Bluestem has been covering the issue of local government frac sand mining moratoria in Minnesota since 2011 with posts like Connecting the dots on fracking sand: from Hay Creek Township's citizens to the New York Times, then No fracking way: Wabasha County places temporary moratorium on silica sand mining and Winona Co. soil & water board wants fracking sand moratorium; opposition spreads to Olmsted.
In Winona County, citizens organized and the county board passed a silica sand ordinance which effectively bans mining sand for the fracking industrial. The ordinance has withstood two court challenges, but Minnesota Sands has appealed the ruling to the state's highest court.
The Winona Daily News reported last week in Challenge to Winona County's frac sand ban to be heard by state Supreme Court next month:
The Minnesota Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the legality of Winona County’s ban on frac sand mining on Wednesday, April 10, at the University of Minnesota Law School.
The oral arguments are scheduled to begin at 9:05 a.m.
Minnesota Sands has argued the county’s ban is unconstitutional because it singles out sand used for industrial purposes while allowing mining for local construction uses. The sand is used to fracture shale rock in order to extract oil and natural gas.
The Winona County Board passed the ban in November 2016. The board has allowed mining to continue for construction sand, a cheaper, less pure material used on roadways and for other commercial purposes.
A Minnesota Court of Appeals rejected a lawsuit filed by Minnesota Sands and a group of landowners in July.
The ordinance does not violate the federal Commerce Clause “because it does not favor in-state interests over out-of-state interests,” the appeals panel wrote. “On the contrary, it even-handedly bans all industrial mineral mining, which includes silica-sand mining, within the county.”
The court further ruled that the ordinance does not constitute a “taking” because Minnesota Sands did not apply for conditional use permits in the years leading up to its adoption.
The decision affirmed a ruling by Winona County Judge Mary Leahy issued in November.
In a July statement, Minnesota Sands said a dissenting opinion from Judge Matthew Johnson recognizes its concerns about the discriminatory nature of the ban.
Read the entire article at the Winona Daily News. Visit the Minnesota State Supreme Court's website here.
Photo: Citizen organizing for the ordinance included yard signs like this one in Winona.
If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. Those wishing to make a small ongoing monthly contribution should click on the paypal subscription button.
Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.
Comments