At two in the morning, the Minnesota House finally took up the bill to allow home-based childcare providers and personal care attendants to organize and vote on union representation.
Thank you Mr. Speaker and Members. What I'd like to do with this amendment is to require all signatures for the [union] solicitation materials to be printed in at least 14 point font. I'd like to avoid fine print. Smaller type can be hard on the eyes and even cause headaches according to the National Institute on Aging.
We do have an example of this in statute with park closings . . ."using the closure statements the following language must include in a font no smaller than 14 points." So I would just like to include that for the first part here on the childcare signatures.
It's a good amendment and I would urge your support on this one.
Make type size at least 12 point, 13 point, or 14 point.
Type that is too small can be hard on the eyes and can even cause a
headache. When selecting a type size, keep in mind that some fonts are
naturally bigger than others. For example, look at Georgia vs. Times New
Roman. Both of these fonts are in 13 point type size and yet Georgia is
bigger. Use 14 point type size when working with smaller fonts, like
Times New Roman. Headings should be even larger so they will stand out.
If your audience has low vision, consider using larger fonts, like 16
point or 18 point. However, for older readers who do not have low vision
problems, font sizes that are too large (greater than 14 point) may be
difficult to read. [emphasis added]
Throughout the debate, Republicans stood up against fine print on union materials. Former English teacher Sondra Erickson discussed her bonafides as a graphic designer, for example.
Bluestem applauds the offensive on fine print and looks forward to Ron Kresha, Mary Franson, graphic designer Sondra Erickson, Joyce Peppin and other members of the Republican House Caucus standing up for readability in all documents that Minnesotans may have occasion to read in the course of business.
A modest proposal on large type format equality
Let us suggest that not only union organizing documents, but all terms and conditions, contracts and other documents distributed by banks, consumer credit companies, mortgaged lenders, payday lenders and pawnbrokers be printed in 14 pt type. Or larger.
Indeed, given the urgency of this issue, first pressed by Republicans at 2:00 a.m. this morning, we're shocked that they haven't proposed this before. (The amendment was withdrawn after much discussion).
Unless the early morning fantods over fonts was simply time-wasting concern trolling, the Republican House caucus should have golden opportunity today to demonstrate their commitment to Reader Rights and Liberty.
Will the House Republican Caucus be bold, bold we say, and ask that the House rules on amendments be suspended, and ask their colleagues from across the aisle to require banks and mortgage lenders to produce all home loans, mortgages, and documents related to foreclosures, loan modifications, and evictions in at least 14 point size type, regardless of the font?
Surely, if Kresha's crusade is worthing of imposing on organized labor, banks and other lenders deserve big honking print as well.
At Bluestem's request, our friends at The Uptake are pulling the video of this morning's Fontgate debate. We'll post it here when it is available.
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:
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.
Hours after meeting with Representative Michelle Bachmann (R-CD6), Minnesota Latino immigrants remain hopeful, but cautious.
While grateful for an opportunity to discuss the issue of immigration reform with Representative Bachmann, members of organization La Asamblea de Derechos Civiles were disappointed that Representative Bachmann had opened up the meeting to an out-of-state congressperson whose comments in the meeting were inappropriate. While Representative Bachmann may believe that others are experts at the topic at hand, La Asamblea members believe that Representative Bachmann should be an expert in attempting to understand the experiences of her constituents.
However, La Asamblea members do applaud Representative Bachmann for agreeing to continue listening to stories and constituent perspectives regarding immigration reform. . .
The press release went on to praise the tone of the meeting:
"The meeting had a very positive tone of building bridges between the Latino community and Mrs. Bachmann. At the meeting, we had the impression that freedom for many immigrants is closer and we made it clear to her that the Latinos have a growing voting muscle in politics that we are ready to use," said Pablo Tapia, La Asamblea organizer.
Bluestem has learned that the other member of Congress was Alabama representative Mo Brooks, who serves his state's fifth congressional district on the Tennessee border.
Update: Bluestem's original post was not clear about the logistics of the meeting, which took place in Minnesota with Bachmann and one of her Washington staff members. Brooks joined the meeting via speaker phone. [end update]
Brooks 2011 statement: "I will doing anything short of shooting" undocumented workers
"As your congressman on the House floor, I will do anything short of
shooting them," Brooks said. "Anything that is lawful, it needs to be
done because illegal aliens need to quit taking jobs from American
citizens."
Rep. Charlie Gonzalez, (D-Texas) head of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, blasted Brooks remarks.
"Rhetoric referencing acts of violence has no place in the
discussion for realistic solutions to our country's immigration
problems," Gonzalez said. "Words have consequences"
Brooks 2.0: Gentler anti-immigrant rhetoric in 2013
We don't know yet what "inappropriate" comments Brooks made in the recent meeting, but he's one of a handful of congress people who have been critical of current bipartisan efforts to move comprehensive immigration reform.
His rhetoric does seem to have mellowed in the last two years.
After the media reported that an immigration deal among the Senate’s Gang of Eight was imminent, a number of conservatives in the House told their leadership on Wednesday that they didn’t want to get steamrolled by the upper chamber.
Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) told The Hill, “We probably won’t know anything until a bill is drafted and presented.
“Keep in mind, it’s just eight people. It’s not sanctioned by anybody,” he noted, adding “it’s going to be very difficult for me to agree to ratify illegal conduct.”
. . .With both groups seemingly close to producing legislation, King and
the others believe it’s time for them to make their voices heard before
the momentum becomes overwhelming.
“We’ve held our powder dry,” King said, but “decided its time
to come forward now because we are seeing the inertia and we are
concerned about having this wash over us and not have the opportunity
for the constitutional conservatives in this country and in this
Congress to have their voice heard.”
A group of Republican House members led by Iowa Rep. Steve King spoke forcefully in opposition to a mass legalization before first solving the problem of illegal immigration at an event with reporters Thursday. . . .
Alabama Republican Rep. Mo Brooks said that the immigration system should serve Americans and stressed that in terms of immigration, America “is the most compassionate nation in history when it comes to allowing foreigners to become citizens of our country.”
“I want to emphasize the culture that we have in America, that we welcome immigration,” he said, explaining the issue is illegal immigration.
“We have to make a choice: Are we going to have laws, or not have laws? If we are not going to have open borders then that means we have to have laws that restrict who can come and who cannot come in. And we have to enforce those laws,” Brooks said, explaining that it is only a small percentage of people “who have chosen to disregard our laws as their first act on American soil.”
He added that with so many people wishing to come to America, the country should focus on accepting the most valuable and productive people.
“I urge that we get behind an immigration policy that focuses on bringing to America those who are clearly going to be on the productive side of our economy, less likely to be on the consumptive side of our economy,” he said, adding that illegal immigrants contribute to keeping wages low and Americans out of work.
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio went on seven Sunday talk shows
to pitch a bipartisan immigration reform deal, while a handful of
Republican lawmakers famous for their wacky cable news interviews can't
get any attention. An anti-immigration "gang of six" in the House is
trying to stop the pro-immigration "gang of eight" in the Senate, The National Review's Robert Costa
reports, but hardly anyone's listening. The six are cable TV favorites:
Minnesota's Michele Bachmann, Iowa's Steve King, Texas' Louie Gohmert,
Alabama's Mo Brooks, Pennsylvania's Lou Barletta, and California's
Dana Rohrabacher. There were zero "anti-amnesty" Sunday show guests
the week before Rubio's grand tour. The most popular cable guests of
the six -- Bachmann, King, and Gohmert -- haven't been invited on cable
to talk immigration in the last three months, according to Lexis Nexis.
They complain the GOP isn't listening to them either.
In 2007, Costa explains, Republican immigration opponents "dominated
the headlines" and "scared off many Republicans who might otherwise have
supported it." Now, "the anti-legalization warriors wonder why their
party suddenly seems to be ignoring their concerns." But once the bill
comes out, he writes, "they think they, not Rubio, will be the
Republicans who shape the debate, especially on talk radio and within
the conservative movement." But that hasn't happened so far! According
to Lexis Nexis -- which, granted, doesn't have every single word uttered
on cable news -- Bachmann, King, and Gohmert haven't been able to get
much time on Fox to sell their view. They're all far more popular on
MSNBC as bad guys than on Fox as good guys.
Check out the tally sheet at the Atlantic Wire. In the National Review article, A Gang of Six Plots a Revolt Costa writes:
King and his crew are not driving the negotiations, and they
increasingly feel like outsiders within their own party. “The meetings
of the Gang of Eight and the secret meetings in the House of
Representatives — the people who have been standing up for the
Constitution and the rule of law haven’t been invited to those
meetings,” King tells the assembled group of reporters. The other
huddlers — Michele Bachmann (Minn.), Lou Barletta (Pa.), Mo Brooks
(Ala.), Louie Gohmert (Texas), and Dana Rohrabacher (Calif.) — nod and
grimace. “We’ve got all the rich guys and the elitists talking to each
other,” Rohrabacher says. “Unfortunately us regular folks don’t have
that kind of coordination.”
Brooks has long been in opposition to allowing leniency to those who
skirted the law to live in the United States. In 2011, Brooks said at a
town hall meeting that the U.S. should "do anything short of shooting them" to keep illegal aliens out of the country.
Tonight,
Brooks pointed to the financial burden illegal aliens are putting on
the economy. He said the U.S. Treasury was writing checks for about $4
billion per year in child tax credits to illegal aliens who are
submitting fraudulent tax forms. He also said that estimates in
Washington indicate illegal aliens are contributing $20 million per year
to the tax system while consuming $100 million per year in taxes.
He acknowledged, however, that his views on immigration are "in the minority" in Washington. Immigration reform, including the amnesty program, has been a rare issue receiving bipartisan support.
Brooks' expertise: caucus memberships
It's curious that Bachmann would invite a member of the Gang of Six to meet with Minnesotans on immigration reform, since that might chill the discussion. Brooks was the author of the died-in-committee "Jobs for Americans Act of 2011."
The caucuses favor closed borders, withholding all federal funding to
cities that do not strictly enforce federal immigration status laws,
and other measures generally characterized as anti-immigrant by those
seeking comprehensive immigration reform.
Research on immigrants and job creation
While Brooks' central assertion--that undocumented workers rob Americans of jobs--is a staple of anti-immigrant talking points, the record is mixed. The New York Times Magazine asked in 2012 Do Illegal Immigrants Actually Hurt the U.S. Economy?, noting:
. . .Labor economists have concluded that
undocumented workers have lowered the wages of U.S. adults without a
high-school diploma — 25 million of them — by anywhere between 0.4 to
7.4 percent.
The impact on everyone else, though, is surprisingly positive. Giovanni
Peri, an economist at the University of California, Davis, has written a
series of influential papers comparing the labor markets in states with
high immigration levels to those with low ones. . . . In states with more undocumented immigrants, Peri said, skilled
workers made more money and worked more hours; the economy’s
productivity grew. From 1990 to 2007, undocumented workers increased
legal workers’ pay in complementary jobs by up to 10 percent.
As Congress considers immigration reform, experts across the political spectrum say American jobs are safe.
That
immigrants take the jobs of American-born citizens is “something that
virtually no learned person believes in,” Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration
expert at the libertarian Cato Institute, said at a Thursday panel.
“It’s sort of a silly thing.”
Most economists don’t find immigrants driving down wages or jobs, the Brookings Institution's
Michael Greenstone and Adam Looney wrote in May. In fact, “on average,
immigrant workers increase the opportunities and incomes of Americans,”
they write. Foreign-born workers don’t affect the employment rate
positively or negatively, according to a 2011 analysis
from the conservative American Enterprise Institute. And a study
released Wednesday by the liberal Center for American Progress suggests
that granting legal status to undocumented workers might even create
jobs.
The CAP study,
led by the visiting head of the Washington College economics
department, sought to predict what would happen under immigration
reform. The researchers considered a handful of scenarios. In each, it
was presumed that the nation’s 11 million undocumented immigrants would
be immediately granted legal status. They then looked at the effect of
those undocumented immigrants not being granted citizenship at all over a
decade, getting it immediately, or getting it in five years.
Legal
status alone would lead to the creation of 121,000 extra jobs annually
over the next 10 years, they found. Getting citizenship within five
years would increase that to 159,000 jobs per year. And receiving both
legal status and citizenship this year would create an extra 203,000
jobs annually.
Photo: Alabama Congressman Mo Brooks, Michele Bachmann's go-to guy for meetings with Minnesota Latinos advocating comprehensive immigration reform.
If you enjoy reading posts like this on Bluestem Prairie, consider throwing some coin in the tip jar:
I spent some time yesterday watching the Minnesota Ways & Means committee debate the proposed minimum wage changes. While there are many things about the debate that caused a spike in my blood pressure, I am really concerned about those who think farm workers do not deserve the same rights as other workers in our state’s economy.
For some reason paying farm workers overtime after 40 hours is sacrilegious. Rep Sarah Anderson (R-Plymouth) tweeted, “When Minneapolis runs the #mnleg, they think farming is a 40 hour per week kind of job.”
Don Davis in his April 29th Capitol Chatter column quotes DFL Rep. Jeanne Poppe, “Ag workers are not necessarily like factory workers where they can clock in and clock out.” No, it is not necessarily a 40 hour per week job. Yes, you have to often “make hay when the sun shines”.
But then, a lot of jobs are like that. It is the beginning of the construction season and you will see workers taking advantage of the daylight and good weather to get as much done as possible.
Electrical workers recently worked seven days a week restoring power in SW Minnesota after the recent ice storms.
I wonder what the difference is between a worker putting in 70 hours a week on the farm and one putting in 70 hours a week paving a road. Both will be tired at the end of the week but the farm worker will get the shaft. Some legislators need to quit fantasizing about the “family farm” and realize that it is a business that should be held to the same standard for workers’ rights as other businesses. Get a clue people. It’s not your Grandpa’s farm.
A couple years ago I posted the lyrics to the song Eight Hours, by I.G. Blanchard, in a note to Facebook. I think it is relevant again today.
Eight Hours
We mean to make things over,
We are tired of toil for naught
With but bare enough to live upon
And ne'er an hour for thought.
We want to feel the sunshine
And we want to smell the flow'rs
We are sure that God has willed it
And we mean to have eight hours;
We're summoning our forces
From the shipyard, shop and mill
Back during the Republican Revolution in the 1990s, the drive to cut wages by weakening overtime took the form of then Senator John Ashcroft's "Family Friendly Workplace Act," but the principle was the same: allow private business to offer workers the supposedly voluntary option of working long hours, then taking time off rather than overtime. Nevermind that loophole that might allow management to schedule an employee for 60 hours one week, 20 hours the next, without receiving either comp time or overtime.
That was the 1990s version of family-friendly, because moms especially want time off and don't care so much about their paychecks, or so the "family friendly" narrative goes.
Say what
you will, but anti-worker politicians are good at giving deceptive names
to things. “Right to work” takes away your rights at work. “Paycheck
protection” puts your wages at risk. And who could forget Paul Ryan’s
plan to “strengthen Medicare” which ends Medicare as we know it.
House Republicans are pushing the “Workplace Families Flexibility Act of 2013,”
which they claim would allow busy working parents to spend more time
with their kids. That’s bogus. The bill replaces the 40-hour work week
with a “comp time” accrual system that would allow employers greater control over their hourly employee’s schedule.
What’s worse? The bill ends ”time-and-a-half” overtime pay for hourly
and non-exempt workers as we know it, giving renewed incentive for
businesses to work their employees as long as they want with near
impunity.
In other words, the bill does the opposite of what House Republicans say it will. . . .
Check out the deets in the post. Here in Minnesota's Seventh District, we'll be seeing web ads urging Blue Dog Democrat Collin Peterson to enlist in the Republican War on Women's paychecks. (Peterson's already in with the attack on reproductive rights and raising the minimum wage).
The National Republican Congressional Committee is demanding vulnerable House Democrats "support more freedom for working moms" in new web ads, a sign the committee is trying to improve the party's standing with female voters.
The ads call on Democrats to back the GOP-drafted "Working Families Flexibility Act," which would allow employers to give comp time for overtime hours rather than pay employees for them. The bill will likely be voted on in the House next week...
But a spokester for the D-Trip flipped the narrative:
Democrats fired back, pointing out that most House Republicans voted against the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Violence Against Women Act.
"House Republicans wish women voters would forget their past and ignore their agenda, but women voters are too smart for that," said Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokeswoman Emily Bittner. "This Republican Congress has been the most extreme, anti-woman legislature in American history with an agenda to deny women equal pay, quality health care services and even domestic violence protections. If Republicans think their problem is the style of their marketing campaign — not the substance they're selling — they've missed the message of the 2012 elections.
Bluestem hopes that Peterson can stuff his latent Republican tendencies back in the closet with his boots and resist the urge to cut working moms' paychecks.
Photo: Blue Dog Seventh District Congressman Collin Peterson.
If you enjoy reading posts like this 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:
Since the White House Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) began reviewing the Labor
Department’s proposed rule to reduce by one-half the permissible
workplace exposure to respirable crystalline silica more than two year
ago, the US has seen a dramatic increase in industrial sand mining, a
major route of workers’ exposure to silica dust. As Celeste Monforton reported for The Pump Handle
on March 20th, OIRA’s review of the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration’s (OSHA) draft proposed rule crystalline silica exposure
has now been going on for more than 800 days. During this time – since
2010 – the amount of industrial sand production in the US has increased
more than 50 percent. Industrial sand production is but one of the ways
workers can be exposed to the silica dust that can put them at increased
risk of developing lung cancer and other lung diseases, including
silicosis. Exposures often occur in stonecutting, sandblasting and
foundry work, in construction and – spurred by recent growth in natural
gas extraction – among workers producing, transporting and using
industrial sand in hydraulic fracturing (fracking) operations.
According to the most recent US Geological Survey (USGS) estimates,
US industrial sand production jumped an estimated 37% between 2010 and
2011 and another 14% between 2011 and 2012, with approximately 57% of
this sand destined in 2011 for US hydraulic fracturing operations. USGS
estimates that in 2011, sales of frac sand increased by 77% compared to
those in 2010. USGS calls the production and sale of hydraulic
fracturing sand the past several years’ “most important driving force in
the industrial sand and gravel industry.” USGS put the value of
industrial sand production in 2012 at $2.2 billion. . . .
. . .The bottom line . . . appears to be that while US
industrial sand production has skyrocketed – increasing about 50% in the
past two years – the businesses that produce this material and that use
the most of it maintain that it is too costly to improve protection for
workers who may be exposed to respirable silica dust, a known lung
carcinogen. At the same time there appears to be little progress in
expanding information available to workers or the public on where
industrial sand is being used in fracking operations, exactly how much
of this sand is being produced and where – and how many workers this may
put at risk of breathing this dangerous dust.
The city of Winona’s Citizens Environmental Quality Committee on
Thursday began discussing air-quality issues surrounding local frac sand
businesses.
The city’s planning commission and some city council
members have asked the committee to look into whether the city has the
resources and expertise to monitor the levels of silica sand in ambient
air at processing plants within the city.
Assistant city planner
Carlos Espinosa said the city should wait for recommendations from state
agencies and the Minnesota Legislature before writing any air quality
monitoring standards into city code.
Several bills regarding the
silica sand industry are being considered by state lawmakers, and the
state is in the process of setting a standard for airborne crystalline
silica by the end of 2013. There’s currently no state or federal
standard for a safe amount of airborne silica sand. . . .
Another indication of the sort of contentiousness sand mining is creating in Southeastern Minnesota? The Spring Grove Herald's government writer Craig Moorhead reports in New frac sand committee agrees on little in first meeting:
The most telling clue as to just how divisive the issue of frac sand mining has become in southeastern Minnesota is what happened when Houston County's Frac Sand Study Committee began its April 12 meeting. It took over 20 minutes just to approve the agenda. . . .
The bill includes almost $3 million that would go
toward creating a state board to establish standards for silica sand
mining, which is a booming industry in southeastern Minnesota. Lawmakers
have been grappling with how to regulate the budding industry, which
has the potential to be an economic generator as prospectors search for
new deposits of a product oil companies use later in hydraulic
fracturing. Some communities worry that the rush has outpaced
environmental concerns created when the sand is extracted and
transported.
Stay tuned.
Photo: Silica sand dust in Wisconsin. Photo by Jim Tittle.
If you appreciate reading posts on Bluestem Prairie, consider making a donation via paypal:
Governor Mark Dayton may have come out against a one-year moratorium on industrial sand mining while a Generic Environmental Impact Statement is conducted, but a story by Stephanie Hemphill at Minnesota Public Radio illustrates why grassroots citizen groups in Southeastern Minnesota are asking for both.
. . .The EQB is a multi-agency oversight
body that received a petition to do an in-depth study of the possible
environmental effects of frac sand mining. . . .
That kind of study would take
several years and cost a lot of money. In the meantime, the agency has
produced a 90-page report that summarizes the issues.
So far the questions outnumber the
answers regarding possible impacts on the environment, the economy and
local communities, said EQB planner Jeff Smyser.
One of those questions involves a very scary thing: sinkholes. Probably not Florida-scale sinkholes--and the water quality concerns that are related to sinkhole-producing karst geology are a whole lot more vexsome:
The report includes . . .maps of
southeastern Minnesota's unusual geology, known as karst geology, where
rich deposits of silica sand are found. That makes it tricky to predict
underground water flows, Smyser said. The limestone bedrock easily
creates sinkholes and causes unpredictable groundwater flows.
"It's kind of difficult to know
where the water's going to go, just what effects use of groundwater,
discharge of processing water is going to have because of that karst
geology out there," he said. "So that's a real tricky question that's
real hard to answer at this point."
A number of silica-sand related bills are working their way through the Minnesota legislature. Senator Matt Schmit's SF786 provides for a GEIS and a one-year moratorium; Schmit has also introduced a bill that creates setbacks to protect fish and sensitive natural areas in the driftless region. Rep. Hansen's HF906 creates standard and a technical assistance team team to help local government regulate sand mining; he also has a bill to protect wellheads and natural areas in the region.
Hansen shared news of Kelly's approval as the Minnesota House Government
Operations committee heard the amended bill on Friday, March 15.
In the amended bill, the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) retains responsibility for drawing up standards and selecting a seven-member technical assistance team for local government. Drawn largely from state agency personnel, the
team will become involved in projects when local government requests the
help. Making the request voluntary had been a sticking point in earlier iterations of the language.
Plans created by the team will not require review by the EQB.
Also added: a EQB-maintained reference library of local permits and
ordinances and the development of an air
quality health advisory for silica sand by January 1, 2014.
The bill now heads to the House Environment, Natural Resources
and Agriculture Finance Committee, chaired by environmental champion
Rep. Jean Wagenius (DFL-Minneapolis).
Rep. Phyllis Kahn (DFL-Minneapolis) has also added her name as co-sponsor.
In Friday's Politics in Minnesota article, Sand in the gears, staff writer Charley Shaw took a closer look at the politics of the various house and senate bills. He reports:
. . .The frac sand issue illustrates the ingrained power struggle among DFL
committee chairs with respect to the demands of environment and
industry. The third prong of the power struggle is Gov. Mark Dayton,
whose views on frac sand mining remain a mystery at this point. Dayton
signaled his awareness of the issue before the session began when he
told reporters that frac sand mining would be a “huge” issue. And on
Thursday he sent another signal that he’s tuned into frac sand mining,
releasing a revised budget that includes $1.9 million to pay for a team
of six state agencies and boards that would provide technical assistance
to local units of government related to silica sand mining. The funding
would be supported by new fees on the extraction and processing of
silica sand. . . .
Groundwater, sand mining and sinkholes
In other news, Pioneer Press outdoors columnist Dave Orrick links the paper's ongoing investigation into troubling groundwater use to potential demand on aquifers by the industrial sand mining industry. He reports in Sportsmen should pay attention to groundwater issues:
This week, my colleagues and I are writing on
Minnesota groundwater. Aquifers. Water that invisibly flows through
porous (sand), semi-porous (limestone) and surprisingly porous
(fractured shale) layers of underground rock. The stories focus on
public water supplies, conservation at home and whether we're stressing
these subterranean sponges too much. But there are serious impacts for
outdoors lovers and the places we love. . . .
It's also possible that a frac-sand mining
operation that washes sand with well water and then returns that water
to the same ground, could be conserving water and damaging the local
stream trout populations at the same time. In fact, it's possible that
more traditional limestone- and gravel-mining operations could do the
same, said Steve Klotz, the Lanesboro-area fisheries supervisor for the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
"Some of the proposals out there are throwing around some big
water appropriations," Klotz said. "We've got one that could potentially
impact the big spring that supplies water to our hatchery."
Decades of shoreline protection and restoration projects in
southeast Minnesota deserve credit for the area's outstanding stream
trout fishery. But an essential facet of the trout's ability to
reproduce naturally, as they are doing in most waters, is the constant
temperature -- usually about 48 degrees -- that water flows, year-round,
when it emerges from springs in the limestone bluffs of the Driftless
Area. Browns and brookies aren't fans of wild temperature fluctuations.
Water doesn't take long to get from the surface to aquifers in the
porous earth, but it takes long enough to reach that temperature, either
by cooling in the summer or warming in the winter.
But the area is prone to sinkholes, Klotz explained. Pull too much water out of an aquifer, and it can collapse. . . .
Check out the whole column at the PiPress. It's no wonder Trout Unlimited is paying close attention to the issue--and letters from informed citizens are peppering the region's newspapers.
Reading around Southern Minnesota's newspapers this afternoon, it's clear--from Red Wing and Winona to Mankato--that the promise of legislative relief at the state capitol has not led to a ceasefire in the field.
Red Wing City Council voted 4-1 to accept the resignation letter of Mayor Dennis Egan Monday night.
Egan made no comment as the motion was brought up for discussion. . . .
Read the entire story at the RWRE. Egan resigned, effective April 1, after he was roundly criticized for accepting a position as the executive director of the Minnesota Industrial Sand Council to lobby for the industry. The city has frequently been at odds over mining, and the council has adopted a resolution supporting a statewide Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) and one-year moratorium.
Lately, I've read a slurry of letters that attempt to diminish
the severity of Mayor Dennis Egan’s ethical breech of conduct in
accepting a lobbying position with the Minnesota Industrial Sand
Council. The writers make inflated references to lynch mobs, freedom,
shame, and disrespect. The most absurd is that he took his new position
to simply “feed his family.”
Such exaggerated versions of
Egan’s victimhood and innocence and Egan’s own exploitation of his
political position for personal gain is the real shame here. Red Wing
citizens reacted no differently than the rest of an appalled Minnesota
at the news that our mayor took a job lobbying on behalf of a mining
council whose mission directly conflicts with city ordinances . . .
Winona state Sen. Jeremy Miller introduced legislation this week that
he says will keep frac sand permitting decisions in the hands of local
governments while giving them greater access to state resources.
Miller
is proposing the formation of a Silica Sand Technical Advisory Council,
which would bring together representatives from state agencies like the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources, and the Minnesota Department of Health to provide guidance
for local governments as they navigate permitting, environmental
reviews, and other issues related to the frac sand industry. Rep. Tim
Kelly, a Republican from Red Wing, has introduced companion legislation
in the House, and both measures have gained early bipartisan support. . . .
He did sign on to two bills that match the paper's description, however: SF1258 (chief author Kathy Sheran, DFL-Mankato) and SF1257 (chief author Matt Schmit, DFL-Red Wing). The latter bill, introduced by Schmit, is the companion bill to Kelly's HF1367.
Neither senate bill has received a hearing--while in the House, Rep. Rick Hansen's (DFL-South St. Paul) bill was heard and moved on Wednesday. It places technical assistance and some environmental review in the hands of the EBQ, but doesn't call for an GEIS or a state-wide moratorium on new projects, as we posted in First MN House committee hearing on industrial sand mining sends Hansen's HF906 forward.
Rather, a far different Schmit bill is making its way through the state senate:
Miller isn’t the
only state senator to direct his attention to the issue this session.
Sen. Matt Schmit, DFL-Red Wing, introduced a bill in February calling
for a statewide environmental review of the frac sand industry, the
formation of a regional council to oversee regulation and development,
and enabling the taxation of sand at the local and state levels.
That
bill has passed out of the Senate Environment and Energy Committee and
the State and Local Government Committee, and will be forwarded to the
Senate Finance Committee for further discussion. . . .
The bill that Schmit is shepherding through is favorably received by citizens across sand country, if letter sections are an accurate barometer. Vince Ready writes from St. Charles to the Winona Daily News to ask that the legislature Help protect our rural way of life by passing Schmit's bill.
A unanimous vote from St. Charles' city
council Tuesday night put the Minnesota Proppant silica-sand processing
and transportation project on life support.
All that is needed now is for Winona County to officially pull the plug.
"On behalf of the Concerned Citizens, I thank you for
adopting the resolution," said Travis Lange, spokesman for Concerned
Citizens for St. Charles, a group that has worked to end the frac-sand
project. "It's in the best interest of the city as a whole."
The collapse of a major frac sand proposal in Winona County has
caused a split among investors in the project, with one faction pulling
out in frustration over Minnesota’s anti-frac sand sentiment.
“Me and my partners split up. They went to Wisconsin,”
said Rick Frick, one of two remaining principals in Minnesota Proppant
LLC. “Were they fed up? Yes, that had a lot to do with it.”
Read the rest at the Star Tribune.
Photo: Yes, it's a frac sand train wreck.
If you appreciate reading posts on Bluestem Prairie, consider making a donation via paypal:
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 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.
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:
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:
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