota scholar Waziyata Win, who lives in the Yellow Medicine Dakota community near Granite Falls and Big Stone County Commissioner Brent Olson. In light of Minnesota history, Bluestem hesitates to call her or the two other Dakota scholars from Marshall and South Dakota who spoke at another meeting "outsiders," however outspoken Waz might be.
Clinton resident Rebecca Terk dropped by both the Ortonville Police department and Big Stone Sheriff's office with the same question. She was told that no complaints or reports of intimidation had been made to either office during the 2012 hearing process.
It's curious that the mayor is inclined to declare opposition to a project by a North Dakota corporation to somehow be a product of "outside special interests," when signs objecting to the annexation of the pasture--since the local township where it had been situated originally enacted a moratorium on the development after residents objected--still grace lawns in his fair community. (To circumvent the township moratorium, the landowner divided his property among relatives, who petitioned to become part of the City of Ortonville; an MPR report here includes remarks by Berkner. An OAH judge ruled that only one parcel could be annexed.).
Also curious in the interview: the host's declaration that if one side doesn't want to speak about a controversy, it's best not to cover an issue at all. Bluestem was under the impression that journalistic convention held that one reported that folks were given an opportunity to present their side, but declined comment.
Indeed, the edited remarks below are characterized by a barely contained hostility toward those who might object to Strata's designs--while insisting that the public has the right to make "respectful" comments. His bar for "respectful" appears to be quite high--with no singing or signs allowed. Indeed, if only people could just write their comments down. That would be so much nicer. Want to speak up in Ortonville? Better meet Mayor Berkner's guidelines for form, presentation and content.
And if Strata Corporation decides to never comment to the press, why the nice respectful radio lady simply wouldn't have to report on anything that happens at all.
Here's the selected audio about the idea of order in Ortonville, drawn from a longer 20-minute interview.. Short fades mark the edits and photo is of Berkner, then a city council member, at a public information hearing held in Ortonville by the Ortonville Township board of supervisors.
Photo: Signs wait outside a Big Stone County planning and zoning board hearing in Clinton, Minnesota in February 2012. Ortonville Mayor Steve Berkner has labeled these signs an "intimidation tactic." Bluestem doesn't find the message "Outcrops Mean Tourism $" to be all that scary, but perhaps the mayor has a much different comfort zone than Bluestem and local law enforcement. (Photo by Rebecca Terk) Below: an anti-annexation sign in an Ortonville lawn last fall.
If you enjoy reading posts like this on Bluestem Prairie, consider throwing some coin in the tip jar:
While the Minnesota legislature considers the creation of standards for silica sand mining and a Senate committee guts provisions for the protection of trout streams, members of the Catholic Worker movement have taken much more radical direct action to address their concerns about industrial sand mining in the driftless area.
Dan Wilson was one of about 20 people arrested Monday for misdemeanor trespassing after blocking trucks loaded with silica sand from getting to a Mississippi River loading dock in Winona. But he believes the wrong group was taken into custody.
As far as the Winona man is concerned, police should have arrested those who own the facility for trespassing on the city with their sand, which can cause medial and economic problems.
"We are not the ones trespassing on the industry, they are trespassing on us," he said after he was booked and released. About 20 others were arrested at another site in the city. . .
Protesters have written letters to the editor, talked with local officials and did other things but to no avail, Wilson said. "We decided we needed to start making sacrifices," he said. . . .
Eileen Hanson, a member of the Winona Catholic Worker community, said the weekend seminar attracted about 100 people from several Midwest states. Those arrested at the CD Corp. site and another 20 or so at a sand-processing plant on the outskirts of Winona, were both local and from other states, she said.
"We're saying no to this dangerous and destructive industry," she said."This was just one more way of saying, 'Hey we have really strong concerns about this.'" . . .
Their concerns aren't completely groundless. Read on.
Trout fishery protections stripped from Fish and Game bill
On April 24, in an unconnected action back at the state capitol, the Senate Finance - Environment, Economic Development and Agriculture Division stripped out the provisions in SF 786 that would have helped preserve Southeastern Minnesota's trout streams.
The testimony begins around 1:15 here. Department of Natural Resources Commissioner Landwehr offered compelled testimony in support of the provisions, as did John Lenczewski from Trout Unlimited.
Before the roll call vote, committee chair David Tomassoni (DFL-Chisholm) said that these provisions were not
appropriate for a Game and Fish bill--and that there are trout on the Iron
Range and his area might be next for trout protection.
Tom Saxhaug (DFL-Grand Rapids) agreed but Bev Scalze (DFL-Little Canada), who sits on the policy committee,
rightly brought up that as a finance committee they should not be
undoing major policy provisions.
Here are the roll call votes that gutted the pro-fishery provisions. The first vote is to remove section 50 of the bill
requiring setbacks from trout streams, the second vote is on section 51 limiting groundwater usage and prohibiting mining within 25 foot of the
water table.
Tomassoni YES YES
Dibble NO NO
Dziedzic NO NO
Hawj NO NO
Ingebrigtsen PASS YES
Osmek YES YES
Ruud YES YES
Saxhaug YES YES
Scalze NO NO
Schmit NO NO
Sparks YES NO
Weber YES YES
Westrom YES YES
Listen to the testimony and discussion. It's enough to make Baby Jesus cry.
Photos: protesters in Winona (top, via Winona Daily News); brown trout in Southeastern Minnesota (bottom).
If you enjoy reading posts like this on Bluestem Prairie, consider throwing some coin in the tip jar:
The chief refrain repeated by the sorrowful violins of the lobbyists for Minnesota's sand mining industry and its allies is that if the state legislator puts additional safeguards in place for our water and communities, the industry will fail to thrive in Minnesota as it has in Wisconsin.
We'll miss out on the new energy revolution.
A story broadcast Monday by Wisconsin Public Radio about a Preferred Sands mine in Trempealeau County near Blair suggests that there may be worse fates than starting the revolution without us--or dead trout.
.. . Last May, however, a heavy rainstorm liquefied one of the site's
waste piles, sending it crashing through an Amish home. DNR Enforcement
Specialist Deb Dix says their suggestions were ignored.
“With
this particular instance it was apparent that there were no best
management practices around this sand pile to attempt to hold it back if
rain was to occur.”
Dix
says the DNR referred Preferred Sands to the Department of Justice for
prosecution. Even then, she says the company continued to allow runoff
to leave the property. Trempealeau County conservationist Kevin Lien
says frac sand companies can afford to ignore the rules.
“So,
we’ve learned that citations are pretty much ineffective for this
industry. This industry has very deep pockets and a wealth of
resources.”
The DNR’s Deb Dix says more than a year later, Preferred Sands still hasn’t fixed the leaking sediment.
“At
this point in time we’re again having some runoff issues due to open
areas [and] unvegetated open soils, where the soils are being carried
offsite from the frequent rains and the snowmelt.”
Preferred
Sands didn't agree to an interview for this story. They emailed a
statement saying they've resolved some of the issues, but remaining
problems are exacerbated by the spring thaw.
Here's what people who visit Preferred Sands of Minnesota's web page read (and it's easy to understand why the less-than-curious members of the Minnesota Legislature might think that everything is totally copaceptic in this industry). Pay no attention Trempealeau County--and for pete's sake, don't worry about Southeast Minnesota's water or trout:
Maintain & Sustain.
Preferred Sands of Minnesota is dedicated to maintaining and sustaining, and when it comes to that, we’ll let our employees do the speaking for us:
“...Sand saved my farm. Excavating the sand deposits on my farm has allowed me to keep my land and home. I’ve been able to buy back the dairy cows I once had to sell off, who again graze on the hills that have been restored because of environmentally sound mine reclamation projects. When you choose to support the local sand industry, you are supporting the economic future of Western Wisconsin.” — Sam LaGesse
With locations in Woodbury, MN, and Bloomer, WI, Preferred Sands of Minnesota provides the much sought-after Jordan and Northern white frac sand.
Our Woodbury and Bloomer facilities have in excess of 40 million tons of high quality Northern White silica sand, and have the capacity to produce approximately 500,000 tons annually of our natural sand.
Our white sand deposits are strategically located near major forms of rail transportation: Union Pacific, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, Canadian National, and Canadian Pacific. Preferred Sands of Minnesota is unit train accessible and has convenient barge access along the Mississippi River, providing service to the Southern Mississippi and into Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Improving Best Practices
Preferred Sands of Minnesota is teamed up with the town of Cooks Valley and the town of Auburn to fund local recycling programs and we are actively involved in a 5-year Chippewa County, WI DNR ground water modeling program implemented to track any potential environmental impacts and gather data to advance best practices for mining and production.
The Wisconsin Chapter of Trout Unlimited
has not made any official statements on frac sand mining but has worked
behind the scenes. Duke Welter, who represents Trout Unlimited in
Wisconsin and the Midwest, says they are participating in a Chippewa
County study on sand mining's effects on groundwater and trout stream
levels.
He says they have also suggested a state run study of the industry’s environmental impacts.
“So
far I haven’t heard [a] positive response from most of the legislators
that I’ve talked to because they think that existing tools are just
fine, or they think it’s not important enough to try and put that effort
together.”
Welter says Trout Unlimited will
continue to advocate for scientific study of frac sand mining to better
inform policy and regulations.
No wonder Preferred Sands of Minnesota's webpage is talking about Chippewa County and not that other place. (In Wisconsin, Senator Vinehout is an exception with regard to the sand mining industry).
Is this the model pro-mining Minnesota legislators are touting? Really? For more information on language making its way in the Minnesota legislature that would protect water and trout streams in Minnesota's driftless region, please see our post from earlier this week, Frac sand mining: trout stream protection language to face test in key senate committee.
Photo: Sandslide in Trempealeau County. Credit: Wisconsin DNR (top); Preferred Sands of Minnesota's webpage. There's a lot more text there than for the new operation in Blair, where run-off continues to be an issue.
If you enjoy reading posts like these on Bluestem Prairie, consider throwing some coin in the tip jar:
. . . Timothy Zinniel, president of Sleepy Eye-based Zinniel Electric, said
his company started selling and installing solar panels in 2007 and now
makes 50 percent of its annual sales from solar power.
“If (municipal power providers) and power companies could offer
electricity from a local standpoint, they’d be creating more jobs
locally. Our largest export is our dollars. Let’s keep them here,” he
said.
Zinniel estimates he’d hire at least five more people if the solar standard passes.
That doesn’t include the jobs created by Minnesota’s two solar panel manufacturers, tenKsolar and Silicon Energy.
When Zinniel is working with a customer, he offers them both American-
and foreign-made panels. The Chinese ones are sometimes cheaper, but
Zinniel said many of his customers are willing to pay a bit more to buy
American. . . .
Zinniel supports a measure that would require Minnesota's utilities togenerate 4 percent of their
electricity from solar power by 2025 and to get 40 percent of their power from renewable sources by
2030.
Although Xcel Energy and other utilities oppose the bill, a representative for Xcel conceded that the development of Minnesota's wind industry hasn't led to higher rates for the out-of-state utility's customers in Minnesota. Linehan reports:
That said, McCarten said Xcel’s wind energy spending hasn’t led to any
price increases for customers. In other words, if the company had bought
natural gas instead of wind, customers would be paying roughly the same
amount.
[J. Drake] Hamilton, the renewable energy advocate, said people who support the
higher renewable energy standard should contact their legislators.
Bluestem suspects that as Minnesota's solar industry matures, costs will come down. Could the utilities' own commitments and contracts for fossil-fuel generated power be as much factor for the resistance to the development of solar as concern for the hypothetical costs for consumers?
Manufacturing jobs creating high-quality Minnesota-made products, as well as jobs based in Greater Minnesota small businesses, sounds pretty electifying to Bluestem. Governor Mark Dayton supports the development of Minnesota's renewable energy portfolio.
Photo: Solar panels, via Zinniel Electric.
If you enjoy reading posts like these on Bluestem Prairie, consider throwing some coin in the tip jar:
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