LSP "sand lady" on Minnesota Public Radio's Daily Circuit Monday 3/25, 9:06 a.m.
MPR's Daily Circuit outlines issues related to industrial sand mining in Debate continues on frac sand mining's health, environmental impact, but if you want to get the good stuff, tune in to MPR at 9:06 a.m. on Monday, March 25 to listen to Land Stewardship policy organizer Johanna Rupprecht talk about frac sand.
"You
can farm the same land over and over but once you mine it, it's gone," a
Wisconsin woman told filmmaker Jim Tittle. Born and raised on a farm
that's been in her family for generations, she represents one of the
positions explored in his documentary, The Price of Sand, which
focuses on Wisconsin conflict over silica mines, small towns and money —
a conflict now playing out in southeastern Minnesota and in the
Minnesota legislature.
The Price of Sand, an
independently produced documentary examining the human and environmental
costs of silica (frac) sand mining, was shown at an advance screening
in Red Wing, Minnesota on March 22. The film, which offers a broad
overview of some of the tough issues facing rural communities threatened
by mining in the Upper Midwest, played to a packed audience at the
Sheldon Theatre.
The Price of Sand will be screened in St. Paul
on March 28, 7:00 p.m. at the Grandview Theater. A Q & A session
with film director, Jim Tittle is scheduled after the screening. The
documentary was selected for the MSP Film Festival in April and more
screenings along with a DVD release will be coming soon. For more
information about The Price of Sand, go to www.thepriceofsand.com.
Jim
Tittle, the film's director, spoke at a Q & A session afterwards
along with Minnesota State Senator Matt Schmit (DFL, Red Wing), and Jody
McIlrath, representative for Save the Bluffs, a grass-roots
organization based in Red Wing, Minnesota.
Tittle, a videographer by profession, started working on The Price of Sand
two years ago after learning that an oil company had purchased land
close to his mother's home in Hay Creek Township, south of Red Wing,
Minnesota. Initially puzzled by the deal, Tittle soon discovered the
company wasn't interested in oil but in silica (frac) sand, a commodity
widely used by the oil and gas industry for the hydraulic-fracturing (or
fracking) of shale and found in abundance in the blufflands of western
Wisconsin, southeastern Minnesota, and northeastern Iowa. Concerned
about what this might hold for the future of his hometown, Tittle began
digging deeper into the subject and produced a series of YouTube videos
featuring interviews with people living next door to mining operations
across the river in western Wisconsin. These interviews became the
foundation for his film.
Tittle carefully builds an argument against the sudden industrialization of small, close-knit agricultural communities in The Price of Sand.
Over the course of the documentary, we meet the beleaguered residents
of New Auburn, Knapp, Alma, McGregor, Maiden Rock, and Chippewa Falls.
In the tiny village of Tunnel City, Wisconsin, the Connecticut-based,
multi-national corporation, Unimin is constructing a 500-acre, open pit
sand mine. One of its neighbors, an unfortunate woman who lives with her
young family directly across the street from the mine, tells us it will
operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week and there's nothing she can
do about it. Like so many people Tittle interviewed in Wisconsin, she
feels not only helpless but abandoned by public officials who would
prefer to look the other way rather than challenge the status quo and
restrict mining activities through zoning. Another unhappy resident sums
the dilemma up nicely saying, "we place a high value on our freedom and
these companies take advantage of that."
Beautifully shot and edited, The Price of Sand
presents a cautionary tale for Minnesotans currently debating the issue
of whether to regulate mining at the state and local level. The film
begins and ends with a long sequence of aerial shots revealing
wide-spread devastation caused by open pit mining. Throughout the
documentary, one person after another speaks out on such difficult and
thorny topics as the influence of big money on local politics; economic
hardship and the promise of jobs; gag orders and media buzz; and the
inevitable conflicts that arise when corporate interests compete for an
unfair share of the pie in rural communities vulnerable to exploitation –
all topics relevant for a discussion of Tittle's leading question: What
is the true price of sand?
During the Q & A session after
the screening, Senator Matt Schmit (DFL, Red Wing) announced that a bill
he recently introduced in the Minnesota state legislature calling for
more stringent controls on silica sand mining had passed committee
deadlines and would be brought before the Minnesota House and Senate for
further discussion. When asked if he backed Governor Mark Dayton's
stated opposition to a proposed moratorium on mining, Schmit said he
would continue to push for a one-year moratorium and supports an
extension of a rule permitting the Environmental Quality Board to
continue studying the issues.
Carol Inderieden is a writer and photographer from the Twin Cities area living in western Wisconsin.
This post was original published at the Twin Cities Daily Planet; published with permission via our content exchange agreement.
Governor Mark Dayton may have come out against a one-year moratorium on industrial sand mining while a Generic Environmental Impact Statement is conducted, but a story by Stephanie Hemphill at Minnesota Public Radio illustrates why grassroots citizen groups in Southeastern Minnesota are asking for both.
. . .The EQB is a multi-agency oversight
body that received a petition to do an in-depth study of the possible
environmental effects of frac sand mining. . . .
That kind of study would take
several years and cost a lot of money. In the meantime, the agency has
produced a 90-page report that summarizes the issues.
So far the questions outnumber the
answers regarding possible impacts on the environment, the economy and
local communities, said EQB planner Jeff Smyser.
One of those questions involves a very scary thing: sinkholes. Probably not Florida-scale sinkholes--and the water quality concerns that are related to sinkhole-producing karst geology are a whole lot more vexsome:
The report includes . . .maps of
southeastern Minnesota's unusual geology, known as karst geology, where
rich deposits of silica sand are found. That makes it tricky to predict
underground water flows, Smyser said. The limestone bedrock easily
creates sinkholes and causes unpredictable groundwater flows.
"It's kind of difficult to know
where the water's going to go, just what effects use of groundwater,
discharge of processing water is going to have because of that karst
geology out there," he said. "So that's a real tricky question that's
real hard to answer at this point."
A number of silica-sand related bills are working their way through the Minnesota legislature. Senator Matt Schmit's SF786 provides for a GEIS and a one-year moratorium; Schmit has also introduced a bill that creates setbacks to protect fish and sensitive natural areas in the driftless region. Rep. Hansen's HF906 creates standard and a technical assistance team team to help local government regulate sand mining; he also has a bill to protect wellheads and natural areas in the region.
While bills related to regulating the frac sand industry make their way through the Minnesota state legislature, sand mining continues to generate headlines in Minnesota and Wisconsin.
With Republicans Denny McNamara (R-Hastings) and Tim Kelly (R-Red Wing) signed on as sponsors--and most objections (other than having a bill at all) from the silica sand industry overcome, the Rick Hansen (DFL-South St. Paul) bill retains its basic shape: technical assistance for local government in permitting and monitoring under the aegis of the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) but no Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) or one-year moratorium.
Listen to the action at the end of the audio here. SF1018, introduced by Senator Matt Schmit (DFL-Red Wing), is the senate companion bill.
Minnesota Public Radio's Stephanie Hemphill reported on the bills' earlier progress in Frac sand mining bill clears another hurdle. The Schmit bill was heard in committee but audio has yet to be posted.
Permits move ahead in Fillmore and Winona Counties
A quarry southeast of Lanesboro that has
been extracting silica sand since 2008 with little notice is asking to
expand from 18.6 acres to 50 acres.
Reilly Construction Co., of Ossian, Iowa, which operates the mine
on the land of Sandra and John Rein near the unincorporated town of
Highland, submitted an environmental assessment worksheet on Jan. 10.
The public comment period has ended, and Fillmore County is responding
to questions and comments, said Zoning Administrator Chris Graves. About
a dozen people or governmental agencies commented on the document.
It's possible the EAW will come before the county
board at the end of this month or in early April, he said. If it finds
the worksheet meets requirements, the board can approve it and the
quarry can apply for a conditional use permit that would allow the
expansion.
While similar mines that were proposed for south of St. Charles brought
heavy criticism and comment, the Rein mine has been operating without
problems, he said. "They have been a really good mine," he said. . . .
The comments on the Rein proposal centered around many of the same
concerns as those commenting on the Saratoga proposals — traffic,
health, water pollution and noise.
The Rein worksheet also had comments from people who
feared damage to two trout streams — Nepstad and Gribben — because their
headwaters are around Highland.
That's not quite the situation in Winona County, where the small scale of a 20-acre site that will be worked out in three years is meeting little resistance. The Winona Daily News' Jerome Christenson reports in Commission: EIS not required for Nisbit mine:
If the county board’s willing and the state doesn’t intervene, Winona
County’s first new frac sand mine could go into operation this spring.
On
a 5-3 vote, the Winona County Planning Commission recommended that the
county board not require an Environmental Impact Statement for the
proposed Nisbit mine.
Mine operator Tom Rowekamp said he was
pleased with the vote. “We know people have concerns,” he said, “We’ve
done our best to address them. I don’t know what else we could do.”
The
proposed 20-acre mine site is located in Saratoga Township outside
Utica on land owned by David and Sherry Nisbit. The site lies on the
north side of Gethje Lane, a dead-end private road. Current plans call
for about 200,000 tons of sand to be removed each year for about three
years, at which time the commercially available sand is expected to be
exhausted. The mined area will be recovered with topsoil and planted to
native prairie. . . .
. . .Three fourths of the dozen or so who spoke at the public hearing favored
requiring an EIS for the mine, citing concerns about dust, water
quality and increased truck traffic. . . .
Commissioner Jim Hegland said he lived about a mile and a half from the
mine site and shared the concerns of the speakers, but “there’s only so
much research we can do before we have to do something.” He said the
Nisbit mine’s small size and limited prospective lifetime make it a good
test case for silica mine regulations in the county.
Much of the opposition to other proposed projects centers either on their massive scale--as in the moribund proposal for a mammoth processing and mining complex in St. Charles--or their location near homes, schools or sensitive natural areas, along with unanswered questions about the industry's impact.
With Gov. Scott Walker’s new budget including assistance for the sand mining industry, a controversial frac sand operation near the Lower Wisconsin River is moving closer to approval.
The town of Bridgeport Planning Commission has OK’d a conditional use permit for Pattison Sand Co. of Clayton, Iowa, to locate a mine near the Lower Wisconsin State Riverway, setting up a final vote by the Town Board on March 27.
Mine opponents packed the Bridgeport Town Hall for the commission meeting last week but were given little opportunity to speak during the three-hour hearing, according to reports. . . .
“It’s supposed to be ‘For the People and By the People’ but that didn’t happen,” Arnie Steele of Bridgeport Concerned Citizens told the Courier Press in Prairie du Chien.
The group says it will consider legal action but Bridgeport attorney Todd Infield had advised the commission that it couldn’t deny a permit simply based on citizen opposition. Timing may be an issue as well for the town of Bridgeport, with elections scheduled for April 2. The town chairman and two supervisors are facing challenges from mining opponents.
The Riverway Board has urged Pattison to withdraw its application,
saying that while the project might meet the letter of the law, the mine
would detract from the scenic area and potentially conflict with the
federal Highway Beautification Act of 1965.
Last
month, the company was cited by the state Department of Natural
Resources for violating its air pollution permit at a facility in
Prairie du Chien where processed sand is transferred from trucks to rail
cars. Pattison says it is taking steps to address those problems and
has not been fined
A new proposal to limit frac sand mining has surfaced in the state
Senate. The Senate Environment and Energy Committee on Tuesday night
passed a game and fish bill that would significantly restrict mining
activities in southeastern Minnesota . . .
he point person on frac sand bills in the Senate, Matt Schmit,
DFL-Red Wing, is carrying a game and fish bill that raises
water-related concerns about frac sand mining. The bill would prohibit
any industrial silica sand mining in an area that’s referred to as the
Department of Natural Resources Paleozoic Plateau Ecological Section if
its located “within one mile of any spring, groundwater seepage area,
fen, designated trout stream, class 2a water as designated in the rules
of the Pollution Control Agency, or any perennially flowing tributary of
a designated trout stream of class 2a water.”
The Paleozoic Plateau encompasses much of southeastern Minnesota.
Schmit said the porous type of geology in southeastern Minnesota
makes the region susceptible to water pollution that harm its unique
cold water fishery.
“There is no guarantee that we are going to have any other bill on
silica sand mining pass out of the Legislature this year, so this is I
think an appropriate place for some standards regarding our waters and
our trout fishing,” Schmit said.
Trout Unlimited has been particularly aggressive in testifying about the potential threat that unchecked industrial sand mining might posed to trout in southeastern Minnesota. Back in February, Star Tribune sand reporter Tony Kennedy reported in Trout group fears frac sand damage to streams:
. . .Besides holding vast reserves of the world's best frac sand,
southeastern Minnesota also is home to an extensive network of
ecologically fragile trout streams.
John Lenczewski, who heads the state chapter of Trout Unlimited,
told a joint Senate and House hearing Tuesday that Minnesota's streams
are spring-fed by the same drinking water that frac sand processing
facilities want to pump out of the ground in huge volumes. Mining
companies use the water to separate valuable silica sand from waste
material. There are fears that the reserves will be depleted to the
extent that stream flows are reduced, endangering fish habitat.
"The industry does not need to use our future drinking water to wash sand,'' Lenczewski said.
He also called on the Legislature to prohibit sand mines from digging
within 25 feet of the water table. Some new frac sand mines in
Wisconsin have been permitted to dig nearly all the way to ground water
-- giving pollutants a direct path to aquifers.
In addition, Minnesota's trout anglers want the state to keep frac
sand facilities far away from surface waters by writing new setback
guidelines, Lenczewski said.
"The state does not have adequate regulation for our groundwater,'' Lenczewski said. . . .
A crowd of around 80 residents and concerned neighbors came to
the Rock Creek Town Hall on March 8 to hear an update on a proposed
Highway 70 reconstruction project, and to share concerns about plans to
use that road as a route for trucks bringing frac sand from Wisconsin to
Minnesota.
State Representative Tim Faust introduced MnDOT District Engineer Duane Hill.
“I don’t think I need to tell anyone in this room how dangerous this stretch of highway has become,” Faust said.
How dangerous?
“On Highway 70, the accident rate is one accident per million vehicle
miles,” Hill said. “That equals out to about one crash per month.”
He said the statewide average for roads like Highway
70 is half of a crash per month, or only half of the accident rate on
Highway 70.
Before MNDOT begins to make the road safer, frac sand trucks will be traveling the crumbling road. Faust's constituents aren't happy. The Pioneer continues:
In response to questions, Hill said he did not know exactly how many
of the 80,000 pound frac sand trucks would be traveling along Highway
70, but that he had heard it would be 12 trucks per hour. This would
double the amount of heavy truck traffic currently on the highway. He
asserted that the road is designed to handle those kinds of loads.
One resident at the meeting said that though the
trucks are tarped, that doesn’t mean they don’t spread the sand through
the air as they pass through.
“They come by with spillage all over them,” he said.
“This sand, they’ve done studies on it ... silca sand. If there’s
someone allergic to it, it can hurt them. Seal them up and wash these
trucks off.” . . .
. . .Some residents expressed frustration and anger about the condition of Highway 70.
“In the spring, the water will boil up out of it and the pavement will move,” one man said.
“That road hasn’t been touched ... since I’ve been
born,” another man said. “Nobody’s dug that swamp up. They don’t even
know what’s down there. It’s been this way for 60 years, nothing
changes. All of a sudden the fracking sand comes in.”
What could possibly go wrong?
Clarifying geology: Unimin mines in the Minnesota River Valley
The largest active mining operation is
located along the Minnesota River between Mankato and St Peter, not in a
bluff landscape, but on a flat landscape. In that kind of setting the operators dig excavations below the surrounding mostly flat landscape.
Listeners would be forgiven if they came away with the idea that the Unimin mines weren't in the Minnesota River Valley, but "along" the way.
In fact, both mines are located on flat terraces below the bluffs. While the exact site of the mine is on the flat "prairies," the terraces are part of a valley landscape.
Photo: A brown trout taken from Whitewater State Park.
Donate: If you enjoy reading posts like this at Bluestem, consider throwing some coin in the plate at Paypal:
The Rochester Post Bulletin reports in Dayton not ready to impose statewide ban on silica sand mining that the governor isn't siding with citizen demands for a one-year moratorium while a statewide Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) is conducted.
Instead, he murmurs sweet sentiments about grassroots citizen opposition to the mammoth St. Charles project. Rural Minnesotans are so cute when we're mad.
PB political reporter Heather Carlson writes:
FL Gov. Mark Dayton said Tuesday he does
not support a statewide moratorium on silica sand mining at this time
but does back tougher regulations.
"If the industry starts to spiral out of control, then I wouldn't
hesitate to call for a moratorium. But I don't think we've reached that
point," he said.
The governor also praised St. Charles officials for their recent
decision not to move ahead with a silica-sand processing and
transportation project.
"The actions the citizens of St. Charles took are
really courageous and compelling," he said, "and it says to the
Legislature that there are a lot of people in that area affected by this
who are very concerned."
Courageous, compelling--and not on the legislative priority lists of most of the state's NGO environmental groups, regardless of how many people mobilize regionally on this issue. That should help out the industry dismiss those grassroots citizens' concerns.
Perhaps Dayton could signal which "tougher regulations" he wants--after all, he was able to write a new sand tax into his budget.
Meanwhile, the industrial sand corporations were crying poor mouth at the hearing for the proposed tax. Carlson reports:
The silica sand mining industry is fiercely opposed to a moratorium,
arguing that companies already spend millions of dollars on required
environmental reviews. Mine owners are also upset at the idea of
additional taxes. On Tuesday, the House Taxes Committee held a hearing
on a bill sponsored by Hansen to impose a $1 per ton tax on the
extraction of silica sand. The bill would also allow counties to impose
an aggregate tax of up to 30 cents per ton of material and add a tax on
the processing of silica sand equal to 3 percent of the sand's market
value. Money raised from the tax would be used to help cover
transportation costs related to mining, acquire land to protect
environmentally sensitive areas from mining and acquire permanent
easements to protect drinking water.
Mike Wallenius, vice president of operations for
Unimin, told committee members the legislation would increase the
Mankato mining company's taxes anywhere from $16 million to $27 million
per year.
. . . House Taxes Committee member Greg Davids, R-Preston,
said this level of taxation would serve as a de facto moratorium by
"pricing folks out of the market."
Hansen emphasized that the bill is not aimed at
stopping silica sand mining in the state. Instead, it is geared towards
protecting residents.
"I don't want to have something happen where we have a
mine and all of a sudden we have a town that has run out of drinking
water because we have impacted the wellhead drinking area," he said.
Hansen's not aiming for a stealth moratorium--and he doesn't support a statewide GEIS. We'd talked one-on-one about the issue last November at the Minnesota Farmers Union convention, and he'd shared the concepts that have worked their way into his bills.
The bill was laid on the table for future consideration as part of a larger tax bill.
What lesson from Wisconsin and Minnesota rules?
A Minnesota Public Radio report from Elizabeth Dunbar, How Minnesota and Wisconsin's frac sand mining rules differ, is likely to be cited by pro-Walker and pro-industry sources as proof that we need to leave this poor little profitable industry alone, but the details suggest that the concerns of the courageous peasants of St. Charles are well-grounded:
Reclamation: Reclamation is
the plan a mining company makes with the government to shut down the
mine and reclaim the land for another use. Wisconsin state law requires
all mining companies to have a plan ahead of time and to provide
financial assurance in case the company goes belly up. Minnesota has no
state law requiring reclamation plans, but many local governments
require it.
State Resources: Wisconsin's
Department of Natural Resources has had a designated point-person for
frac sand mining since August 2011. Sand mining companies can field
questions and permit requests through that staff person. Minnesota has
no designated sand mining staff, and companies must fulfill permit
requirements through two different state agencies: the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources and the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency.
Inspections: Neither state
has designated inspectors to monitor the silica sand mining industry.
State inspections of air, water and other permits are done periodically
across industries.
Reclamation, state resources and inspection are issues citizens have raised locally and at the state capitol--while mining companies push the notion that they can monitor themselves.
Dunbar notes that the two states have much different use levels for triggering a water use permit:
Water Appropriation: Silica sand processing uses a lot of water.
Mines in both states must have water appropriation permits if they plan
on pumping more than a certain number of gallons. The volume of water
that triggers the permit requirement is different in each state:
Minnesota requires the permit for pumping more than 10,000 gallons/day,
and Wisconsin requires it for pumping 70 gallons/minute. (If you pump
water at 70 gallons/minute over a 24-hour period it calculates out to
about 100,800 gallons.
Readers are left to connect another dot on their own with that one. Minnesota's water use has been much in the news of late--and those water permit inspections frequently show that users exceed permit levels.
At a time when drought threatens state water supplies, scores of
water permit holders in Minnesota are illegally using billions of
gallons more water then they're entitled to.
Over the last six years, hundreds of
individuals, businesses and even state government agencies have pumped
more than their permit allows, according to state Department of Natural
Resources records. But violators face few consequences for these
misdemeanor violations. Even in a two-year drought, DNR officials admit
they don't spend much time enforcing permit limits.
Steil points out that the DNR's resources are focused on processing new permits and discovering unpermited wells, rather than enforcement.
In the world of bureaucracy, inspection and enforcement are two different creatures, and so a cautionary lesson emerges from recent coverage of the industry in Wisconsin, Frac sand industry faces DNR violations, warnings.
The much-cited report notes:
Usually, [Air Program officer Marty] Sellers said, the DNR expects 90 percent of companies in a
regulated industry to comply with rules on their own. But in his visits
to a dozen frac sand facilities, Sellers encountered the opposite
pattern, and he sent letters of noncompliance to 80 to 90 percent of the
sites.
DNR compliance officials acknowledged they have been stretched thin
monitoring the sand industry, which has grown from a handful of sites
five years ago to more than 100 permitted mining, processing or
transport facilities today.
. . . Gov. Scott Walker has proposed two new DNR positions in his budget to monitor the sand industry, by shifting $223,000 from other parts of the budget.
Bluestem was pretty curious about that anecdote and we've put in a public documents request for Sellers' letters of noncompliance. In talking to Sellers and his supervisors, we've learned that since the state of Wisconsin assigns Air Program staff by region rather than industry--and all of the frac industry is in Sellers' region, he's the only staffer visiting the industry.
The two new positions will help with permitting and compliance--while (if we read Walker's budget correctly) the "other parts of the budget" seem to two enforcement positions.
As the lackadaisical enforcement of the state's water permits suggest, Minnesota must think through not only permitting and compliance issues, but enforcement as well. Hansen's silica tax provides for funding to repair roads and to fund preventative measures to protect wellheads and acquire sensitive natural areas.
All are laudable goals--and given the return on this industry (all poor mouthing aside), it's not unreasonable to ask an extractive industry to pay for the consequences of its activity. What the silica sand tax bill doesn't fund are inspections and enforcement.
Photo: Aerial view of a Wisconsin silica sand mine. Photo by Jim Tittle. Used with permission.
If you appreciate reading posts on Bluestem Prairie, consider making a donation via paypal:
A friend in Southeastern Minnesota sends along an email invitation from the Rochester Area Chamber of Commerce to a lunch event on Friday, March 22: "What the Frac?"
While the title of the gathering is by no means original, it's definitely an occasion to ask "What the Frac?"
Here's the text:
What the Frac?
Mining in Minnesota: Economic Opportunity, Environmental Challenge or Both?
What's the big deal about frac (silica) sand mining? Some see opportunity: we have the sand, companies want to mine it and people need jobs. Others worry it's a health hazard, damages the environment and leads to costly road repairs. Join us as we hear from the experts about this hot button issue and what it may mean for southeastern Minnesota, our communities, and you. We'll also weigh in on the intriguing debate over the potential new copper mine in northern Minnesota.
Panelists: Vern Baker, President: Twin Metals Dave Christianson, Project Manager: Minnesota Department of Transportation Jeff Broberg, Geologist: McGhie & Betts Dennis Egan, Exec. Director: Minnesota Industrial Sand Council
Back in high school when Bluestem's editor was earningher double-ruby from the National Forensics League, she learned that debate involved two sides of an issue.
But perhaps, like the "new energy revolution" that involves digging up or breaking everything, we're playing by different rules--a "new debate revolution." Let's take a look at the players.
Dave Christianson famously participated an industrial sand mining "community" forum organized by Red Wing mayor Dennis Egan after the November election. As Rob Meyer wrote in his letter to the editor, Our voices silenced at frac forum:
. . .Unfortunately what the public received from the panel of “experts”
was a lot of propaganda that was long on language and short on solid
answers leaving little time for audience participation. Just another
well-rehearsed play written by the oil and gas industry.
Dave
Christianson, from Minnesota Department of Transportation, acted as the
industry’s best sales rep as he jovially mentioned how much money his
high school buddy is making off of sand mining. . . .
It's no wonder that Rochester-based development company McGhie &
Betts representative Jeff Broberg was booed by the crowd that packed the
a Winona County Planning Commission meeting Thursday night.
Broberg’s time at the podium eventually caused contention, and after
he was challenged to stick to the recommended two-minute time limit, he
responded:
“As the applicant’s representative, I have a higher level of rights on these issues,” Broberg said.
The crowd booed.
With the event costing $25 for chamber members, and $25 for nonmembers, we doubt there will be any of that.
Speaking of higher level of rights, the mayor of Fracsandville himself is on the docket, though billed by his proper lobbyist title, although he's still Red Wing mayor until April 1st. Perhaps he'll mention the City of Red Wing's resolution supporting a GEIS and one-year moratorium. Or maybe discuss the ethics of mining.
Reading around Southern Minnesota's newspapers this afternoon, it's clear--from Red Wing and Winona to Mankato--that the promise of legislative relief at the state capitol has not led to a ceasefire in the field.
Red Wing City Council voted 4-1 to accept the resignation letter of Mayor Dennis Egan Monday night.
Egan made no comment as the motion was brought up for discussion. . . .
Read the entire story at the RWRE. Egan resigned, effective April 1, after he was roundly criticized for accepting a position as the executive director of the Minnesota Industrial Sand Council to lobby for the industry. The city has frequently been at odds over mining, and the council has adopted a resolution supporting a statewide Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) and one-year moratorium.
Lately, I've read a slurry of letters that attempt to diminish
the severity of Mayor Dennis Egan’s ethical breech of conduct in
accepting a lobbying position with the Minnesota Industrial Sand
Council. The writers make inflated references to lynch mobs, freedom,
shame, and disrespect. The most absurd is that he took his new position
to simply “feed his family.”
Such exaggerated versions of
Egan’s victimhood and innocence and Egan’s own exploitation of his
political position for personal gain is the real shame here. Red Wing
citizens reacted no differently than the rest of an appalled Minnesota
at the news that our mayor took a job lobbying on behalf of a mining
council whose mission directly conflicts with city ordinances . . .
Winona state Sen. Jeremy Miller introduced legislation this week that
he says will keep frac sand permitting decisions in the hands of local
governments while giving them greater access to state resources.
Miller
is proposing the formation of a Silica Sand Technical Advisory Council,
which would bring together representatives from state agencies like the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources, and the Minnesota Department of Health to provide guidance
for local governments as they navigate permitting, environmental
reviews, and other issues related to the frac sand industry. Rep. Tim
Kelly, a Republican from Red Wing, has introduced companion legislation
in the House, and both measures have gained early bipartisan support. . . .
He did sign on to two bills that match the paper's description, however: SF1258 (chief author Kathy Sheran, DFL-Mankato) and SF1257 (chief author Matt Schmit, DFL-Red Wing). The latter bill, introduced by Schmit, is the companion bill to Kelly's HF1367.
Neither senate bill has received a hearing--while in the House, Rep. Rick Hansen's (DFL-South St. Paul) bill was heard and moved on Wednesday. It places technical assistance and some environmental review in the hands of the EBQ, but doesn't call for an GEIS or a state-wide moratorium on new projects, as we posted in First MN House committee hearing on industrial sand mining sends Hansen's HF906 forward.
Rather, a far different Schmit bill is making its way through the state senate:
Miller isn’t the
only state senator to direct his attention to the issue this session.
Sen. Matt Schmit, DFL-Red Wing, introduced a bill in February calling
for a statewide environmental review of the frac sand industry, the
formation of a regional council to oversee regulation and development,
and enabling the taxation of sand at the local and state levels.
That
bill has passed out of the Senate Environment and Energy Committee and
the State and Local Government Committee, and will be forwarded to the
Senate Finance Committee for further discussion. . . .
The bill that Schmit is shepherding through is favorably received by citizens across sand country, if letter sections are an accurate barometer. Vince Ready writes from St. Charles to the Winona Daily News to ask that the legislature Help protect our rural way of life by passing Schmit's bill.
A unanimous vote from St. Charles' city
council Tuesday night put the Minnesota Proppant silica-sand processing
and transportation project on life support.
All that is needed now is for Winona County to officially pull the plug.
"On behalf of the Concerned Citizens, I thank you for
adopting the resolution," said Travis Lange, spokesman for Concerned
Citizens for St. Charles, a group that has worked to end the frac-sand
project. "It's in the best interest of the city as a whole."
The collapse of a major frac sand proposal in Winona County has
caused a split among investors in the project, with one faction pulling
out in frustration over Minnesota’s anti-frac sand sentiment.
“Me and my partners split up. They went to Wisconsin,”
said Rick Frick, one of two remaining principals in Minnesota Proppant
LLC. “Were they fed up? Yes, that had a lot to do with it.”
Read the rest at the Star Tribune.
Photo: Yes, it's a frac sand train wreck.
If you appreciate reading posts on Bluestem Prairie, consider making a donation via paypal:
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.
Minnesota's oldest Norwegian-American town, Houston County's Spring Grove, bills itself as a "pretty neat small town," and we've learned about its citizens' fondness for Norski street festivals and parades from watching a dear friend's Facebook page.
But Spring Grove's prettiness and neatness may be frayed if plans to haul 120 daily truck loads of frac sand from a mine proposed across the Fillmore County line come to fruition. The situation underscores why people from Southeastern Minnesota are asking for state help in regulating the industrial sand industry.
The Spring Grove Herald's Craig Moorhead reports in Frac sand route to go through downtown Spring Grove that the pretty neat small town is along the route for the sand's secondary destination, New Albin, Iowa. The route will be used when facilities at Winona are beyond capacity:
A Fillmore County frac sand mine could be sending hundreds of trucks through downtown Spring Grove, Houston County commissioners were told last week.
"The reason we're bringing this to you is because it's going to have an effect on residents in Houston County," environmental director Rick Frank told the board on Feb. 19.. . .
Traffic isn't the only potential problem for Houston County from the Fillmore County site. Moorhead reports:
"This mine is within about two miles of Houston County," Pogodzinski warned. "Impacts to groundwater sources are not just going to affect Fillmore (County)."
"Surface water drains down the Root River Valley. We don't want the Root River becoming any more polluted than it already is.
Probably not, although Houston County doesn't have any say in approving or denying the permit:
"Ultimately, it's up to them to approve or deny the EAW," Pogodzinski said. "We don't have a say in what they do."
Neighboring counties are still hammering out plans to address joint impacts, Frank added.
"We realize that a lot of these companies are going to utilize county roads and township roads maybe. We need to make sure that the applicant comes to the next county or city that they're affecting."
Commissioner Dana Kjome asked that the EAW address diesel fumes from trucks passing just a few feet [from] Spring Grove's public school. . . .
Oh, good. However, Spring Grove may have something of a reprieve because of the actions in Iowa's premier tourism destination county:
A letter from Allamakee County [Iowa] engineer Brian Ridenour was referenced for commissioners, stating that "mining, processing, trans-loading, stockpiling, etc. for frac sand has an 18-month moratorium in effect for Allamakee County."
The Allamakee County Board of Supervisors imposed the moratorium on February 4 after hearing citizen concerns about the industry, the Standard reports:
Allamakee County stakeholders will have additional time to explore the pros and cons of frac sand mining, following the passage of a moratorium on that mining process by the Allamakee County Board of Supervisors that will be in effect until July 1, 2014.
At its Monday, February 4 regular meeting, the Allamakee County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted to approve the moratorium, following a public hearing Thursday, January 31 which drew more than 40 people. . . .
. . .Jeff Abbas of Dorchester reminded the Supervisors frac sand mining is a “boom and bust” industry, which lasts from two to five years. “Once they’re done, they’re gone. We do not regain business we lose from hunting, fishing, hiking or camping,” said Abbas. “It’s time to put the laws of man aside and put the laws of God in place, because what we’re leaving behind is garbage.”
No wonder, then, that Houston County and other local governments support Senator Matt Schmit's bill to impose a one-year moratorium while conducting a GEIS. The Star Tribune's Tony Kennedy reported in
Houston County’s Board of Commissioners, the Red Wing City Council, a
city councilor from Wabasha and elected township officials from Fillmore
and Goodhue counties all voiced support for more state study and a
moratorium on the permitting of new frac sand mines and facilities.
On Tuesday, February 26, the Senate Environment and Energy Committee sent SF786 to the State and Local Government Committee, which will hear the bill Wednesday, March 6, at 3:00 p.m. Room 15 in the State Capitol.
Photo: Frac sand train wreck in Wisconsin, a metaphor for our times.
If you appreciate reading posts on Bluestem Prairie, consider making a donation via paypal:
Much of the citizen and industry testimony--and those testifying--were repeats from the joint hearing the week before. Schmit offered amendments that added a one-year statewide moratorium to the bill, addressing criticism of the original language by Land Stewardship Project.
Grassroots activists shared their concerns about air and water quality, property values, traffic, tourism and the potential destruction of the landscape.
Along with industry and heavy equipment representatives, Republican state senators were skeptical of the need for the bill--or any additional state oversight of the industrial sand industy.
Peder Larson, a lobbyist representing the Minnesota Industrial Sand Council (MISC), noted that the industry group supports "strong state standards" for environmental review that are already in place. Larson recommended spending the money that would go toward a statewide Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) on hiring more staff for state agencies with oversight of sand mining.
Aggregate and Ready Mix Association President Fred Corrigan, geologist Kristen Pauly, and International Union of Operating Engineers Local 49 Legislative and Political Director Jason George reaffirmed their testimony from a week before that the industry will great jobs balanced with environmental protection.
As the committee deliberated the bill, Senator Julie Rosen (R-Fairmont) defended silica sand mining as both an "energy revolution" and "ag," insisting that rural Minnesotans simply accept dust, noise and smells. The activists who formed the bulk of the hearing room audience guffawed until committee chair John Marty (DFL-Roseville) gavelled the room silent.
She recited a litany of questions she had asked the DNR about drinking water, aquifers and wet mining. She noted that the answers were uncertain, and that local governments were often unable to answer complex technical questions.
She also decried bullying by mining corporations:
And then we can add in the intimidation factors. We will sue you or we will ask to be annexed by the city or a different government unit.
All these factors combined illustrate the need for Schmit's bill
To summarize, to protect the people in these communities across the state, we must have a statewide moratorium which gives the state time to prepare a generic environmental impact statement and our regulatory agencies time set and strengthen standards for this industry.
Beyond that, townships and counties need help. Perhaps the PCA and the DNR could establish area teams that could provide assistance in reviewing industry applications. I don't mean at the end of the process. I mean during the process.
Perhaps a list of environmental consultants that don't play both sides of the fence could be developed. Believe me in this, trust is everything.
It's possible that one environmental consultant Proctor had in mind was Kirsten Pauly, who testified later in the hearing on behalf of MISC.
In January, KEYC-TV, Mankato's CBS/FOX affiliate, reported in Frac Sand Review in Lime Township that that Pauly consulted for Jordan Sands:
Residents of Lime Township get their first full look at a proposed frac sand processing plant.
It
was a tough task to take on, as dozens of residents get a crash course
in how frac sand is made, also learning about the environmental concerns
over this particular process.
Numerous problems were mentioned in the environmental assessment worksheet, or EAW, from water to air to traffic.
The focus however, just may come down to a rare little bird.
Kirsten
Pauly, a geologist who gave the presentation of the EAW, says, "The
focus of the EAW then becomes the loggerhead shrike."
Jordan Sands listed several protective measures they would take to protect the protected bird.
Later in Tuesday's hearing, Republican senators started addressing questions about the state environmental review process to Pauly, rather than to state agency personnel who were on hand. Perhaps this line of questioning illustrates the lack of independence Procter testified undercuts the process--or Pauly's professionalism.
The Senate State and Local Government Committee has yet to schedule a hearing for Schmit's bill.
A few highlights of the testimony:
Watch or listen to the entire hearing at the Environment and Energy Committee's media page.
As a corridor of commerce, Highway 14 connects Southern Minnesota's largest cities east to west. Despite the road's importance, some heavily-traveled sections remain a two-lane "highway of horror."
However, Minnesota House Transportation Finance Committee Chairman Frank Hornstein hopes to push legislation this session to fund upgrades for roads like the deadly east-west highway.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation confirmed that the long-sought project to upgrade the dangerous stretch of Highway 14 west of North Mankato, which Dayton last summer pledged would be completed in 2017-18, has officially been programmed into the MnDOT budget.
"Now we have that confirmation that the money has been set aside for that portion," Brynaert said.
Completion of that section, which has fatal crash rates well in excess of typical Minnesota two-lanes, will still leave two-lane stretches of Highway 14 between Nicollet and New Ulm and between Owatonna and Dodge Center. The Brynaert bill attempts to speed up completion of an unbroken four-lane from Rochester to New Ulm that has long been a top priority of community leaders along the route.
"It has been a regional goal for over 40 years," said Brynaert, whose legislation is co-sponsored by lawmakers from both parties from throughout the corridor including Republican Reps. Tony Cornish of Good Thunder and Paul Torkelson of Lake Hanska and Democrat Clark Johnson of North Mankato.
Hodgman’s husband, Scott, was killed on Nov. 6, Election Day, just west of the point between Kasson and Dodge Center where Highway 14 goes from four lanes to two lanes.
“My husband Scott was on his way home from work and heading to vote when his vehicle and another collided head-on, killing three people and injuring another. The other two people that were killed were the 10-year old boy who was receiving treatment at the Mayo Clinic and his father,” Hodgman told the committee. “I know this accident could have been avoided if this deadly stretch of Highway 14 would have been a four-lane. I know if Highway 14 was a four-lane that my children, my grandchildren, and I would still have Scott here with us.”
Hodgman’s vehicle collided with a vehicle driven by Jack Reich of Zap, N.D. Both men died as did Jack’s 10-year-old son Vander Reich.
Beth Hodgman, who has lived her entire life two miles from Highway 14, read about the Highway 14 Partnership’s earlier trips to St. Paul. The partnership met with the Senate Transportation and Public Safety Committee on Feb. 13 and the House Transportation Policy Committee on Feb. 20. She reached out to people in the partnership and asked to be a part of presentation to the House Transportation Finance Committee on Wednesday.
Read both stories to learn more about how bipartisan cooperation may finally make the road safe for travelers. We know from a couple of near misses, when passing cars were coming head on--once with a car managing to squeeze back into its right lane ten feet in front of us--that the testimony isn't hyperbole.
The Free Press reports that Rep. Hornstein will visit Mankato at the end of the week:
"I really want to figure out a way we can move some of these forward," said Hornstein, DFL-Minneapolis.
"... Hopefully we can get this done on a bipartisan basis."
Hornstein is scheduled to meet with Mankato-area business leaders and transportation officials during a visit to Mankato Friday.
While Southeastern Minnesota's bluff country from Red Wing to the Iowa border and the placid little Minnesota River from the metro to Mankato may have been strangers to the sort of divisions with which mining politics have cursed Northeastern Minnesota, a joint hearing on frac sand mining appears to have lifted that blessing.
Testimony fractured between grassroots citizens, conservationist organizations, and local government seeking regulatory relief, a generic environmental impact statement (GEIS) and representatives from the Minnesota Industrial Sand Council (MISC), a trucking company owner, the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce and the powerful "49ers" or the International Union of Operating Engineers claiming that the industry was capable of monitoring itself.
Another fracture line? The splintering of stereotyped partisan politics that place Republicans and industry in one camp, and DFLers, conservation and environmental groups in opposition.
These fault lines, with powerful interests allied on the part of MISC, may make passage of new legislation difficult, despite the overwhelming numbers of grassroots frac sand critics filling both rooms of seating for the testimony. Two buses brought 70 local citizens to St. Paul from Southeastern Minnesota.
The number of critics' testifying also dwarfed that of industry supporters. Forty-one individuals and groups signed up to speak, although time
didn't allow all to speak. Five agency staff testified, all seven pro-mining
groups and business owners spoke, and twenty-nine local government
officials, conservation group representatives, and grassroots activists signed up to speak, although time ran out.
Former state senator John Howe, R-Red Wing, spoke in favor of a GEIS; the man who defeated him in November 2012, Matt Schmit (DFL-Red Wing) is expected to introduce legislation to mandate and fund a GEIS. MPR's Tom Scheck reports that while "a statewide moratorium is on the table but [Schmit] declined to give more specifics."
Dave Frederickson, state agriculture commissioner, spoke in his role as chair of the state Environmental Quality Board, noting that the issue of frac sand mining had come up during recent citizen forums across the state, especially in the Rochester session.
Citizens had petitioned the EQB for an GEIS and given testimony for a study at a EQB meeting, and pro-mining interests had been given time at a following meeting to present their position. Frederickson said that while the board has the authority to order a study, it must also secure funding for the expensive studies from the legislature.
Representatives from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH), the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Department of Transportation (MNDOT) testified about their agencies regulatory authority and concerns. New to the debate: MNDOT concern that vistas on the Great River Road--might not be so great if sight lines are disrupted by mines.
The entire hearing is embedded below; we've pulled some highlights of activist and industry testimony below.
While the highlights may seem weighted toward the grassroots side of the divide, that reflects the list of those who signed up to testify.
Grassroot opponents testify
Township and county elected officials testified that they need the state's help to negotiate the complicated regulatory issues posed by the massive new scale of industrial sand mines being proposed in their communities. This scale has created a much different regulatory environment than that which they've faced with the gravel and sand pits that now operate--usually just a few dozen acres at most.
Preble Township (Fillmore County) board supervisor David Williams' testimony was typical of this testimony. A retired lawyer who had served on the county's task force on industrial sand mining, Williams recited a litany of complex air and water quality, transportation and public health issues local government uncovered when asked to address local citizens' concerns. Williams concluded:
Recent experience seems to show that when local government decision makers cannot find answers to the questions about public health, environmental, transportation and economic issues, these decisionmakers tend to freeze. They freeze in place and they make no effort to provide real solutions on the local level. They need the scientific help from state agencies to even help them make decisions in addition to the decisions they are making for themselves.
Their testimony was underscored by Chippewa Falls WI frac sand activist Pat Popple, who shared the experience in her community where the industry got ahead of state and local government. Part of her testimony:
In Wisconsin, we have had numerous spills from several mines. Not all are reported; in fact, most of them . . .have been reported by citizens. A flood at the EOG plant while it was underconstruction. In Grantsburg, the Tiller Corporation . . .poured all sorts of things into the St. Croix River and that is now under litigation and investigation by the attorney general and other agencies.
In the Larkin Valley near Blair, WI, there was a major breach. A five-foot wall of water and sludge took out an Amish barn and other buildings. . . .and Trout Creek in Chippewa County, also reported by a citizen, a wastewater pond gave way and spilled into the creek. The land conservation in Chippewa County also helped clean up, the fine by the county of a little over $4100 will never pay to recover that creek, and the fish and trout that are in it.
Sigurd Anderson of Lake City, Goodhue County, testified that after months of meetings with citizens and local and county officials:
. . .it became clear to many of use that local and county government agencies and officials did not have the background, training, technical expertise, time, staff or monetary resources to adequately respond to the power and skill of mining companies backed by multinational energy corporations and the implied consent of federal agencies.
Anderson joined a group that petitioned the Environmental Quality Board for a GEIS because industrial scale mining isn't a good fit for the region.
Land Stewardship Project legislative director Bobby King called for rewriting the state's non-metallic mining standards and a GEIS backed by a moratorium on new mining, citing the state's experience during the process of writing the feedlot GEIS. He pointed out that state agencies and local control could work together. Local elected officials were asking for state help in permitting but wanted state regulations that would establish a floor that would still allow local government to set conditions in their permitting and to write their own zoning and land use ordinances.
St. Paul documentary filmmaker Jim Tittle, who was raised in Goodhue County and still has family living in Hay Creek Township, presented an excerpt from The Price of Sand:
Red Wing City council member Peggy Rehder also testified, presenting a resolution the city council had adopted favoring a GEIS and a moratorium.
Pro-industry testimony
The Minnesota Industrial Sand Council was represented by Aggregate and Ready Mix Association of Minnesota president Fred Corrigan, executives from Jordan Sand and Bryan Rock, and consulting geologist and civil engineer Kirsten Pauly of Sunde Engineering. Others testifying for the sand mining industry included a trucking company owner, Tony Kwilas, director of environmental policy for the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce and Jason George, the 49ers political director.
Like the mine owners, Kwilas stressed that the sand industry had been in place for over 100 years in Minnesota, with some operations on their second or third generation of family owners deeply embedded in the civic and economic life of their communities. He also noted that thesand they extracted wasn't merely used for fracking, but for abrasives, filtration systems, in glass, in tubs and sinks, and "if you're as bad a golf as I am, a lot of times, and much to my chagrin, it's used on our golf courses where my ball ends up when I hit wayward shots."
Kwilas urged lawmakers to remember that the industry provided jobs now, could provide potential jobs, and that it was important to find "a delicate balance" to promote these jobs in a struggling economy while also protecting the environment and natural resources. Greater Mankato Growth (the local chamber) has estimated that for every job created, 1.8 other jobs were generated. He concluded with the observation that those who had paid attention to agency and industry testimony would realize th at this was "one of the most heavily regulated industries that we have in this state, either through the state, through local, township, or county ordinances that you've all these folks testify . . ."
Kwilas turned the mic over to Jason George, legislative and political director of the 49ers, in a show of business and labor cooperation. About 13,000 heavy equipment operators in three states, hundreds of whom working aggregate and sand mining, are members, he said, noting that they work in permanent full-time positions paying between $25-$30 per hour with health insurance for families and pensions. 49ers working in pits also enjoy less travel time to work and more time with their families than other members who work in construction and must travel to distant job sites.
George concluded:
What you do here this session will have consequences There are complex issues to debate when it comes to sand mining as you've heard today. You've heard both sides of it. Far too often in this political climate, the answer to complex issues is a simple no. We believe a statewide moratorium or a GEIS is a simple no. I'm asking you and much more importantly, the people who are here today and the people that I'm representing are asking you, that want to make a future working in this industry are asking you, let's find a way to say yes, to find a way that protects the environment and creates these good family-sustaining jobs.
The next step
The Senate the Committee on Environment and Energy will discuss silica
sand mining bills on Tuesday, February 26 at noon in Room 123 Capitol.
Bills will be added to the agenda as they are introduced.
So far, Rep. Rick Hansen (DFL-South St. Paul) has introduced only bill on file relating to frac sand mining. HF 425
addresses scientific and natural area and wellhead easement protection
issues. Senator Matt Schmit (DFL-Red Wing) plans to introduce a bill
providing broader legislative relief before the February 26 hearing.
Watch the entire hearing here:
Photos: All chairs in the second overflow hearing room were filled with sand mining supporters and critics; several dozen people listened while seated on the floor (above). Mining workers waiting to enter committee room (below)
A glance at newspapers in Southeastern Minnesota this morning illustrates how issues related to frac sand mining aren't going away. Rather, the conflict created by the industrial scale sand mining industry continues to generate headlines and letters in the region.
The Winona Daily News, the Rochester Post Bulletin and the Red Wing Republican Eagle all serve up frac sand-related headlines.
Minnesota residents are taking concerns about frac sand mining and
other energy and climate issues to Washington, D.C., this weekend for a
rally activists say could be the country’s largest on the topics.
Eric
Nelson of Winona boarded an Amtrak train bound for Washington late
Friday morning, joining others from Minnesota communities. Nelson said
he spontaneously decided to take the trip after Winona resident Jim
Gurley opted out due to illness.
“The issue of climate change is
huge,” Nelson said. He said frac sand mining is just one of the issues
that will be discussed at the rally, with others including offshore
drilling, the hydraulic fracturing industry, global warming and more.
State
Rep. Frank Hornstein, DFL-Minneapolis, who chairs the Transportation
Finance committee and serves on energy policy committees, hopped off the
train briefly to greet 10 or so activists in Winona.
“Our message
is that climate change is an urgent issue, and we need to take action
at the state and federal levels,” Hornstein said. “Thank you, Winona,
for standing up against frac sand mining,” he added. . . .
Read the article in the Winona Daily News. An state senate committee will hear testimony about frac sand mining on February 19. For more information about the hearings from Land Stewardship Project click here.
After Monday's fiery city council meeting
that saw one critic of Red Wing Mayor Dennis Egan escorted out by police
officers, things have proceeded at a more deliberate pace in
determining how to address concerns surrounding Egan's possible conflict
of interest.
Jay Squires, Red Wing's legal counsel, has identified an
investigative firm that could examine Egan's dealings with the Minnesota
Industrial Sand Council. Egan, a professional lobbyist, agreed to
become the organization's executive director in January, roughly three
months after signing a new ordinance that essentially bans silica sand
mining within the city.
City Hall was packed Monday with citizens worried
about a conflict of interest, and three council members asked Egan to
consider either stepping down as mayor or to resigning his post with the
mining organization that represents six companies with interests in
silica sand operations. Egan refused, and says he doesn't have any
conflicts. . . .
Read the rest at the Post Bulletin. The article concludes:
Red Wing officials also voted unanimously to send a resolution of
support to the Minnesota Legislature asking for a moratorium of silica
sand facilities and for the state to conduct a generic environmental
impact statement, which could delay local projects for years.
Demand for silica sand has increased in recent years
as domestic gas and oil production has jumped, with southeastern
Minnesota becoming a hot spot for mining companies. Proposals have been
made up and down the Mississippi River based on the size, shape and
hardness of the sand, but vocal resistance has also become organized.
The current hot spots include Wabasha, Winona and St. Charles.
The embedded image of the front page of today's Red Wing Republican Eagle illustrated how the issue is dominating headlines in pretty Red Wing. Not just above the fold, but top of the page.
As you can see from the pdf below of the Red Wing Republican Eagle's letter pages, the mayor's new job at Fracsandville is dominating the discussion inside the paper as well. Like the frontpage, above the fold coverage, this copy isn't online yet either.
Just as the upgrade of Highway 14 was a signature issue in the recent House District 19A special election, discussion of the dangerous Southern Minnesota road dominated the race for Senate District 24 to the east.
Newly-elected Senator Vicki Jensen (DFL-Owatonna) has assumed a high profile in local media covering the journey of legislation Jensen and state representative Kathy Brynaert (DFL-Mankato) have introduced to fix the road.
. . .Lawmakers are pushing a bill that would upgrade about 21 miles of
two-lane from Nicollet to New Ulm and 14 miles of two-lane from Owatonna
to Dodge Center. (The two-lane from Nicollet to North Mankato is
already scheduled for a four-lane upgrade.)
. . . The bill would appropriate nearly $432 million. Just less than half
the money — about $213 million — would be used to purchase land and
construct New Ulm link while the rest — $219 million — would be used
for the Owatonna piece. . . .
In an interview with The Free Press prior to the hearing, Jensen said
she and Brynaert wanted to include the entire corridor in one bill.
“The corridor is important to the whole region. We’ve been talking
about a four-lane the entire way since the 1960s,” Jensen said. “Going
from four lanes to two lanes is a real problem.”
While many of the other highway projects being pushed Wednesday were
aimed at relieving congestion in the metro area, Jensen and Brynaert
said Highway 14 has the strongest case because of safety issues.
. . . Brynaert said no one expects lawmakers are going to appropriate the
money for the project this session, but said it’s vital the project is
planned for.
“The bottom line is to get Highway 14 in that 20-year MnDOT plan — that
is really critical. And we need to keep it at the table with other
projects,” Brynaert said.
Read the entire article at the Free Press. In the New Ulm Journal article, Highway 14: A Road Too Narrow, Josh Moniz reports:
. . .Highway 14 gained attention in the last few years as possibly the most
dangerous highway in Minnesota. The segment between New Ulm and Mankato
was determined to have a fatal crash rate three times the state average
for similar highways, according to a report by Minnesota Department of
Transportation. Advocates of the four-lane expansion project have
argued it is the only way to improve safety on the highway as well as
unleash significant economic growth for cities with heavy trucking like
New Ulm. . . .
. . .With a new state Legislature in place and a
new face backing its proposal, the U.S. Highway 14 Partnership returned
to the State Capital on Wednesday to request that the highway’s
completion be put back in the 20-year plan for the Minnesota Department
of Transportation.
Appearing in front of the state Senate Committee for
Transportation and Public Safety, public figures and business
representatives from across southern Minnesota pleaded their case for
the highway’s completion in a new bill authored by state Sen. Vicki
Jensen, DFL-Owatonna, who also sits on the committee.
“I couldn’t go anywhere in my district (24) and not
have a discussion about Highway 14,” Jensen said during the hearing.
“It’s nice to do it at this level.”
Read the rest of Strain's article at the OPP.
Jensen has easily stepped in her role as senator after years of being a Main Street mainstay in Owatonna's business community. Let's hope the Brynaert and Jensen team succeed on getting Highway 14 back on MNDOT's fast track.
Photo: Members
of the HWY 14 Partnership testifying in front of the Senate
Transportation Comiittee today in support of the continued expansion of
the HWY 14 corridor. Via Senator Jensen's Facebook page.
If you enjoyed reading this post, consider giving a donation via paypal:
One of the points Bluestem has stressed in our posts about industrial scale sand mining in Minnesota is that the local problems caused by frac sand mining are legitimate concerns for people living near the mining and processing, regardless of whether fracking itself is totally awesome or totally horrid.
Nor do we rely on documentaries about fracking or fictional movies about fracking to make points about industrial-scale sand mining. Indeed, the latter practice is as annoying to Bluestem as those who cite The West Wing (on the left) or Atlas Shrugged (on the right) as evidence. Both are fiction.
Thus when an email with the subject line "Fracking Good for Minnesota, United States" arrived from Representative Glenn Gruenhagen we opened it, to read a column he has submitted to local papers. His op-ed piece begins:
A controversy is brewing at the State Capitol on whether to end or severely restrict mining of silica sand because of the potential environmental concerns. These concerns have been inflamed by a Hollywood propaganda film "Promised Land,” filled with misleading information.
It was impossible for us--or anyone, anywhere--to do so, even had we wished.
That was months before the film was set in October 2011 and even more months before it went into production in 2012 for a limited release in the waning days of post-Christmas 2012 or the January 4, 2013 nationwide release.
Citizens in Minnesota and Wisconsin have been inflamed--not by a movie that had yet to be made and that they had no knowledge of--but by the things they have seen happening in this very real world in which they live.
They have watched local public employees charged with representing their interests with mining companies quit and work for mining companies.
They have watched boom and bust in the demand for proppants for fracking, watched the sand pile up, and neighbors employed in the industry go idle.
They have worried about their property values, their health and the future.
They have attended meetings, set up websites, written letters, made phone calls, created petitions, protested, organized, committed civil disobedience, been arrested.
They have taken photographs, written articles, made videos and shot a documentary movie produced not in "Hollywood," but in a local commercial filmmaker's studio.
They have asked their townships, their cities and their counties to enact moratoria to study the effects of industrial scale silica mining and their local officials have listened.
They have petitioned the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board for a statewide GEIS. They have submitted testimony to the EQB.
They have appealed to former state senator John Sterling Howe (R-Red Wing) andto his successor Matt Schmit (DFL-Red Wing) to ask the Governor to support the GEIS.
All of this happened before the "Hollywood propaganda film" opened.
Are some of them concerned about fracking? To be sure. Were they seeking local zoning protection in 2011 and 2012--and legislative and state regulatory relief last fall--because of a Hollywood movie that opened nationally on January 4, 2013?
Are you stupid? Are you dishonest? Both?
Photo: An anti-sand mining sign from July, 2011, via MPR (top); Aerial view of proposed mine in Goodhue County's Hay Creek Township, ca. June 2011, photo by Jim Tittle. (bottom)
If you enjoyed reading this post, consider giving a donation via paypal:
When Bluestem last spotted a proposal for personal rapid transit in Minnesota, some sponsors had talked Winona into asking Congressman Tim Walz for a $25 million federal earmark. The Winona Daily News reported in Walz seeks $11.1M in Winona-area earmarks:
But the city of Winona's request for $25 million to build a test
track and laboratory for Personal Rapid Transit was not among them,
as the congressman says he has doubts about the viability of the
futuristic transportation system.
"We're just not sure," said Walz, DFL-Minn. "As a demonstration
project and that amount of money when it's not at a point where
it's been demonstrated, it was pretty hard for us to request
it."
But just like mosquitoes and the undead, PRT is back. Curiously, at a time in which the Republican Party of Minnesota is shrieking about how the DFL majority only cares about big cities, the new champion of PRT is Senator Torrey Westrom (R-Elbow Lake).
Bluestem totally loves going out to Senator Westrom's district, home to the headwaters of the Minnesota River in Big Stone County. Some truly impressive big stones in those parts. We recommend them.
PRT has no chance in this legislature as the previous post explained. But the MNGOP has become the party of really bad ideas and they seem determined to return PRT to the mix this year.
Senator Westrom, in a rambling question, seemed to suggest PRT was some sort of "reform". Westrom mentions the "moribund" Taxi 2000 Corporation.
But perhaps this isn't an urban boondoggle after all. Maybe there's true transportation reform to be had by installing PRT between Odessa and downtown Ortonville. The VFW in Glenwood to City Hall! To heck with U of M Morris being green--let's get the kids to toss their bikes and route PRT on campus!
Listen:
If you enjoyed reading this post, consider giving a donation via paypal:
Some Greater Minnesota stories aren't political, but irresistable to Bluestem Prairie nonetheless. With the windchills predicted to drop to -38 degrees below zero tomorrow, we find ourselves coveting the fish house an angler has built out in Big Stone County.
For 10 years, Pat Minahan of Ortonville had dreamed of building his own drivable, portable fish house. Finally, last year Pat started work on it and was able to have it completed just in time for ice fishing this year.
Minahan loves to ice fish, but wanted to build something that he could drive out onto the lake without having to get out to fish.
You can't fault a guy for that, especially out there in chilly Ortonville, where the National Weather Service is saying it could feel like -41 degrees tomorrow.
Read more about how Minahan built his dream. The Independent reports the fish are biting on the lake at the headwaters of the Minnesota River Valley:
Many have said that ice fishing this winter has been the best they have seen in many years. There has been a good bite on the perch and walleye and the fishing pressure on Big Stone Lake has been outstanding with many fish houses on the lake.
If you want to find Minahan's favorite fishing hole, just head west on Highway 7 or 12 until you get to South Dakota. You can't miss it.
Photo: Bluestem is so coveting this guy's fish house in Big Stone County, along with the big stones out there. Photo via the Ortonville Independent.
If you enjoyed reading this post, consider giving a donation via paypal:
One of the talking points industry uses to marginalize citizen concerns about the impact of frac sand mining in Southeastern Minnesota is to insist that those raising questions about the industrial scale mining on their property values, safety, health, communities, landscapes, and future economic opportunities are either misinformed and think fracking itself will be happening in their neigborhoods.
Or the claim is made that the activists are actually using local interests as a stalking horse for opposition to fracking itself, however distant that might be from the bluff country. And while that debate is heated nationally, the Minnesota House and Senate are being asked to legislative relief that would address issues raised by the new scale sand mining itself.
Gov. Dayton says the issue of sand
mining for use in a natural gas and oil extraction process called
hydraulic fracturing will be "huge" this session. The procedure, which
relies on injecting water, silica sand and chemicals to retrieve oil and
natural gas deposits, has been controversial, as has the mining of
silica sand in Minnesota. Gov. Dayton and the Legislature will be forced
to balance the interests of the energy industry and the jobs it
provides with the interests of environmentalists who are concerned about
the long term impacts of hydraulic fracturing.
Get real: for months, news media in Minnesota have been reporting about counties and cities imposing moratoria because of problems created by the impactc of new industrial scale silica sand mining. While sand has been extracted in the area for years, this problem of scale is what's creating the problems; even if fracking itself were completely safe and without controversy, people in Hay Creek Township, Red Wing, Wabasha, Winona, Goodhue County, Wabasha County, Winona County, Houston County, Fillmore County, Olmsted County and other places in the state would still be seeking legislative relief.
To report otherwise is simply missing the story on the ground and at the capitol.
How will heavy truck traffic affect the life of county and townhip roads that aren't engineered for heavy traffic? Will they cause more accidents?
Is the dust created by the mining and processing process safe? If there are no established standards for safety, when will they be established? Who will do the monitoring? Who will pay for this?
Since the washing process requires large amounts of water--and chemicals as well--what guarantee do residents have that their wells won't go dry? Or be contaminated? Who will pay for the benchmarks for well quality?
In Wisconsin, a frac sand operation holding pond spilled into the St Croix River and the spill was undetected for days. Who will monitor holding ponds and water quality in the lakes, streams and rivers in the watersheds where frac sand mines and processing plants are located?
How will local environmental concerns--such as preservation of bluff and "goat prairie" eco-niches where threatened and endangered species dwell--be factored in? What value can be established for signature native landscapes themselves, like the river bluffs?
Will frac sand mining affect property values? Will it inhibit other forms of economic development, like the area's growing organic farming, tourism, real estate?
Given the burdens on local communities, will frac sand be subject to additional taxes to support the infrastructure costs of the industry to local and state goverment? Should a fee be charged mining companies to help with post-mining economic development, just as the taconite industry on the Range was taxed to fund the IRRRB?
While companies promise they will reclaim mines once they're finished with them, what should standards for water quality, land use, soil contamination and so on should be used for reclamation projects? How long can a mine lie idle in an industry that's someone boom and bust before it most be reclaimed?
Other than that, perhaps there are environmentalists somewhere who think the Minnesota legislature will be dealing with fracking.
As soon as we find them, we'll let readers and MPR know who they are.
Screenshot: MPR is confused about what the Minnesota legislature is being asked to consider. The focus is frac sand mining.
If you liked reading this post, consider throwing a donation our way:
A citizens' group in Wabasha has
appealed the city's recent decision to allow a Calgary-based company to
set up a silica sand transport facility.
The group, Friends of Wabasha, filed
the appeal against the project, citing environmental, economic and
traffic concerns.
Last month, the City Council voted
not to require Superior Sand Systems to complete an environmental review
for the facility. The city's planning board later approved the
project's conditional use permit for the facility along the Canadian
Pacific tracks.
MPR reports that the City Council has 60 days to respond to the appeal and is likely to take it up at its February 5th meeting.
Regulation of frac sand mining is anticipated to be an important issue in the coming session of the Minnesota legislature; the session starts next week.
An Alberta, Canada corporation established in 2008, Superior Sand Systems had begun playing hardball with the city council last year, and the council caved, despite citizen concerns about the project.
. . .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.
“How
much are we willing to spend?” Gallenberger said. “And where is that
money going to come from? Does that mean we have to raise the taxes
again next year to the degree we raised them this year so we can pay for
this possible fight that we may have? Or should we just continue on the
course that we have set in our policies, which hopefully, maybe we’re
going be wrong, but hopefully will protect us.”
Superior Sands has
one frac sand mine across the river from Wabasha in Wisconsin, and
company official D’Arcy Duquette told the Star Tribune of Minneapolis it
plans to seek approval for two more mines at sites in that county. The
Wabasha facility will employ 18 people at full production, not counting
trucking jobs, said Duquette, a former Canadian Pacific executive.
Duquette
also said the Wabasha facility will have enough capacity — 1.2 million
tons a year — for Superior Sands to consider mining in Minnesota.
From the sounds of things, it appears that Wabasha's citizens aren't planning to go quietly on this issue.
Photo: A big honking pile of frac sand.
Donate: If you enjoy reading posts like this at Bluestem, consider throwing some coin in the plate at Paypal:
This is another wake-up call for us to pay attention. Many in
leadership were sold on a shiny feel-good flyer without reading the
small print in the Green Step Program. If the program has not yet been adopted in your city,
forward the info to your city representatives. If it has been adopted,
fight on any future ordinances (like the transit requirement shown
above) that might be adopted.
In the meantime, here’s a toast to one city who 86’d this Agenda 21 initiative.
So where did GreenStep Cities come from, anyway?
After all, it's that scary Agenda 21 environmental thingie that conbloggers and Minnesota's Tea Party activists see ex-Dayton spouse Alida Messinger implementing everywhere the words "evironment" and "sustainable" appear.
The New Napoleon Solo: Tim Pawlenty as the Man from U.N.C.L.E.*?
This time it's even more devious than those dirty hippies at the Environmental Quality Board inviting farmers, small business people, chambers of commerce and the entire state to Citizens Forums. Messinger's minion this time was none other than Governor Tim Pawlenty.
During fall 2007, Minnesota's Clean Energy Resource Teams (CERTs)
held regional listening sessions around the state to discuss
community-based energy opportunities and the state's Next Generation
Energy Act of 2007. The idea was raised of creating a sustainable cities
program, free to cities, that would challenge, assist and recognize
cities that were "green stars." This idea was taken up by the 2008
Legislature, which directed the MPCA, the Division of Energy Resources
at the Minnesota Department of Commerce, and CERTs to recommend actions
cities could take on a voluntary basis.
Those recommendations are contained in the report Minnesota GreenStep Cities.
Representatives from dozens of cities, non-profit organizations,
businesses and state government agencies provided the outline for what
has been developed as the Minnesota GreenStep Cities program, which
began in June 2010.
In reality, the GreenStep Cities was vetted not only by the Pawlenty administration working with representatives from area non-profits and business groups, but by the state legislature as well. While the DFL controlled both houses of at the time, the enabling legislation passed with overwhelming, bipartisan majorities in roll call votes.
Secret blue helmets in Minnesota GOP caucuses? A roll call
Conservatives might find the lop-sided votes on the bill that expanded the "green cities" program even more frightening than the role of the Pawlenty Administration, or at least conducive to cognitive dissonance. According to the history of the enabling legislation--which was heard by committees and taken up on the floor of both chambers--the language passed 120-10 in the Minnesota House and 55-11 in the Minnesota Senate.
Who are the Republicans who are still sitting in the House and Senate who voted for the "Green Star" program in the 85th session of the Minnesota Legislature in 2008? Who still remains who voted "No"? Remember: there's been a large turnover in both houses.
"Yes" in the Senate: Michelle Fischbach, Julie Rosen, Dave Senjem
"No" in the Senate: David Hann, Bill Ingebrigtsen, Warren Limmer, Julianne Ortman
Voted "Yes" in the House; Elected to the Senate 2012: Bruce Anderson,Torrey Westrom
"Yes" In the House: Sarah Anderson, Tony Cornish, Matt Dean, Bob Dettmer, Sondra Erickson, Steve Gottwalt, Bob Gunther, Rod Hamilton, Denny McNamara, Bud Nornes, Dean Urdahl, Dean Zellers
"No" in the House: Mike Beard, Tom Hackbarth, Mary Holberg, Steve Drazkowski, Joyce Peppin, Pat Garofalo
Who knew such conservatives as Michelle Fischbach, Bruce Anderson, Torrey Westrom and Sondra Erickson were dupes of the United Nations' plan to steal American sovereignty?
Probably no one, because GreenStep Cities and sustainable development simply isn't a secret plan for the United Nations to take over. Instead, both are openly discussed, debated, and developed by citizens and elected officials.
Nor does it appear that any serious attempt to repeal the legislation was made while the Republicans held the majorities in both chambers.
MN Anti-Agenda 21 Field Guide: is that a tinfoil hat in your pocket or are you just glad to see me?
Grass-roots leaders said this month that after losing any chance of repealing the national health care law,
they would press states to “nullify” or ignore it. They also plan to
focus on a two-decade-old United Nations resolution that they call a
plot against property rights. . .
. . .But unlike the broader, galvanizing issues of health care and the size
of the federal government that ignited the Tea Party, the new topics
seem likely to bolster critics who portray the movement as a distraction
to the Republican Party.
So what's the gain in the new-found focus?
Part of the answer has to lie with discovering, organizing and training the Republican base, which was outnumbered and outhustled big time in Minnesota. Bluestem believes that with the state legislature and constitutional offices in the hands of the DFL, as well as both U.S. Senate seats (and five of the eight congressional districts), actions like those in Crystal and other lower-level municipal, township and county governments can help Minnesota's GOP discover some fresh blood while providing victories for the grassroots in training.
Minnesota's conservatives need some victories, and shattered but regrouping movements can find new life in the small ones. Think of it as training exercises for 2014.
Second, anti-Agenda 21 conspiracies rachet up the fear factor on a couple of classic property rights and climate change denier narratives, and the groups pushing these stories are on the ground in Minnesota. Back in late June, Treehugger's Lloyd Alter worked on Exposing the Influence Behind the Anti-Agenda 21 Anti-Sustainability Agenda.
When he is not out on the public speaking circuit, Tom DeWeese is President of the American Policy Center,
the loudest mouthpiece of the anti-Agenda 21 crowd. He claims that the
anti-sustainability movement is not just crazy people: "The tin foil is
falling off of our hats rapidly as the fight against Agenda 21 is
quickly escalating into the main stream of the political debate."
He has a well-connected board of directors and advisors that includes:
Bonner Cohen, who, according to Sourcewatch, ran EPA watch, which was funded by Philip Morris and accused the EPA of "everything from destroying the US economy to trying to stop people from taking showers." He was the sole director of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition with his partner Steve Milloy of Junk Science fame. TASSC was funded by Amoco, Chevron, Dow Chemical, Exxon, General Motors and many more.
He is a senior policy analyst with the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow,
which gets most of its money from the Carthage Foundation and Sarah
Scaife Foundation. Oh, and ExxonMobil, to the tune of $ 577,000 between
2000 and 2007 according to ExxonSecrets.
John Meredith is a director as well; he is a Washington lobbyist (and the son of civil rights icon James Meredith) and is on the Advisory Board of CFACT. . . .
The Board of Advisors includes Alan Caruba, who is a major contributor of articles to CFACT, which, by the way, was a gold sponsor of the Heartland Conference on Climate Change, infamous for its Unabomber ads (along with Americans for Prosperity) . ..
EdWatch--founded by Renae Doyle and Julie Quist, who would later become Bachmann congressional staffers--was among the organizers of the Freedom 21 annual conferences. And the guides to blocking the "Delphi Technique" touted by EdWatch? APC Board of Advisors member Beverly Eakman was a frequently cited source and spoke at EdWatch's Oct. 14, 2000 and May 21, 2004 banquets, according to Eakman's Wikipedia page.
Another player in Agenda 21 conspiracy games with a Minnesota tie? Alter reports that Americans for Prosperity is involved:
As Far as the Koch's Americans For Prosperity goes, they hand out brochures about Agenda 21 that are almost fair and balanced compared to some of the stuff I have read.
Some
conservatives worry that sustainable development is just a disguise for
a larger scheme to adopt radical environmentalism, wealth
redistribution, or some form of “world government” through local
initiatives. But whether this is true is largely irrelevant: regardless
of the underlying motives and regardless of the source, the policies
themselves prove to be an affront to property rights and harmful to the
American economy. To those who favor economic freedom and limited
government, this alone is grounds for concern.
AFP branches from Kansas to Oregon appear to have Tom Deweese constantly on the rubber chicken circuit, he is everywhere.
. . .Americans for Prosperity is quietly establishing a long-term presence
in the state. The group opened a Minnesota office last year, and has
hosted tax day rallies, conducted a poll on the Minnesota Vikings
stadium debate and backed candidates for the state Legislature.
Dropping hundreds of thousands on
ads may affect an election, but they do little to shift public sentiment
beyond November, said John Cooney, who leads Americans for Prosperity's
Minnesota branch. . . .
"We're aggressively discussing policy, but we want to create the
infrastructure so that we've got an active grassroots organization
engaged not just on federal issues, but with state policy makers and
local policy makers," Cooney said.
. . .What's been happening in Minnesota
reflects Americans for Prosperity's broader strategy of focusing on
local issues through its 34 state chapters and counting on incremental
change, spokesman Levi Russell said. Small victories can add up to
produce a long-term effect on how people think about the economy.
"We want [voters] to have an ongoing
awareness for free-market issues so that they can make daily decisions
that impact that and not wait until it is election time," Russell said.
Bluestem will continue to monitor anti-sustainability politics in 2013.
*Yes, Bluestem is aware that in the public iteration of "The Man From U.N.C.L.E," UN didn't stand for United Nations; however, the original concept for the show did operate under that conceit.
Photo: Governor Pawlenty. Republican or United Nations international man of mystery?
Donate: If you enjoy reading posts like this at Bluestem, consider throwing some coin in the plate at 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