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.
When Bluestem fans last read about Glencoe Republican Glenn Gruenhagen in Why did Steve Drazkowski, Glenn Gruenhagen, 3 other Republicans vote against farmers?, he was one of a handful of House Republican who'd voted against extending a common-sense farmer-lender mediation program co-sponsored by Republican Assistant Minority Leader Rod Hamilton (R-Mountain Lake).
The vote came on the heels of Gruenhagen pouring the rhetorical equivalent of proppant processing sludge into the state's debate over regulating frac sand mining by claiming that a Matt Damon movie was inflaming the debate.
As we noted in excruxiating detail in Stupid or dishonest? Glenn Gruenhagen blames years of frac sand controversy on new movie, Southeasten Minnesota citizens had raised questions and demanded township, city, and county moratoria on new sand mines long before the movie--about fracking, not mining--was even cast. Hollywood had nothing to do with their concerns; indeed, the grassroots groups struggled to get the state's attention for months, to the point where St. Paul filmmaker Jim Tittle, a Red Wing area native, had to create his own documentary.
In a press conference staged yesterday by Minnesotans for Marriage to announce opposition to the drive for marriage equality in Minnesota, Gruenhagen stepped forward as the chief legislative spokesman for misinformation about human sexuality.
. . .At a press conference following the announcement of the bipartisan law, Republican Rep. Glenn Gruenhagen trotted out one of the oldest arguments around to defend his opposition.
"The human genome map was completed in 2003, and there is no gay gene," he said.
Except that's not exactly true. The latest research into a "gay gene" points to what is known as epigenetics, throwaway DNA that triggers hormone production in fetuses. Furthermore, although scientists haven't found a "gay gene," they haven't found a straight one either.
Dr. Katie Spencer, of the University of Minnesota's program in human sexuality, says it's more complicated than just genetics -- and she wonders if it's even a relevant question.
"Gay, lesbian and bisexual people have existed throughout all time and all cultures throughout history," she said. "So, psychologists are not even interested in that question anymore. What we're interested in is the impact of discrimination on gay, lesbian and bisexual peoples' lives.". . .
Gruenhagen is in the insurance business, so how he suddenly became an expert in genetics is unclear.
"The concept that you're born that way and it's an immutable characteristic is an unscientific lie," he said.
It's even less clear to the real experts, especially when they don't believe it should matter at all.
"We don't care if it's a gene or not because that doesn't mean anything," Spencer said. "Whether something is a choice or gene doesn't matter because your rights aren't based on that." . . .
Here's the clip:
While Gruenhagen is already enjoying a banner year for blarney--and it's not yet March--he's had a reputation for annoying opinions since he served on the Glencoe-Silver Lake Public Schools board.
Mr. Gruenhagen holds distinctly minority opinions on alcohol abuse, as he wrote in a 2009 letter to the McLeod County Chronicle, Alcoholism is not a disease:
. . . I have extended family members who have been in treatment for alcoholism and chemical dependency and I am well aware of the pain and sorrow these problems bring to families. However, labeling alcoholism and drug addiction as a disease is not only medically inaccurate (since there is no germ or gene), it also sends a false message to the abuser that they are a victim rather than to accept some level of personal responsibility for their abuse and behavior. In addition, it sends the completely wrong message to our young people about the dangers of alcohol and illegal drug abuse.
I voluntarily participated in Gideon International jail ministry with local prisoners for over 13 years. One of the questions I routinely asked prisoners was "how many of you were on alcohol or illegal drugs when you were arrested?" The answer was almost always the same: over 90 percent said "yes." By the way, you won't get a DWI for driving with cancer.
Labeling alcoholism and drug addiction as a disease is a recent trend and is bad for both the addicted and the non-addicted. It is rooted in a false psychological medical philosophy that everyone is a victim when it comes to wrong and bad behavior.
I am sorry if this letter seems stern, but I am sick and tired of the victim mentality in our schools, prisons and culture . . .
Representative Gruenhagen is quite charming and friendly in person, and has an open door policy for meeting with groups seeking legislative relief, however much he may disagree with their agenda. It's not who gets into his office at the capitol that's the issue here, but the strange things that continue to come out of his mouth in hearings and public events.
Take his view of male sexuality itself as a "destructive" force. The Minnesota Independent reported in GOP’s Gruenhagen calls for destruction of ‘filthy’ Kinsey research that he said in Public Safety and Crime Prevention Policy and Finance committee hearing on HF853 (a bill related to helping sexual trafficking victims):
Finally I would just add: there is nothing more destructive — or, one of
the most destructive things to a society in terms of our women and
children and even having economic consequences — is when the male sex
drive is released in an uncontrolled and undisciplined way. There — you
can’t print up enough money to take care of the consequences of that. So
I beseech you as a man to expose the lies that have been permeated
through our schools and our culture and of course we know Hollywood is
brainwashed disciples of Dr. Albert Kinsey. I use the word “doctor”
reluctantly. He’s a filthy, perverted, unscientific liar and his
research needs to be exposed. Other than that, I don’t have a lot of
opinion on the subject [Laughter]
Concerned that the treatment program is too cushy for sex offenders,
Gruenhagen first proposed that chain gangs might cure what ails sex
offenders.
Then the Glencoe Republican had a better idea: "Are any states applying castration to this group of offenders?" he asked.
The clinical director for the sex-offender program, perhaps
responding to the snickers that followed Gruenhagen's question, first
tried to make sure everyone knew that slicing sex offenders' balls off
was not on the table as an option:
"Chemical
castration is the use of anti-androgens," said Jannine Hebert. "Someone
either has a patch or they get injections to decrease their level of
testosterone."
But while some states have experimented with making chemical
castration a condition of parole, Hebert testified, it doesn't really
make sense as a treatment because it doesn't address the causes of
criminal sexual behavior in most offenders.
A Republican state legislator and a man who claims to be a “former
homosexual” have teamed up to support an anti-gay-marriage amendment to
the Minnesota constitution.
The group — called the Pro-Marriage Amendment Forum — is just one
example of the deep ties between backers of the marriage amendment and
the “ex-gay” movement. The connections have left some LGBT advocates
wondering if it’s not just gay marriage these groups are opposing, but
rights for LGBT people as a whole.
“Ex-gay” therapy is a controversial practice that involves efforts to
help gays and lesbians either abstain from relationships with partners
of the same sex or engage in heterosexual relationships. Most mainstream
psychological, medical, and counseling organizations have criticized
the therapy as harmful due to its very limited success rates and studies
showing it may lead to depression or suicide.
Rep. Glenn Gruenhagen, a Republican who represents the city of
Glencoe about an hour southwest of Minneapolis, and Kevin Peterson, a
man who says he was gay until the age of 33, started the Pro-Marriage
Amendment Forum in order to raise money in support of the amendment.
They are planning to show a series of Powerpoint presentations around
the state.
Neither gentleman responded to requests by The American Independent
for further information about the organization, but both did appear on the Late Debate, a conservative-libertarian radio program based in the northern suburbs of Minneapolis-St. Paul, last week.
“Kevin and I formed a 501(c)(4), and the purpose is to advocate and
educate people regarding the upcoming vote in November,” said
Gruenhagen. “It’s a 501(c)(4). You can make contributions to that org,
but they are not tax deductible. There’s a place to donate; all the
money is going to be used to cover expenses for getting out the
information regarding the upcoming marriage amendment especially in the
area of economic benefit to marriage and the consequences to our
educational system.”
Speaking on the topic "Does Marriage Matter" at the June 11, 2012 SW Metro Tea Party meeting in Chanhassen MN, state representative Glenn Gruenhagen shared his unflattering opinion of Sigmund Freud: "he started the concept of sexual orientation...he's a pervert, okay. He's a moron in my opinion and I don't believe in anything that he came up with."
Gruenhagen joined "ex-gay" activist Kevin Petersen at the group's regular meeting at a local rec center to advocate passage of an amendment to the Minnesota constitution which would limit the freedom to marry to one man and one woman.
"Men, a certain percentage have developed a perverted view of women,"
Gruenhagen said. "And what abortion tells men is they can use women and
lose them. OK? Use and lose them and run from their responsibility."
"And then on top of that we have the state showing up and paying for
the sexual exploitation of women. Ladies, let’s put a stop to this.
Let’s put a stop to sending a message to men that they can use you and
leave you with the consequences and have the government pick up the tab
for that."
With conservative, small-government Republicans like former state auditor Pat Anderson and marriage equality co-sponsor state senator Branden Petersen speaking up for all Minnesota families, it's a head-scratcher that Gruenhagen has been pushed forward as the anti-freedom spokester.
On the other, maybe not. Soundly defeated in the HD 19A special election earlier this month, 1980s anti-sodomy Allen Quist has retired from seeking office.
Photo: Glenn Gruenhagen, via Star Tribune.
If you
enjoyed reading this post, consider giving a donation via paypal:
While the state legislature hopes to balance jobs with health, safety, and environmental concerns surrounding frac sand mining, many citizens in Winona County's St. Charles are having none it.
A presentation concerning the dangers of
silica sand was the latest salvo by the Concerned Citizens for St.
Charles (CCSC) against a proposed frack sand processing and loading facility.
The St. Charles City Council on Tuesday night heard from Dr.
Wayne Feyereisn, a doctor of internal medicine and member of the Mayo
Medical School faculty, on the long-term health risks of the rail
facility Minnesota Proppant hopes to build in St. Charles Township.
"There is not a safe form of silica," Feyereisn said.
Fine spheres of the sand get caught in lungs, resulting in silicosis,
he said.
Learn the details of Feyereisn's presentation in the Post Bulletin article. Todd reports that the CCSC members don't want to see the nation's largest frac sand processing plant opening in their community:
Travis Lange, who has presented more than 1,000 signatures on a
petition asking the council to ban any business seeking to process, mine
or transport silica sand in St. Charles, told the council that the
petition contains a majority of residents compared to those who voted in
the last election.
"Let Minnesota Proppant know they are not welcome,"
Lange said. "You don't have to wait for a proposal. Put it on the
agenda. It can be that simple."
The Mayor of St. Charles,on the other hand, thinks that many of those signing the petition don't want to permanet ban of the facility. Read more about the sand war at the PB.
Photo: St. Charles, Minnesota.
If you enjoyed reading this post, consider giving a donation via paypal:
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.
In a 3-2 decision, the North Dakota Supreme Court ruled yesterday that locked-out American Crystal Sugar workers are owed unemployment benefits. Total benefits owed to workers may be $4 million dollars, but some fear the state legislautre may act to block the payments.
More than 400 American Crystal Sugars workers in North Dakota who are
locked out in a contract dispute are eligible for unemployment
benefits, the state Supreme Court said in a ruling issued released
Tuesday.
The decision reverses a lower court's ruling that said the
workers were not eligible for benefits from Job Service North Dakota
because state law prohibits unemployment insurance for workers involved
in labor disputes. Nearly 1,300 American Crystal Sugar workers in North
Dakota, Minnesota and Iowa, have been locked out since Aug. 1, 2011,
after their union rejected the cooperative's proposed contract.
The workers' attorney had argued that the "labor dispute" language
referred to situations in which the workers withheld labor, which was
not the case with the Crystal Sugar workers who wanted to work but were
locked out, he said.
Darren Brostrom, Job Service North Dakota's unemployment
insurance director, did not immediately return a message seeking
comment. He earlier said that if the court ruled in favor of the
workers, they would get $4 million or more in benefits.
Representatives of the locked-out American Crystal workers applauded
the decision, welcome news for workers who have been away from their
jobs for 1½years.
“I think we need to have a little celebration,”
said John Riskey, a local union president who was driving to Drayton
Tuesday evening to talk with other union leaders about their next step
in light of the decision. “I guess justice has been served.”
Alecia
Heiser, a former lab and utility worker at the Drayton plant who was at
the meeting Tuesday night, said that while details were in short
supply, it gave her a renewed sense of hope. Heiser said she found
full-time work briefly at a restaurant in Drayton after the lockout but
had since been forced into part-time work there and at other businesses.
“Very exciting,” she said of the decision. “I’m glad things are turning around.”
Many
workers and their families have experienced hardships resulting from
the involuntary work stoppage, said Daniel Phillips, the Fargo lawyer
who represented the workers.
“Now this is a salve over a very raw sore, but it’s still a very nice salve,” he said.
However, the lawyer worries that the Republican-controlled legislature may think that the workers haven't been punished enough:
More worrisome, because the North Dakota Legislature is in session,
lawmakers could pass a law negating the effect of Tuesday’s decision,
Phillips said.
“I’m very happy with the outcome,” he said. However, he added, “I don’t know how long this decision is going to matter.”
Image: Boycott ACS, by Tild.
If you enjoyed reading this post, consider giving a donation via paypal:
On January 14, 2013, the Red Wing City Council voted to pay $1000 toward Egan's travel expenses to the group's DC kick-off meeting in Washington DC:
Motion to Approve Mayor Egan' s Travel Outside of Minnesota to Attend Mississippi River's Cities and Towns Initiative in Washington, DC Mayor Egan is a board member of the Mississippi River's Cities and Towns Initiative. They are meeting in Washington March 19 -21. Up to $ 1, 000 in funds are available to reimburse travel expenses. Approval of the Consent Agenda constitutes authorization for out -of -state travel for Mayor Egan to attend the Mississippi River' s Cities and Towns Initiative in DC.
So the City of Red Wing is paying all or part of Mayor Dennis Egan's travel to Washington DC as member of this river conservation group's board. Will he be silent about discussions of sand mining? Will he leave the room? Will he disclose the fact that he's working for an industry group that's fighting with a significant chunk of the residents of the riparian population centers in the Upper Mississippi River Basin?
Embattled Red Wing Mayor Dennis Egan told
the city council on Monday he plans to resign on April 1 and will work
in the meantime to ensure a smooth transition.
Egan, who runs a lobbying firm Egan Public Affairs,
will continue as executive director for the Minnesota Industrial Sand
Council, the job that created a firestorm of criticism about the a
potential conflict of interest earlier this month. He first announced his plans to step down on Friday.
. . .Three citizens continued to press the issue at Egan, who was also
removed from an upcoming trip to Washington, D.C., for a mayoral
conference.
That final sentence answers Bluestem's questions: he won't be going--and least at public expense.
Photo: Pretty Red Wing.
If you
enjoyed reading this post, consider giving a donation via paypal:
Minnesota's spring may be sweeter for all loving couples as marriage equality gains traction across party lines, but storm warnings loom on the horizon.
The
National Organization for Marriage says it will spend $500,000 to
defeat any Republican legislator who votes to legalize gay marriage in
Minnesota.
On the flip side, the group also pledged to support any Democrat who votes against the measure.
NOM specifically targeted Sen. Branden Petersen, R-Andover, in its
announcement on Monday, Feb. 25. Petersen said last week he would sign
on to a bill that would legalize marriage in the state.
“Republicans like Branden Petersen don’t realize that not only is
voting to redefine marriage a terrible policy, it is also a
career-ending vote for a Republican,” said NOM president Brian Brown in a
statement. “NOM will do everything in our power to defeat any
Republican who votes in favor of same-sex marriage.”
Petersen will not be bullied:
“Regardless
of the amount, whether it’s $500,000 or $50 million, my vote is not
going to bought either way. I’m going to do what’s right,” Petersen
said. “If they want to throw away $500,000 then that’s their decision.”
While the young Andover Republican may be the only Republican co-author so far, he's not the only prominent Minnesota Republican speaking out for the freedom to marry. Former RNC member and state auditor Pat Anderson writes in A GOP activist in support of same-sex marriage in Minnesota:
. . . I applaud Republican State Sen. Branden Petersen
for expressing his support of legislation that would extend the basic
freedom to marry to same-sex couples in Minnesota, and I urge other
Republican legislators and Minnesotans to join him.
I have been involved at nearly every level of Republican politics
for more than two decades. I deeply believe in our party's core
principles, and I want to see the Republican Party succeed. It is for
that reason that I feel compelled to speak out and urge other Minnesota
Republicans to follow Sen. Petersen's leadership. . . .
Read the rest of her column at the Pioneer Press. From Minnesotans United:
Tomorrow
morning, Wednesday, February 27, legislative leaders will announce legislation to
grant same-sex couples the freedom to marry in Minnesota. The bipartisan
legislation, co-authored by Republican
Senator Branden Petersen, will be formally introduced on Thursday.
The introduction of this historic legislation comes on the heels of the Freedom
to Marry Day rally on February 14, when more than 2,000 Minnesotans packed into
the State Capitol Rotunda in support of marriage for same-sex couples. Faith
leaders – who are now joining with business leaders and legislators – led that
rally and are now calling on the Legislature to change state law this year to
ensure that all Minnesota families are able to protect and care for each other
through marriage.
Bill authors including Senator Scott
Dibble and Representatives Karen
Clark and Steve Simon speak
tomorrow about the importance of passing this legislation in 2013. They will be
joined by United Church of Christ Minnesota Conference Minister Reverend Karen Smith
Sellers, Rabbi Michael Latz of Shir Tikvah Congregation, and Minnesota families
and children who will positively benefit from having the same freedom to marry
as anyone else.
Minnesotans United head Richard Carlbom told the Pioneer Press:
“Leaders who help secure the freedom to marry will be rewarded by voters – just like in every other state.”
Photo: Sen. Branden Petersen and his children (above) MN United director Richard Carlbom pledging allegiance
to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for
which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all (below). Via Star Tribune.
If you enjoyed reading this post, consider giving a donation via paypal:
The
mining industry and the powerful 49ers Local of the International
Union of Operating Engineers (IUOP), on the other hand, oppose new rules
in the bill, as well as language enabling a Generic Environmental
Impact Statement (GEIS), having testified that the industry is heavily regulated as it is.
The
editorial board of the Mankato Free Press--publishing in the hometown
of co-sponsor Kathy Sheran (DFL-Mankato)--has come out in favor of the
strategy embodied in the bill in today's editorial: Review sand mining regulations.
Today, Senator Matt Schmit (DFL-Red Wing) will introduce SF786, a bill to regulate silica sand mining in Minnesota, with Senators Kathy Sheran (DFL-Mankato), Kevin Dahle (DFL- Northfield) and Katie Sieben (DFL- Cottage Grove).
The bill doesn't include a moratorium while the proposed Generic Environmental Impact Statement is prepared, although ECM Capitol reporter T.M.Budig reported on February 20 that Senate Environment and Energy Policy Committee chair John Marty is open to the imposition while frac sand mining are studied.
Initial analysis of the bill by Land Stewardship Project discusses the ramifications of conducting a GEIS without a moratorium, while pointing out another potential pitfall:
Creation of a Southeastern Minnesota Silica Sand Board. The board is
comprised of county commissioners from 18 counties. The board would
create a “model ordinance.” If counties and cities adopt this ordinance,
then they get increased taxing authority on frac sand operations.
However, there is no guarantee that this “model ordinance” will be
adequate. The increased tax revenues, in fact, may create an incentive
to allow more frac sand mining. LSP’s initial assessment is that this is
bad idea. We should instead focus on creating a strong state level
pollution permit with a moratorium in place until that is created.
It's an interesting question in a time of revenue-strapped local governments. Land Stewardship is urging members and friends to contact the senate committee members and attention tomorrow's committee meeting:
Attend the Senate Environment and Energy Policy Committee
hearing on Senate File 786 on Tuesday, Feb. 26, at noon in Room 15 of
the Capitol. We will gather in Room 107 of the Capitol at 11
a.m. for an update and to talk through strategy . Be there in support of
adding a moratorium and direct language calling for a pollution control
permit to the bill. To testify, contact the committee administrator
Barb Jacobs at (651) 296-296 or [email protected].
The group will be providing bus service to the capitol for Southeast Minnesotans.
In Winona tonight, Land Stewardship Project, Izaak Walton League--Will Dilg Chapter, Concerned Citizens for St. Charles and Winona Area Citizens Concerned about Silica Mining will host a Frac Sand Public Informational Meeting:
Saint Mary's University, Figulio Recital Hall (page Theatre), 700 Terrace Heights
Winona, MN 55987-1399 Google Map »
RSVP to Doug Nopar, LSP, 507-523-3366
Mayo Clinic physician Dr. Wayne Feyereisn will discuss issues
related to health concerns from silica sand dust and diesel exhaust.
Additional topics:
• Likely frac sand truck routes into Winona from mines being considered in Winona, Fillmore and Houston counties.
• The potential concentration of frac sand transport, mining and processing activity within one mile of St. Mary’s University.
• Update on the MN Proppant frac sand
facility proposed for St. Charles (if approved, this would be the
largest frac sand facility in the U.S.).
Photo: Winonans protesting frac sand mining.
If you enjoyed reading this post, consider giving a donation via paypal:
St. Cloud religious book and gift store owner and Tea Party organizer Kathleen Virnig so doesn't want any Republican to "work with the DFL and try to influence the homosexual marriage law the latter wish to create for us in Minnesota," according to her letter to the editor in the St. Cloud Times.
Virnig is reacting to GOP Minnesota legislator preparing to co-sponsor gay marriage bill, a report in the Star Tribune by staff writers Baird Helgeson and Rachel Stassen-Berger that Branden Petersen (R-Andover) plans to co-sponsor a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in Minnesota:
Having a Republican co-author would be an enormous political coup for same-sex marriage advocates as they prepare to unveil their proposal in the days ahead. Petersen would become the first Republican legislator to publicly support same-sex marriage, highlighting the rapidly changing dynamics of the issue at the Capitol.
“At this point, I am concerned about doing the right thing,” said Petersen, an Andover resident who is married and has two young children. “I have a certain amount of peace about that, and I will let the chips fall where they may. . . .”
. . .Petersen said he has several concerns that must be addressed before he will sign onto the measure. He wants to add language guaranteeing that any religious leader can choose not to wed same-sex couples. He also insists that kids in same-sex marriages have the same financial guarantees as children of other married couples in time of divorce.
“It’s only a matter of time before same-sex marriage is legal,” Petersen said. “I thought it was important to engage the issue now, and when we do it, do it right, and that there’s some perspective from the people I represent in that.”
Sen. Scott Dibble, who is chief sponsor of the bill, said he is willing to agree to Petersen’s additions.
Because marriage is about fecundity and not having anything shoved down your throat. Virnig writes:
State Sen. Branden Peterson [sic], a Republican, has announced he will work
with the DFL and try to influence the homosexual marriage law the
latter wish to create for us in Minnesota.
Thanks, but no thanks, Sen. Peterson.
You
are not advancing the cause of “cooperation” between the two parties,
but helping to shove down the throats of the common man, the demands of 2
percent to 3 percent of the population in the entire country!
The terms “marriage” and “homosexual/lesbian” is a misnomer.
The
very definition of marriage calls for the possibility of fecundity.
There ain’t no such thing when same sex-people have sex. Why would we
need to create out of thin air a right that is an impossibility for
anyone?
This is a
political agenda with the outcome of persecution for those who do follow
the 10 Commandments. It’s already happening in Canada, and it will
happen here.
But
there will not be marriage in the real meaning of the word because just
as you can’t make an orange into a potato, marriage is for the
propagation of the human family. No same-sex anything can do this. ...
We're not sure if Virnig will join the fight against genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Perhaps the threatening transformation of oranges into potatoes is just a metaphor.
One the main organizers of the event, Kathleen Virnig, was kind enough
to talk to the camera to send a message to those of you who agree with
the sentiment of these parties, and to urge you to take the next steps…
Virnig says in the video:
Welcome to the Tea Party that we had here in St. Cloud, Minnesota. I know that you people believe that we are losing our freedoms and I applaud you for being concerned about that. I also want to urge you to get out there, do your part, be an American citizen by voting, by calling your legislator and never give up. We are people who are tenacious, we win. We are right and we need to keep at it and together all of us will be able to be victorious over the oppression that we are all experiencing right now. God bless you and God bless America.
The video:
Virnig has indeed hung in there, continuing to be an active part of the Central Minnesota Tea Party. She left a comment on a 2012 post on the group's blog post, Corruption and the death of Nations:
Ron Ewart’s article and Dr. Cuddy’s research on the Power Elites is
right on! Ron reminds us of something so vital to our Republic, i.e.
look the enemy right in his eye and don’t flinch! Moral strength of
character cannot be beaten down for long. We the People will form a more
just society and must band together to fight the good cause with
steadfast insistence on our Constitutional and God given Rights. We need
the TEA Parties all across this beautiful, moral and deeply loved
country to push forward and demand our rights and freedoms and stay
vigilant and morally sound, acknowledging that we are one Nation under
God with liberty and justice for all like minded citizens.
Justice for all like minded citizens--but so not for those who aren't like her.
Photo: Kathleen Virnig, via the innernets.
If you enjoyed reading this post, consider giving a donation via paypal:
What's clear is that the voices of rural Minnesotans seeking legislative relief are finally being heard. One of the strong voices to testify in last Tuesday's hearing was Land Stewardship Project member Vince Ready, a farmer from southeast Winona County near St. Charles, who traveled to the state capitol for the first time.
On Tuesday, I traveled to the state Capitol from my farm in southeast
Winona County for the first time in my life. I was there with hundreds
of my neighbors and other concerned citizens to let the Legislature
know that it must act to protect Minnesota from the frac sand industry.
. . .
. . .Recently, I drove a journalist around our township, touring the
proposed mine areas for about two hours. In that time we passed just
three other vehicles. We drove past dozens of farms — many owned by
Amish — many cattle, horses and hundreds of acres of productive
cropland. The families that live here now live in a safe, healthy,
productive environment.
In
addition, a frac sand processing plant is proposed in the nearby city
of St. Charles that would be the largest in the United States.
If
the proposed frac sand mines and processing facilities start their
enterprise here, our environment and community are changed forever. What
is now a scenic, safe farming community will become a heavily
industrialized, polluted area.
We
can’t leave regulating this billion-dollar industry to rural counties,
cities and townships. We need state-level permits that work alongside
local control to ensure pollution standards are being followed that
protect the community. This concept of the state establishing a
regulatory floor that local governments can go beyond if they wish is
how many other businesses are regulated, including large-scale feedlots,
ethanol facilities and solid waste facilities.
Visit the St. Cloud Times to read entire letter.
In addition to citizen activism, there's another wake-up call for Minnesota, in the form of a long feature article in the Star Tribune by Josephine Marcotty, Minnesota draining its supplies of water. Marcotty reports:
Minnesotans have always prided themselves on their more than 10,000 lakes, great rivers and the deep underground reservoirs that supply three-fourths of the state’s residents with naturally clean drinking water.
But many regions in the state have reached the point where people are using water — and then sending it downstream — faster than the rain and snow can replenish it.
Last year, Minnesotans used a record amount of water, fueling a rising number of conflicts from the Iron Range to Pipestone.
Now state regulators, who have never said no to a water permit, for the first time are planning to experiment with more stringent rules that will require some local communities to allocate scarce water. . . .
Silica sand mining--especially the processing required to make it ready for drilling rig use--is extremely water intensive.
In addition to Schmit's bill, Rick Hansen (DFL-S. St. Paul), a suburban legislator who still owns farm and hunting land in the southeastern Minnesota of his boyhood, has introduced HF 425, which would protect wellheads and scientific and natural areas in frac sand mining areas. Schmit is the author of the companion bill in the state senate.
The bills deserve more sponsors, committee hearings, and eventual passage.
If Minnesotans who work to preserve voting rights think they had it rough defeating the voter restriction amendment last year, they should count their blessings.
Some Republicans in the House have introduced a suite of
disenfranchising bills under the guise of fixing North Dakota’s “voter
fraud problem,” despite North Dakota Secretary of State Al Jaeger and
the Burleigh and Cass County auditors testifying that there is almost no
voter fraud — and maybe even none at all — in North Dakota. . . .
But the worst bill is not a bill at all. Rep. Randy Boehning,
R-Fargo, completely replaced his own HB 1332 with a “hog house”
amendment (so-called because the first time an amendment supplanted a
bill, the subject had to do with pigsties) that would get rid of voter
affidavits and require ALL voters to show ID, both at the polls and for
absentee voting. . . .
. . .Getting rid of affidavit voting and
requiring absentee voters to have state-issued ID’s would be the biggest
change in North Dakota election policy since the Legislature granted
“no excuse” absentee voting and maybe the greatest step backward in
North Dakota voting accessibility ever.
The public has not
had a chance to weigh in on the potential changes because the new HB
1332 technically is an amendment. Only bills get public hearings — not
amendments.
Heckova way to foist photo ID on North Dakota voters. Read the rest for all the gory details.
Bluestem has to hand it to the editorial board of the Red Wing Republican Eagle: they totally know how to throw a pity party. Witness today's editorial, "Who would be mayor?" which begins:
Dennis Egan’s stepping down is in the best interests of his family, his career and his community. While we wish he’d had the wisdom and foresight not to become executive director of the new Minnesota Industrial Sand over until Council, he did, and the resulting debate over holding both posts escalated to the point of a near lynching.
Hyperbole much? Mayor Egan's actions caused concerned citizens to reach for the Red Wing City Council, not nooses. Bluestem has to believe that the editors know very little about the act of lynching to reach for this phrase. Mayor Egan wasn't dragged into the night; rather, he was able to present his case before the Red Wing City Council--and had kept the job he's now relinguishing while the city looked into matters.
The Red Wing City Council approved two measures earlier this month that
would take a closer examination of Egan's involvement in that process.
Monday's agenda includes a request for $7,000 to hire an independent
investigator to examine the facts. The city is also in the process of
requesting a legal opinion from the Minnesota Attorney General. Both
issues are expected to be halted in the wake of Egan's announcement.
The paper believes that important questions still linger in the air--and since they won't be the ones that the professional investigator would ask, perhaps we should dispatch those questions, one by one.
Update February 25: This must have been a great idea for post, because Jay Furst of the Post Bulletin provides his answers in his Furst Draft today. He'll probably get invited on Almanac for the brilliant idea. Before Furst got to it, Phoenix Woman frontpaged the story at Firedoglake, which likely has more readers than Bluestem and the Post Bulletin combined, with Dear Red Wing Republican Eagle: RE: Dennis Egan and Lynching…
Searching questions
Here's the first of the Red Wing Republican Eagles editorial board's "searching questions":
• Are we in danger of letting one issue overshadow every other matter?
Which issue would that be? The frac sand issue? Or the perception of ethical problems that led the Winona Daily News, a pro-mining paper, to ask "What was he thinking?" And who can forget the headline on Jon Tevlin's column in which he described what three out of four ethicists contacted thought about Dennis Egan's arrangement: New frac-sand job for Red Wing mayor is legal but dumb.
It's a good thing that Tom Petters didn't live in Red Wing, or we'd have to put up with the editorial board sobbing into its flat screens about how that one issue of the fraud overshadows all the good he did.
• Would Egan have taken such a beating if he’d accepted a job with an anti-fracking council?
This question illustrates the limitations of the rhetorical tactic of asking a hypothetical question. He took the job he did, and he took it after telling Red Wing voters
The issue is frac sand mining, not fracking, and there's no "anti-fracking council" in Minnesota. As the editorial board well knows, there's a local grassroots organization in Goodhue County called "Save Our Bluffs."
• Did anyone so aghast over the longtime professional lobbyist leading the sand council look at any of his existing clients before electing him?
Perhaps they did--here--and found nothing amiss. It's public information. Does the editorial baord have any of Egan's other clients in mind as candidates for a conflict of interest with being mayor?
Moreover, Egan accepting a job with the Minnesota Industrial Sand Council didn't happen in a vacuum--but was only the latest sweet gig handed to a local official by corporate mining interests. The Strib's Tony Kennedy has been covering this aspect of the sand mining industry, and it's not as if subscriptions, news stands and the Internet don't reach Goodhue County.
• What does it say about our community that respected individuals feared speaking up for a man who invited citizen input, fought for a cleaner Mississippi River, promoted business and served on a mayoral association’s national executive council?
It's hard to tell here if the editorial board is channeling the rhetorical style of Joe McCarthy (with that secret list of muzzled Egan supporters) or Richard Nixon (evoking the '"silent majority"). There's certainly no chance to argue with this star chamber of the suppressed.
Rather, we can only turn to sources: take the first letters page of the Red Wing Republican Eagle published after the city council meeting wherein Egan kept his job. Both letters about the fold support Egan. But perhaps the editors are speaking of their own fear: in the editorial that same issue, they questioned the descrition of the city administrator's added vacation time in City, call it a bonus, rather than defending or chiding Egan.
Another opportunity for information and dialogue lost. That's what
the headline should say in the Republican Eagle about Thursday evening’s
2020 Quarterly Community Forum held at the Sheldon Theatre. Topic of
discussion was the “Frac Sand Industry: A Public Informational Meeting.”
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. . . .
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. Heather Arends of the
Department of Natural Resources offered the piteous explanation that
frac sand mining “is inevitable” because “we need it.”
Didn’t someone once say the same thing about asbestos?
Neither mentioned the quality of life impacts of 200-400 trucks a day
driving by homes six days a week, 16 hours a day. Neither talked about
the decline of home and land values . . .
Worse, we didn’t get to ask because the mayor cut us off. . . .
That letter might be a harbinger of the sense of betrayal the citizens of Red Wing felt toward a man who had campaigned for re-election as envisioning the mayor's role in city government as promoting "an expanded opportunity to protect our natural resources (Mississippi River/Bluffs…)" in the October candidate Q & A profile that appeared in the Republican Eagle.
Who Would Be Mayor?
Then they ask:
• What type of person, then, do we want in public office? Do we want people who have no outside interests, no involvement, who will rubber-stamp professional bureaucrats’ agendas?
This is a false choice: either shut up and be happy with a mayor who works for corporate interests, or accept a mouseburger who enslaved to bureaucrats' agenda. This is nonsense--and the description of the November forum, where Egan privileged the voices of industry-friendly bureaucrats over the people who had elected him, makes the logical fallacy all the more annoying.
Finally, there's this:
Which then begs this question: Why would any sensible person want to be mayor? Or serve on a city council, county board, town board or school board? Why, indeed.
Let's begin with "begs this question." Oy. To "beg the question" does not mean "this question needs to be asked." Rather:
To beg the question does not mean "to raise the question."
(e.g. "It begs the question, why is he so dumb?") This is a common
error of usage made by those who mistake the word "question" in the
phrase to refer to a literal question. Sadly, the error has grown more
and more common with time, such that even journalists, advertisers, and
major mass media entities have fallen prey to "BTQ Abuse."
That misconception aside, perhaps the paper should consider another question: why would any sensible person, having just gotten re-elected on promises (among others) to protect natural resource, possibly imagine that everyone would think it was a-okay to take a job as the executive director of the Minnesota Industrial Sand Council?
The council is fighting to keep a status quo that has overwhelmed local government and mobilized citizens across the city, county and region. What sensible elected official would do as Egan did without anticipating a backlash?
As the Red Wing Republican Eagle, the Rochester Post Bulletin, and now Minnesota Public Radio and the Star Tribune report, Egan in stepping down as mayor of Red Wing, effective April 1.
Photo: Pretty Red Wing, home to life's most searching questions, but no near lynchings, at least not by Bluestem's definition of the word.
If you enjoyed reading this post, consider giving a donation via paypal:
In the story, Red Wing staff writer Anne Jacobson reports:
Mayor Dennis Egan will resign by April 1.
He made his decision public today, 12 days after the Red Wing City Council voted to have an independent investigator look into Egan’s involvement with the Minnesota Industrial Sand Council.
Egan has maintained that there was no conflict of interest in holding both positions. The public conflict, however, proved another matter. . . .
. . .“Yet, I believe that a mayor must live to a higher standard than just avoiding conflicts of interest,” Egan said in a statement. “The position of mayor is one of public service and, if a mayor’s activities serve as a distraction or roadblock for the city, the public is not well-served.
The last few weeks have demonstrated that my new position can serve as a distraction to the city and my family.” . . .
We'll link to the rest when the story goes online.
We'll post excerpts from the Republican Eagle article when it becomes available. The citizens andcity council membersin Red Wing deserve great credit for bird-dogging the former mayor's double-dealing.
Props to journalists--from Charley Shaw at Politics in Minnesota, Tony Kennedy and Jon Tevlin at the Star Tribune, Brett Boese at the Post Bulletin, and the editorial boards of the Post Bulletin and Winona Daily News for shedding light and analysis on this story.
Original edited post: Sources say Dennis Egan has resigned as Mayor of Red Wing.
A source emails Bluestem that this news--that Egan has resigned as Mayor-- is on the front page of the latest Red Wing Republican Eagle. There's nothing on the paper's webpage, but that's not unsual given that premium content isn't loaded on the site for a day or two.
Neither source is confirmed online.
There's nothing yet in the Winona Daily News or the Post Bulletin, the area's dailies that have covered the issue, or the Minneapolis Star Tribune. Nor does the city's website carry any notice of this alleged development.
Here's the tweet (be warned that the second reply is a link that our security software flagged as a hack, so don't click on it if you delve off the page.):
Red Wing Mayor Egan, under extreme pressure over frac sand lobbyist job; resigns.
Mayor Egan had not testified at Tuesday's joint hearing on frac sand mining at the state capitol. At their last meeting, the Red Wing City Council voted to hire an independent investigator to look at legal and ethical issues related to Egan's dual role. They had also voted to ask the state Attorney General's office for advice on the issues.
Since he's got the Agenda 21 Alarmist malarkey, he can move on to go old fashioned Tentherism by introducing SF514, a cookie-cutter resolution provided by the Tenth Amendment Center, which sounds pretty prestigious.
In 2007, with some money from a customer service job (he prefers not
to say where he works), Boldin launched the Tenth Amendment Center's
website. Though the Constitution provided many tools for battling the
Bush administration's overreach—the Eighth Amendment
bans torture, for instance—Boldin saw the Tenth as the ultimate check
on federal power, all in a single line: "The powers not delegated to the
United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,
are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people." In that
terse passage, Boldin saw the legal and philosophical basis for
challenging a raft of executive excesses.
The Tenth has also caught on with Tea Partiers and others seeking a one-size-fits-all way to snub federal authority. . . .
The Cottage Grove resident’s definition of what that means, though, has changed a lot.
Forty years ago, when he was fighting with the U.S. Army in Vietnam, it meant following the U.S. government’s orders.
Now,
it means lobbying legislators at the state Capitol to assert
Minnesota’s sovereignty, a move that would allow the state to claim
exclusion from unfunded federal mandates on 10th Amendment grounds. . . .
Moe was first drawn to politics by Ron Paul's ideas, Wente writes, but found Ron Paul Meet-ups too Republican. But like baby bear's porridge, the Constitution Party was just right--and he found a kindred soul in former House Minority leader Marty Seifert:
So when Paul endorsed the Constitution Party’s presidential
candidate, Chuck Baldwin, Moe got in touch with the leaders of the
Constitution Party of Minnesota. He started attending meetings last
December, and in February, he and three other Constitution Party
activists met in the State Office Building to seek out a legislator that
would author a bill declaring Minnesota a sovereign state. . . .
The
group of four was successful in getting Minnesota House Minority Leader
Marty Seifert, R-Marshall, to author the legislation. A week later,
House File 997 was ready to move through the committee process.
We have two slightly different versions of Minnesota Sovereignty
Legislation. HF 997 authored by Minnesota gubernatorial candidate Rep
Marty Seifert. HF 998 authored by Minnesota gubernatorial candidate Rep
Tom Emmer. Both pieces of this legislation were introduced to the
Minnesota House on the same day, February 19th, 2009. Perhaps the two
authors did not want to be outdone by the other.
These 2 pieces of legislation were assigned to the State and Local
Government Operations Reform Technology and Elections Committee. This
Committee is chaired by DFL Rep Gene Pelowski of Winona who has so far
refused to bring either of these pieces of legislation to a Committee
hearing.
What I find interesting is that GOP gubernatorial candidate Rep Tom Emmer is listed as GOP Lead on this Committee. In addition his gubernatorial campaign manager Rep Mark Buesgens is also listed as being on this committee.
It has been over a year and I have not heard any barking or received
any documentation by Rep Emmer or Rep Buesgens urging Chairman Pelowski
of their Committee to bring this Tenth Amendment legislation to a
Committee hearing. . . .
Criticism of the party didn't sit well with the Republican Party in Crow Wing County in September 2010, Brainerd Dispatch assistant editor Mike O'Rouke reported in Discord with GOP outlined at tea party rally here:
Tea party organizer George Burton, addressing a smaller than usual tea
party crowd Tuesday, criticized Crow Wing County Republicans, claiming
that they discouraged participation and urged scheduled speakers to
cancel their appearances at Tuesday's rally.
. . ."Things got pretty ugly," he told the crowd, stating that a certain
party (which he named later in an interview) had tried to convince Leon
Moe, state coordinator of the Minnesota Tenth Amendment Center, to
cancel his speech.
But Moe did indeed speak and was billed as the head of the TAC:
Moe, a disabled Vietnam veteran who heads the Tenth Amendment Center,
said this nation's founders feared a government with too much power. He
discussed the Tenth Amendment as the cornerstone of the Constitution."
The Tenth Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are
reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
He said neither health care nor education were listed as powers of
the federal government and discussed how state Legislatures could
declare such laws null and void.
"We just don't want to be obeying stupid, unconstitutional laws," Moe said.
Moe showed up at a famous protest in Governor Mark Dayton's reception room in January 2011, objecting to a health care order that the Democratic governor was signing as one of his first acts of office. In Dayton gives mic to Cottage Grove protester, South Washington County Bulletin reporter Scott Wente reported:
Cottage Grove resident Leon Moe is critical of federal health care
expansion and on Wednesday was given a big platform to express that
view.
Gov. Mark Dayton yielded his microphone to Moe and other
protesters at a highly unusual ceremony during which the governor signed
off on an expansion of the federal Medicaid program in Minnesota. . . .
Moe, who went to the Capitol to protest the action, said he was asked
to speak. He believes the Medicaid action is unconstitutional.
“If
you can show me anywhere in the Constitution where it says that
Congress has the authority to legislate health care, let me know,” Moe
said to applause as he stood at Dayton’s lectern and in the light of TV
cameras. . . .
Dayton's plan to sign the executive order was publicized days in
advance, drawing protesters to the ceremony. Events in the ornate
reception room of the governor's state Capitol office traditionally only
are open to journalists, staff, supporters and lawmakers.
“This is a public room,” Dayton said. “This belongs to the people of Minnesota.”
Some
of the protesters were Tea Party members, but Moe says he is not part
of that movement and instead considers himself a libertarian. He
occasionally contributes letters to the editor of the South Washington
County Bulletin.
In his latest letter, dated February 15, Schoen's gun stance reason enough to oust him in next election, Moe believes that freshman Representive Dan Schoen has turned his back on the Constitution.
The Tenth Amendment Center and SF 514: side by side
Did Moe deliver the language to Senator Brown, who was elected in 2010? Hard to tell, although it's clear from the 2009 newpaper report that he had a hand in Seifert's bill. Curious that in 2009,Tentherism wasn't some backbench malarkey, but an issue championed by Minority Leader Seifert, thought now to be more "mainstream" than Emmer, who also sponsored a Tenther but apparently didn't work on it hard even for the TAC state coordinator.
Whatever the case, Brown's resolution is a copycat of the TAC language. Here's a side-by-side comparison of the model resolution and SF 514:
Photo: Senator Dave Brown, R-Becker. The 2013 bill is also co-authored by Dave Osmek (R-Mound) (above); Leon Moe at the microphone in the Governor's Reception Room (below). Photo by Don Davis via the South Washington County Bulletin.
If you enjoyed reading this post, consider giving a donation via paypal:
Since Bluestem's covered frac sand mining since late spring 2011, we can probably get away with posting a raw press release and senator's column about this issue. The legislation follows, and we'll provide some analysis over the weekend.
The Minnesota senator leading the charge in silica sand mining debate
is calling for a statewide study and the creation of a regional board
to oversee the booming industry.
Sen. Matt Schmit, a Red Wing
Democrat, unveiled a bill Friday that he says would give the state some
oversight while giving local governments more authority to regulate
silica mining. . . .
Among the hottest issues is whether
the state should halt new mines while studying the industry. Schmit's
bill doesn't call for a statewide moratorium, but he is leaving the door
open to one.
Off the bat, Bluestem worries that the board will be swiftly morphed into a mining promotion board unless proper checks and balances are created,
Senator Schmit introduces Silica sand mining legislation
St. Paul, Minn. – Senator Matt Schmit (DFL-Red Wing) announced the upcoming introduction of legislation relating to silica sand mining in Minnesota, to be officially introduced on Monday, February 25, 2013. Bill sponsors in the senate will include Senators Sheran (DFL-Mankato), Dahle (DFL- Northfield) and Sieben (DFL- Cottage Grove). Sen. Schmit authored the following column:
“The 2013 legislative session has been dominated by discussion of Governor Dayton's budget proposal and the need to restore structural balance to Minnesota's fiscal house. This past week, though, attention turned to a very important issue for parts of southern Minnesota: silica sand mining.
After many months of grassroots organizing, those concerned about rapid expansion of sand mining operations in the region finally had their day at the Capitol. A joint meeting of the senate and house environment committees heard compelling testimony for a stronger, more definitive state role in permitting and regulation. Busloads of concerned citizens and local leaders let their voices be heard. The message was loud and clear: we have an opportunity to avoid the perils of western Wisconsin; let's not repeat their mistakes.
The conversation continues this coming week in the state senate. On Monday several colleagues and I will introduce legislation that aims to strike an appropriate balance between engaging state agency experts and empowering local decision makers. This plan is based upon conversations with a wide range of stakeholders, including concerned citizens, local elected leaders, state agency officials and representatives of the sand mining industry. In particular, the plan calls for:
- A generic environmental impact statement (GEIS) to address a number of unanswered questions plaguing the local permitting process. The GEIS will examine, among other questions, certain adverse water, air, transportation and economic impacts caused by sand mining. Importantly, this process will help us identify specific state permitting standards.
- A "Southern Minnesota Silica Sand Board" that will bring local decision makers and state agency experts together to establish a regional model ordinance -- a basic permitting standard upon which individual communities can build. This regional approach will allow for a broader view of sand mining impacts. Just as area watersheds and aquifers cross county lines, sand mined in one jurisdiction but transported through another affects us all.
- A technical and scientific advisory team comprised of state agency experts will be made available to our local governments as they weigh the benefits and risks of various permit applications. State agencies have resources and expertise that local governments lack. Where warranted, it only makes sense that we bring these folks together early in the permitting process.
In addition, the plan provides local governments with certain taxing powers to help recoup the full costs of a potentially expanded sand mining industry in the region. Importantly, local governments will be given the authority to extend local moratoria while the GEIS and regional silica sand board proceed.
I understand that no plan is ever perfect -- and I'll welcome ongoing feedback as the bill moves through the committee process. This coming week we'll likely consider the merits of a statewide moratorium, as well as particular state permitting standards known to us now.
After several weeks of informational meetings and overviews, senate committees are just beginning to hear bills. It's about time we get this important conversation started in St Paul.”
The bill, SF786, is also available online at the legislature's website.
Senator Gary Dahms (R-Redwood Falls) has introduced SF 587, a bill that would allow Schell's Brewery and other medium-small brewers to qualify for the brewer tax credit qualification modification.
This is the second pass Dahms has made at securing the change.
A bill in the Minnesota Legislature expanding the qualification for a
brewery tax credit will allow Schell's Brewery to maintain regular
production without losing out on thousands of dollars each year.
. . . [the bill would] change the qualification for
the tax credit from breweries producing less than 100,000 barrels of
fermented malt beverage per year to breweries producing less than
250,000 barrels. The credit itself provides $4.60 per barrel for the
first 25,000 barrels sold by a qualified brewery, with a maximum of
$115,000 awarded. The maximum payout for the credit does not change with
the qualification expansion.
Sen. Gary Dahms (R-Redwood Falls),
who is an author on the Senate bill, said the bill is a perfect way to
grow business at no cost. He said the expanded qualification doesn't
have a big impact on all breweries, but it prevents the definition from
being a hurdle as a brewery grows.
"The only real problem is when a brewery reaches that 100,000-barrel
mark. If they lose that credit, they have to produce a lot more barrels
to make up the difference. If they stick to just 99,999 barrels to stay
profitable, that's not good for business or Minnesota," said Dahms.
Schell's
Brewery President Ted Marti said Schell's and Summit Brewing Company
spearheaded the push for the expanded definition. Schell's currently
doesn't qualify for the credit because it produces 130,000 barrels a
year. . . .
"Small (for breweries) isn't as small as it used to
be. It's bigger for all breweries. At the moment, only about two
Minnesota breweries will fall under this credit. But, it will matter to
others in the future," said Marti. . . .
So far there's no House companion bill; Bluestem hopes that one will be introduced soon.
Dahms is joined in sponsoring the bill by Sandy Pappas (DFL-St. Paul), Jim Metzen (DFL-S. St. Paul), Julianne Ortman (R-Chanhassen) and Lyle Koenen (DFL-Clara City).
Helping out Schell's and Summit unites rural and urban Minnesotans, and the legislative team backing this bill is bipartisan, gender and geographical balanced, bringing into rural, suburban and urban over sacred local brew.
Bluestem can think of no more honorable goal for Minnesota's lawmakers than passing this bill and sending it to Governor Dayton's desk.
Photo: One of the peacocks at Schell's.
If you enjoyed reading this post, consider giving a donation via paypal:
Minnesota Sands has offered to voluntarily conduct an Environmental Impact Statement[EIS]--an in-depth study that examines a project's potential affects on environmental and quality of life issues--for the proposed Dabelstein and Yoder frac sand mines in Saratoga Township. Earlier this month, the Minnesota Department of Health and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency recommended an EIS for the proposed sites.
Tonight's scheduled public hearing at Southeast Tech's Tandeski Center has been cancelled as a result.
A frac sand mining company proposing two mines in Winona County has
agreed to conduct an in-depth environmental review of the projects
voluntarily, officials said Thursday.
The decision by Minnesota Sands
comes two weeks after the Minnesota Department of Health and Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency called for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the proposals.
The more detailed review isn't
required by state law, so it had been up to Winona County officials to
decide whether to require one. A hearing on that question had been
scheduled for tonight, but county officials cancelled the meeting after
being notified of Minnesota Sands' decision. . . .
Well, doesn't that sound wonderful? That the company has volunteered to conduct a more exhaustive environmental review of itself? See, what good actors and neighbors the industrial sand mining industry is?
An EIS is conducted by a responsible government unit (RGU); the environmental assessment worksheets that were found so inadequate by state agencies--that was conducted by Minnesota Sands.
Not all news organizations and stakeholders in this shifting sand drama were as confused as the Winona Daily News and Minnesota Public Radio. HThe Rochester Post Bulletin reported in Minnesota Sands agrees to environmental impact statement
Winona County Planner Jason Gilman said the scope of the EIS, and
which governmental unit will do it, will be determined in a few days.
It's possible it will be Winona County but if the scope goes into
quarries that might be opened in Fillmore County, the state might get
involved, he said.
It's also possible that a processing plant could be studied as part of of the study, he said.
This is the first EIS for silica mining in
southeastern Minnesota, he said, and could set the tone and direction
for other operations. "I think this is certainly precedent-setting,"
Gilman said.
Earlier in the PB article, however, the spokester for Minnesota Sands continued the public relations offense, painting the EIS as simply a process that would make critics feel better:
"I think this EIS will remove all those concerns," he said. "They
don't know what is in the hearts and minds of the people who are trying
to get this done … this will bring everybody up to the same speed and
should answer all of their concerns."
When the smaller environmental assessment worksheet,
which can be a precursor to an EIS, was done, nearly all public comments
were negative. Opponents cited noise, the number of trucks, water
pollution and fear of silicosis as reasons they wanted at least a full
EIS. Also, the Minnesota Health Department and Pollution Control Agency
have asked for the EIS because of many of the same concerns. . . .
The full environmental study will help appease those who oppose mines, Bublitz said. "Why not just do it?" he asked.
The landowners who want to lease their land to
Minnesota Sands "are good, decent people," he said. "They respect the
land … this is their backyard."
Yeah, okay, it's all about appeasement. And motives and feelings. Right. Perhaps Minnesota Sands believes these are Environmental Appeasement Statements (EAS).
The paper interviewed an organizer for Land Stewardship Project who maintained a more clear eyed perspective:
Johanna Rupprecht, Land Stewardship Project policy organizer, said
that while Minnesota Sands asked for the EIS voluntarily, "it's clear
that because of the public pressure" the study couldn't be avoided.
She wants to make sure it is done right. "We are gong to be very vigilant and make sure it gets done right," she said.
Land Stewardship Project, which maintains a field office in Lewiston, issued a statement:
It was announced today that
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be performed on the
controversial Dabelstein-Yoder frac sand mines proposed for Winona
County's Saratoga Township. While an EIS is in process, all permitting
decisions are put on hold.
Today's announcement that Minnesota
Sands, the proposer of the Dabelstein-Yoder frac sand mine facilities,
has formally "requested" that an EIS be performed on its projects
verifies what has been clear from the beginning: an EIS for a project of
this scope was necessary. This fact was reinforced most recently when
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Minnesota Department of
Health called for a full EIS of these proposed frac sand mines.
The
Land Stewardship Project is concerned that the proposers of the mines
do not understand the EIS process and their role in this process. The
latest evidence of this is a letter dated Feb. 20 to Jason Gilman,
Winona County's Planning Director. In the letter, the proposers asked
that the permitting process be tabled to "allow us to perform a
voluntary EIS." Under Minnesota law, the EIS must be performed by the
county, not the proposers. This is critical to make certain that the
study is done in a way that all potential impacts to our land, water,
air, roads and community are examined thoroughly and fairly.
It
has become clear in recent weeks that in fact these projects are not
appropriate for the community, given the strain they would put on the
environment, human health and the infrastructure. Given the proposers'
unwillingness to engage in a thorough environmental review up to this
point, the Land Stewardship Project will be watching the EIS process
very closely.
Here's the letter from G-Cubed consulting announcing that the company's decision:
On February 14, Republican Senators Bill Ingebrigtsen (Alexandria), Julie Rosen (Fairmont), Bill Weber (Luverne), Karin Housley (Stillwater) and John Pederson (St. Cloud) sent a Valentine's Day card in the form of a resolution to TransCanada, the corporation building the Keystone XL pipeline to move oil extracted from Canadian tar sands to Steele City, Nebraska.
The text of the Valentine's Day card couldn't have been a surprise to the energy infrastructure company, however, since TransCanada appears to have created the language in SF 479.
Legislators in four states have introduced bills in recent weeks
supporting the controversial TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline, with
language that appears to have been lifted directly from a "model"
American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) bill and from TransCanada's
own public relations talking points.
Some of the first bills proposed in Missouri, Mississippi, Michigan
and Minnesota in 2013 have been resolutions calling on the president and
Congress to approve the Keystone XL oil pipeline, which the Obama
administration delayed last year in response to a wave of protest and
civil disobedience. Environmentalists oppose the pipeline because
extracting oil from Canadian tar sands would unlock huge amounts of
carbon, increasing the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to
climate change. Rallies are planned for [last] weekend to hold President Obama to his promise to fight climate change by urging him to not approve Keystone XL's pipeline application.
Several hundred Minnesotans traveled by train and bus to the rally in Washington D.C.
None of the five senators--two of whom are serving their first term--are known to be (American Legislative Exchange Council) ALEC members. According to Fischer's article, the Minnesotans are among those who appear to be lifting corporate language:
Legislators in Mississippi, Minnesota, and Michigan
also introduced legislation in recent weeks supporting the Keystone XL
pipeline. The thrust of the resolutions are largely the same as the ALEC
model, but the language deviates from the ALEC bill approved in
December 2012. However, each state's proposed resolution is identical to
the other states -- which certainly seems more than coincidence.
It is not known whether ALEC has been pushing an updated version of
ALEC model legislation, but the language in these state resolutions can
be traced back directly to TransCanada, the corporation that has been
pushing the pipeline for years. Entire paragraphs from the Mississippi,
Minnesota, and Michigan resolutions are nearly identical to public
relations spin produced by TransCanada and posted as a "backgrounder" on its website. Check out these paragraphs in the Mississippi, Minnesota, and Michigan legislation, and compare the language from TransCanada's "backgrounder:"
This identical language cannot be a coincidence. But it is further
proof that some legislators are doing the bidding of corporate interests
rather than the people that elected them.
TransCanada doesn't employ a lobbyist in Minnesota, so determining where Minnesota's Tar Sands 5 picked up this piece of paper is guesswork. Bluestem's guess is the American Petroleum Institute.
Read the rest of the article to learn about ALEC and TransCanada's comfortable relationships with state legislators.
As Bluestem noted in Inspired by ALEC bill? Beard, Draz & Franson hating on MN renewable energy standards, Ingebrigtsen is the author of the senate companion bill. Mike Beard (R-Shakopee) and Steve Drazkowski (R-Mazeppa) are ALEC members. Ingebrigtsen isn't known to be a member, but he and Mary Franson (R-Alexandria likely carried the bill because Otter Tail Power is located in their districts.
Franson and ALEC
Franson is not a member. Recently, the anonymous raving paranoiac who blogs Because I Can accused Franson of being an ALEC member because the Alexandria lawmaker's campaign report listed a hotel expense for one night's stay at roughly the time ALEC held a three-day meeting at a different hotel convention center in DC.
Recent Comments