On Tuesday, the Minnesota House Water Division heard testimony on HF3950, a bill whose chief author is Todd Lippert, DFL-Northfield.
It's co-authored by Hanska Republican Paul Torkelson, St. Peter DFLer Jeff Brand and Division Chair Peter Fischer, DFL-Maplewood. At least, for now.
Here's the video archive of the hearing on the bill in the Water Division, via the Minnesota House Information Service's YouTube channel:
The bill was praised by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) in a press release, EWG Applauds Introduction of Minnesota State Water Well Testing Bill H.F. 3950:
After issuing back-to-back reports highlighting the increasing threat of nitrate pollution from agriculture poses to Minnesotans’ sourcing of drinking water from private wells, the Midwest office of the Environmental Working Group today released a letter in support of Minnesota House File 3950. H.F. 3950 requires water testing of private wells for bacteria, nitrate and arsenic before the sale or transfer of real property.
“All Minnesotans deserve equal protection of their drinking water, and equal protection begins with adequate information," said EWG Midwest Director Jamie Konopacky. "By requiring additional private well testing, H.F. 3950 represents a great step forward in better protecting drinking water for the 20 percent of Minnesotans who rely on private wells."
As those who watch the video will learn, the bill was supported by Jeff Broberg, director of the Minnesota Well Owners Association, while the realtors association has some misgivings, as much as they like high well water quality. We are so relieved.
But Representative Torkelson has discovered that the bill is a mandate and so he is having "buyer's remorse" about sponsoring the bill, since "mandates are a problem for many industries." Here's the moment (while the screen cap on both videos is the same, the second will scroll to the beginning of Torkelson's and stop when he is done):
We might have sympathy for Torkelson's remorse, had he not made the same choice on another bill this session that imposes a mandate on industry (and with some of the same co-authors with whom he frolicks in HF3950).
In its February 25, 2020 Legislative Update: Bill introduced raising biofuel standard, Amanda Bilek, senior public policy director for the Minnesota Corn Growers Association touts this second bill:
. . . One of the top legislative priorities for the Minnesota Corn Growers Association (MCGA) is to increase Minnesota’s biofuel standard from 10 to 15 percent for all gasoline sold in the state. On Monday, HF 3699 and SF 3605 were introduced.
Chief author of the House bill is Rep. Jeanne Poppe (DFL-Austin) and co-authors including Rep. Anderson (R-Starbuck), Tabke (DFL-Shakopee), Davids (R-Preston), Brand (DFL-St. Peter), Torkelson (R-Hanska), Poston (R-Lake Shore), Lippert (DFL-Northfield) and Hamilton (R-Mountain Lake). . . .
We are advocating for an increase in the standard from 10 to 15 percent because in 2019 the federal government issued a federal regulation enabling a higher blend of biofuel to be sold year-round in 2001 and newer vehicles.
Minnesota has always been a leader on biofuel policy. If Minnesota puts into law an increase in the biofuel standard, it would be the first state to do, continuing our legacy of national biofuels leadership. If you have questions or would like to learn more, please feel free to contact me. . . .
Now, Bilek uses the word "standard" rather than "mandate," but we think the two terms are fairly interchangeable. Take for example the discussion of Biofuel Use Mandates - Minnesota House, by ultra-competent, nonpartisan House staffer Colbey Sullivan. We embed it below:
Biofuel Use Mandates - Minnesota House uploaded by Sally Jo Sorensen on Scribd
Do these mandates cause troubles for industry? That would depend upon which industry one asks. For the Corngrowers and the ethanol industry, the mandates are essential; for the petroleum industry, not so much.
In January's Why ethanol endures as important market for Midwestern farmers in the Star Tribune, Jim Spencer and Mike Hughlett report:
Ethanol was used as an additive in gasoline even before Congress passed the Renewable Fuel Standard. While ethanol has one-third less energy than gasoline, it serves as an “oxygenate” to prevent carbon monoxide pollution and boosts octane to reduce engine knock.
The RFS, which today requires most gasoline to include 10% ethanol, also envisioned cutting greenhouse gas emissions by partly substituting biofuels for petroleum-based fuels. Emissions of carbon dioxide from conventional corn ethanol are supposed to be 20% lower than from gasoline and diesel.
The green credentials of corn ethanol have long been questioned, including in a May 2019 study by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), which evaluates federal programs. Expert opinion was split on whether ethanol is meeting the 20% emission reduction goals, the GAO found.
Of 13 experts interviewed for the GAO study, 10 “generally agreed that the RFS likely had a limited effect, if any, on greenhouse gas emissions,” due to the copious amount of energy needed to grow corn and transform it into ethanol.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) objected to the GAO’s conclusion. The USDA, which both regulates and promotes U.S. agriculture, concluded in its own April 2019 study that greenhouse gas emissions from corn-based ethanol are 39% lower than from gasoline.
The American Petroleum Institute (API), whose members do not like having to refine ethanol, leapt on the GAO study to prove their contention that the RFS is what API CEO Mike Sommers calls “a failed policy.” Big Oil and King Corn, two lobbying behemoths, continue to wrestle over ethanol in part because traditional, old-school energy sources will continue to dominate the U.S. for years, if not decades, as wind and solar power and the electric-vehicle market grow to critical mass.
The petrochemical industry seeks hardship waivers from the Trump administration to reduce the gallons of ethanol some small refiners must produce. Corn interests fire back that the wave of waivers is causing a financial crisis in the ethanol industry, leading to plant closures.
“It’s a classic example of Congress defining a pie, and the pie gets smaller because of fuel efficiency,” said McCabe, now director of the Environmental Resilience Institute at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis. . . .
While dueling research reaches different conclusions on the environmental effectiveness of ethanol, few, if any people dispute its importance in Midwestern agricultural communities. Even with an oversupply, folks like Martin County farmer Lawrence Sukalski call production of biofuel critical.
Losing the renewable-fuel standard “would be a disaster,” said Sukalski, who was board chairman of a Minnesota ethanol plant, Corn Plus, that closed last year. “The RFS in Martin County and southern Minnesota has made farmers more profitable. They’re paying more for land, property taxes are going up and everybody prospers.”
We're not so much debating the efficacy of biofuel standards or mandates in this post, as we are pointing out that Torkelson likes some mandates but not others--and the ethanol mandate smiles on an industry (agriculture) in which he engages.
Perhaps Torkelson will stay on as an author of the well testing bill, since he's demonstrated that he can live with mandates when it comes to gasoline. Surely mandates that test drinking water from private wells shouldn't be such a problem for the man.
Related posts:
- Check out MN water nitrate presentations Paul Torkelson didn't want shared with subcommittee
- It's all over now, baby blue? EWG analysis concludes nitrates rising in MN drinking water
- Growing chemical threat: MN Dept of Health annual drinking water report warns about nitrates
- Land of nitrate-tinted water: Adrian MN only most extreme example in state's groundwater games
- Rep. Torkelson dismisses concerns about nitrates in Minnesota's drinking water
- Paging Rep. Torkelson: City of Fairmont issues water advisory, nitrate levels unsafe for infants
- Going with the flow: fertilizer elevated nitrate levels in Fairmont's drinking water supply
- Free Press: Nitrates in Mankato's drinking water wells will cost Southern Minnesota's Key City
- Randall, MN receives national drinking water award, but some citizens still buy bottled water
Photo: Representative Paul Torkelson, photo by Don Davis, Forum Communications.
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.
Photo:
Comments