Minnesota’s economy is still in recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. There are over 200,000 job openings. And workers are striving for safer workplaces in numerous industries.
The jobs, economic development, labor, and industry finance bill aims to tackle these concerns in the coming biennium.
“[This bill is great] because it invests in Minnesotans, in the workforce, in small businesses, as well as protecting our labor,” said Rep. Hodan Hassan (DFL-Mpls). She and Senate President Bobby Joe Champion (DFL-Mpls) sponsor HF3028/SF3035*.
The House voted to repass the bill, as amended by conference, on a 70-61 vote Tuesday night. Having already cleared the Senate on a 34-33 vote earlier in the day, the bill now heads to the desk of Gov. Tim Walz.
The spending package calls for $1.37 billion in state funding, with the biggest beneficiary being the Department of Employment and Economic Development. Appropriations to the department – to address the workforce shortage, reduce economic disparities, and provide geographically targeted aid – would total $693 million.
The largest chunk is for carrying out the PROMISE Act, which would distribute $125.3 million to “communities that have been adversely affected by structural racial discrimination, civil unrest, lack of access to capital, loss of population or an aging population, or lack of regional economic diversification.” Over 80% of these dollars would be directed toward the Twin Cities, mainly to help recover from the 2020 civil unrest.
A separate $5 million would be set aside for northern Minnesota counties economically harmed by the closure of the Canadian border during the COVID-19 pandemic.
And $500 million is due to be invested in the Minnesota Forward Fund in order to jumpstart the state’s economic competitiveness, with 70% of that money designated to match federal funds for microelectronic and bioindustrial manufacturing.
Governmental authorities overseeing employer-employee relations would receive the remaining $108.6 million, with much of the funding going to the Department of Labor and Industry to bolster workplace safety and implement major regulatory changes. Allocations in this realm would include:
$30.9 million for the Workers’ Compensation Fund;
$7.5 million for the Bureau of Mediation Services;
$4.3 million for enforcement and worker outreach regarding a statewide mandate of earned sick and safe time benefits;
Other notable policy changes found in the bill would affect workplaces in the following ways:
render nearly all non-compete covenants void and unenforceable;
ban restrictive franchise agreements;
make substantial modifications to the Public Employment Labor Relations Act, which governs collective bargaining and unionization rights in the public sector; and
prohibit employers from compelling employee attendance at meetings that discuss religious matters, political issues, or arguments against unionization.
Republicans have taken strong exception to many provisions found in the conference committee report, arguing they will harm Minnesota’s economic competitiveness for years to come.
Rep. Isaac Schultz (R-Elmdale Township) said it is important for the Legislature to “make sure that we are not creating a stranglehold of government that limits investment from private job creators in this state.”
But found throughout the bill is the “heavy-handed burden of government upon job creators, from hospitals to nursing homes, from warehouse distribution centers to food processing and meatpacking facilities.”
Photo: The Minnesota House chamber. Minnesota House Information Services file photo.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, 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.
Update May 16 Bluestem saw a regional link to this story when CURE's Energy Democracy Program Director Erik Hatlestad tweeted:
Honored to be invited to the White House for the launch of the New ERA program, which will be the largest investment in rural electrification since the New Deal. https://t.co/UKV4Q1BJ9L
And a tweet about other Minnesotans at the launch:
Minnesota was well represented at the White House today as we watched the USDA launch the New ERA program. Thank you to @SenTinaSmith for your leadership in winning this historic investment in rural electrification. pic.twitter.com/R3JrutXyFt
The U.S. Department of Agriculture will begin to administer two loan and grant programs worth nearly $11 billion to boost clean energy systems in rural areas, administration officials said Tuesday.
Congress approved the federal spending — $9.7 billion for a grant and loan program the department is calling the New Empowering Rural America program, or New ERA, and $1 billion for a Powering Affordable Clean Energy program that will provide partly forgivable loans — in the energy, health and taxes law Democrats passed last summer.
The funding “continues an ongoing effort to ensure that rural America is a full participant in this clean energy economy,” Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack told reporters on a teleconference in advance of the announcement.
Rural areas can have more difficulty than more urban ones in attracting private sector investment, White House National Climate Advisor Ali Zaidi said. The programs are intended to allow those rural areas to take advantage of an industry-wide trend to invest in clean energy production.
“There’s a favorable wind blowing here,” he said. “This allows rural communities to put up a sail.”
The programs are meant to put rural electric cooperatives on equal footing with larger privately owned companies that have already put major funding into clean energy deployment, Vilsack said.
The programs represent the largest single funding effort for rural electrification since President Franklin Roosevelt signed the Rural Electrification Act in 1936, a USDA press release said.
The money is meant not only to address the climate impacts of fossil fuel energy and reduce home energy costs, but to act as an economic engine for rural areas, Zaidi said.
Zaidi cited a Stateline analysis that showed seven of the top 10 largest gross domestic product growth increases between 2019 and 2021 had significant wind farm production.
“This is a proven driver of economic growth on the ground,” Zaidi said. “We want more folks to be able to tap into that opportunity. We’re seeing this not only translates into lower energy costs, but, to places that had been shut down, turning back on as sources of economic opportunity.”
Rural electric cooperatives are eligible for the New ERA program. Up to 25% of the funding in that program can be in the form of direct grants. Utilities can use the money to build renewable energy systems, zero-emission systems and carbon capture facilities, according to the department release.
The climate law allows “the stacking of benefits,” Vilsack said. That means utilities that receive loans and grants through the program can also use the clean energy tax credits that were approved in the law, he said.
The USDA will begin to accept initial applications for funding on July 31. Applicants are expected to write more detailed proposals for funding after the USDA accepts their initial applications.
The PACE program provides loans to renewable energy developers and electric service providers “to help finance large-scale solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, hydropower projects and energy storage in support of renewable energy systems,” the release said.
The program is targeted to “vulnerable, disadvantaged, Tribal and energy communities,” the release said. It’s in line with a Biden administration goal to give at least 40% of the overall benefits of certain federal spending to disadvantaged communities.
The USDA can forgive up to 40% of most of the loans in the program. Up to 60% of loans to applicants in some U.S. territories and tribal communities can be forgiven.
Initial applications for that program will open June 30.
This Minnesota Reformer/States Newsroom article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, 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.
While waiting for the Minnesota House to come out of recess, I meandered over to Action 4 Liberty's Facebook and saw the post preserved in the screenshot above.
Democrats have long pretended to be the party of the “little guy.” In Minnesota, it’s clear that the stereotype is not holding up.
Governor Walz and his legislative cronies are pushing every new tax and regulation that they can, which hurts the average citizen more than anyone. Their latest policy aim would increase fees on fishing licenses and state park admission.
Here is Walz’s proposal for increasing fees:
Raise fishing license fee from $25 to $30
Raise fishing boat fees from $27 to $59
Doubling the aquatic species fee from $10 to $20
Increase state park stamp fees from $35 to $45
These proposals are expected to be included in the Democrat's environmental omnibus bill, which will likely be revealed sometime this week. . . .
The Action 4 Liberty's great expectations have already been dashed.
Provisions regarding climate and energy are still to come.
Sponsored by Rep. Rick Hansen (DFL-South St. Paul) and Sen. Foung Hawj (DFL-St. Paul), HF2310 would appropriate $1 billion from the General Fund during the upcoming biennium for the state’s environment and natural resources – an increase of $667 million. General Fund spending would be $499.7 million for the Department of Natural Resources, $279.6 million for the Pollution Control Agency and $120 million for the Board of Water and Soil Resources.
The agreement would increase triannual boat registration fees but would not change fees for state parks or fishing licenses.
“I think this is strong policy and a strong spreadsheet that everyone on this committee should be proud to vote for,” said Rep. Sydney Jordan (DFL-Mpls). . . .
We texted Chair Hansen about the "Doubling the aquatic species fee from $10 to $20" --presumably the trout and walleye stamps now erased from the budget within brackets [( )] on the spreadsheet.
What we see is the conference committee deciding to cancel part of the governor's budget request that appears to have passed in both chambers. Now it's gone. Whomever the Democrats on the committee--and Chanhassen Republican Senator Julia Coleman--are attacking in their work, it doesn't sound like the average angler is the target.
Action 4 Liberty, on the other hand, is trying to whip up class resentment, based on dated information.
Here's the Action 4 Liberty Facebook post as it stands while I write this entry. If you're on Facebook, you might consider leaving a comment setting the record straight for Action 4 Liberty's readers.
Screenshot: The Action 4 Liberty Facebook page post.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, 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.
Would an open primary system change the stranglehold the Republican Party--and its inner-party policy fights-- have in South Dakota?
At South Dakota New Watch, Stu Whitney looks at a ballot measure to establish top-two primaries – sometimes called “jungle primaries”--for governor, Congress, state legislative and county races.
South Dakota News Watch Editor’s note: This is the first in a series of South Dakota News Watch stories providing analysis of potential South Dakota ballot initiatives for the 2024 election.
It’s a well-worn adage that politics are about timing, and that’s especially true when it comes to citizen-led ballot measures in South Dakota.
Back in 2016, New York-based nonprofit Open Primaries helped fund a petition effort to change South Dakota’s electoral system with Amendment V, teaming with local Democratic Party stalwarts Rick Weiland and Drey Samuelson to build support.
The constitutional amendment aimed to circumvent party primaries with nonpartisan races, in which voters would consider candidates on an open ballot with no party designations and send the top two vote-getters to the general election.
In a state dominated by the Republican Party, where Donald Trump captured nearly two-thirds of the vote in that 2016 election, the concept was received coolly, especially after GOP heavyweights such as Sen. John Thune and then-Gov. Dennis Daugaard opposed it with money and political muscle.
Amendment V was rejected. But the fact that it received 44.5% of the vote confirmed Joe Kirby’s suspicions that the open primary concept could be retooled and resurrected to face fresh judgment from South Dakota voters when the time was right.
“That amendment was a hard product to sell,” said Kirby, a Sioux Falls businessman and government reform advocate who is spearheading a 2024 campaign for open primaries with party labels intact.
“There was a lot of criticism from people who want to know what party the candidates are in. We think voters – Republican, Democratic and Independent – are going to be more favorably inclined this time around.”
Top-two primary elections would include Independent voters
Kirby’s group, South Dakota Open Primaries, has submitted a petition for a constitutional amendment to establish top-two primaries – sometimes called “jungle primaries” – for governor, Congress, state legislative and county races. All registered voters would be eligible to weigh in on which candidates advance to the general election.
Currently, Independent voters in South Dakota can vote in Democratic primaries but not Republican contests, which Kirby calls unfair.
It’s also a potential selling point in a state where the breakdown of registered voters (301,589 Republicans, 151,092 Democrats, 148,497 Independents) makes Independents a formidable voting bloc (25%) to be excluded from a process where most races are decided in GOP primaries due to Democratic Party shortcomings.
Republicans outnumber Democrats 94-11 in the state Legislature, and GOP candidates ran unopposed in 21 of the 35 state Senate races in 2022. The last time a Democratic candidate won a statewide election was 2008.
“A lot of voters are struggling to find a meaningful vote,” said De Knudson, a former Sioux Falls city councilor and self-described moderate Republican who serves as treasurer for South Dakota Open Primaries.
“Reform has to start with the voters. People who are in office are glad to be there and not very interested in changing the system that elected them, right?”
Supporters point to GOP state convention ‘circus’ in 2022
Typically, the GOP stranglehold on state politics would be enough to mount a formidable “establishment” response against a ballot measure buoyed by out-of-state interests that threatens the electoral status quo.
But Kirby sees a couple of factors in his group’s favor, most notably a schism in state Republican ranks between moderates and an emergent far-right caucus. That group found its footing with “election security” as a rallying cry following Trump’s loss to President Joe Biden in 2020.
The 2022 state GOP convention in Watertown offered stark examples of this shift.
Monae Johnson, who has refused to publicly acknowledge Biden’s win as legitimate, ousted incumbent Secretary of State Steve Barnett. And Lt. Gov. Larry Rhoden faced a surprisingly stiff challenge from former Speaker of the House Steve Haugaard, who ran to the right of Gov. Kristi Noem in the gubernatorial primary.
“I believe that many Republicans opened their eyes a little wider after the circus in Watertown,” said Knudson, whose husband, Dave, a Sioux Falls lawyer and former GOP state senator, is also involved in the ballot initiative.
The theory is that open primaries, rather than incentivizing candidates from taking extreme positions to win a partisan primary, will help “lower the volume” on state politics, in Kirby’s words, to produce officeholders more reflective of the general electorate.
Recent polls commissioned by South Dakota News Watch have shown state voters to be closer to the middle than most Republican lawmakers on issues such as abortion access and gun legislation.
Sen. Rounds tells News Watch he opposes open primaries
Still, any shakeup in traditional election structures is likely to ruffle feathers among those who currently hold power as well as what Knudson calls the “unimaginative traditionalists” who oppose change in general.
But a coalition of frustrated moderates and eager-to-pounce Independents could prove to be a powerful partnership as the group seeks to collect 35,017 valid signatures by the May 7, 2024, deadline to qualify for the ballot.
“The stars seem aligned for us because the Republican Party has been experiencing turmoil,” said Kirby, who helped lead an effort to change Sioux Falls’ city government structure from a commission model to mayor-council in the 1990s.
“There’s less resistance from Republicans to the idea of changing something to broaden the base of voters.”
Kirby said that “key Republicans have told us they support our effort but that they won’t be able to go on the record as being supportive,” to which Knudson added that “private support isn’t terribly helpful,” though it’s clearly better than public opposition.
U.S. Sen. Mike Rounds told News Watch that he opposes the open primaries proposal. He noted a push to move away from convention nominee selections for statewide executive offices such as lieutenant governor and attorney general, a movement that fell short during the 2023 legislative session.
“Our current primary system has served us well, and I am supportive of it remaining in place,” Rounds wrote in an emailed statement.
“I also believe that in the future there is a strong possibility that statewide office nominees currently selected by the party at a convention will be selected in the primary as well.”
National electoral reform group donated heavily to 2016 measure
U.S. Rep. Dusty Johnson told News Watch that he is not taking a position on the ballot proposal, while Noem and Sen. John Thune declined interview requests.
It’s still an open question whether top-tier state Republicans – the ones with enough cachet and campaign cash to make a difference – will actively work against the measure, assuming it reaches the ballot next year.
Open Primaries, the national nonprofit initially funded by Texas billionaire John Arnold and run by electoral reform advocate John Opdyke, donated nearly $1 million in cash to the Amendment V campaign in 2016. Knudson said the group is supportive this time around, but it’s not clear what financial support is forthcoming.
The opposition group in 2016, No on V, raised $260,000 in cash, including $140,000 from the South Dakota Republican Party, $55,000 from Daugaard for South Dakota, $5,000 from Friends of John Thune and $5,000 from Rounds for Senate.
“Our focus for 2023 is entirely on getting the word out and getting enough signatures,” said Kirby, adding that his group will use paid and volunteer petition circulators. “And then 2024 will be about the political-type campaign.”
California’s top-two primary has helped elect moderates
Though nearly half of states have some form of open primary system, only three currently use a top-two primary such as the one proposed for South Dakota.
California and Washington use top-two primaries (with party labels included) in races other than presidential contests, while Nebraska uses a nonpartisan primary for state legislative races as part of its unicameral system.
In Democratic-controlled California, where voters approved a top-two primary in 2012, presenting candidates to all voters in primaries has led to more moderates getting elected, forcing far-left legislators to work toward the middle to pass laws.
A 2017 study by the Public Policy Institute of California concluded that open primaries, combined with other shifts such as redistricting reform, can help “draw American parties back toward the center of the ideological spectrum.”
For the minority party – Republicans in California and Democrats in South Dakota – the concern is that candidates will get shut out of the general election in the top-two system, making even more dire the party’s lack of representation.
Kirby’s response is basically that South Dakota Democrats can’t get elected anyway, given the current political climate.
“You could get Kristi Noem and John Thune and Mike Rounds together and they couldn’t mount a decent campaign as Democrats in South Dakota,” Kirby said.
“Democrats are associated with national Democratic leaders, and that’s just not a marketable product in South Dakota. I don’t necessarily blame the Democrats. I think they’ve got an impossible task, given the national leadership of the party. It’s all a symptom of the extremism that’s gotten into politics.”
Democrat Duba pledges support to open primary measure
State Rep. Linda Duba, a Democrat from Sioux Falls, who attended an April 19 press conference with South Dakota Open Primaries supporters, joked in an interview with News Watch about being a “token Democrat” for this latest ballot effort, as opposed to the more progressive-themed campaign for Amendment V in 2016.
She disagreed with Kirby’s assessment about the election chances of Democrats in South Dakota being hindered by positions taken by the Biden administration or other national party figures.
“I’m tired of people saying (the Democrats) are extreme,” said Duba.
“When you talk to the people in South Dakota, they want common-sense reforms. They’re fed up with silly cultural issues that we spend all our time on in the Legislature and we don’t get the real work of the state done. Those things are being driven from the national level, and if we want to talk about which party is doing this, it’s the far right.”
Duba, who represents District 15 and was first elected in 2018, said she supports open primaries because she believes Independents are getting shut out of the process and a more open system will lead to better candidates and, theoretically, better policy.
“At the end of the day, if you’re worried about being re-elected, you’re worried about the wrong thing,” she said. “Our job is to understand the needs and wants of the state and to try to support the good of all the people, whether you’re a Democrat or you’re a Republican.”
This article is republished with the permission of South Dakota News Watch.
Screenshot: *Independent (IND) / No Party Affiliation (NPA) – When a voter chooses Independent, no party, line crossed off or the field is blank in the "Choice of Party" field on the voter registration form. (South Dakota does not have an Independent party) **OTHER – This category is for voters who write any other political party on their voter registration form that is not currently a recognized political party in South Dakota. Source: South Dakota Secretary of State's Office • Graphic: Michael Klinski / SD News Watch.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, 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.
In late January, Amara Strande stood at the podium in the state Capitol press room and explained why — even though she was dying of a rare type of liver cancer — she was spending her precious time lobbying for legislation that would strictly regulate toxic chemicals made down the road by 3M.
Within four months, the cancer took her life. Lawmakers stood at that same podium Tuesday and announced that several bills banning the chemicals in most products have been agreed to by a conference committee, in what will be named Amara’s Law.
Rep. Sydney Jordan, DFL-Minneapolis, said the provisions were unanimously adopted by the conference committee and — if passed by the House and Senate and signed by Gov. Tim Walz — would be one of the nation’s toughest bans on products containing the per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS.
“Minnesota invented PFAS. By passing this, Minnesota is going to invent the solution and end this harm caused by forever chemicals,” she said.
A major environment bill contains provisions banning the chemicals in a number of products (from dental floss to cleaning products) beginning in 2025 except those deemed by state regulators to be essential; requires companies to disclose whether they use the chemicals in products; and bans the chemicals in firefighting foam (except at airports and in oil refineries). . . .
But the PFAS story in Minnesota--including issues addressed in the legislation--doesn't stop with stories about banning products. There's also addressing what's already in the environment across the state.
Polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), synthetic chemicals used in stain and water-resistant fabrics and carpeting and industrial products, some of which are known to be hazardous to humans, are in 98% of assessed closed landfills, according to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA).
Since PFAS contamination was found in the eastern Twin Cities drinking water about 20 years ago, it was found in water, sediment, soil and fish around the state.
At 62 of 111 sites in the Closed Landfill Program, PFAS levels exceeded Minnesota Department of Health drinking water guidance values. PFAS was found in 100 of the landfills.
PFAS levels 10 times state health standards were found at 16 landfills in Dakota, Faribault, Martin, Isanti, Le Sueur, Washington and Watonwan counties.
On March 23, 2023, the MPCA and Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) asked lawmakers to advance Minnesota’s progress on addressing per and PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals.” The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is also a partner in this work.
An interagency plan called the PFAS Blueprint has tested public water supplies of 98% of Minnesotans, funded pollution prevention partnerships, pioneered new clean up technology, and launched a statewide PFAS monitoring plan.
“Minnesotans should feel encouraged by our progress. However, there is much more work to be done to be done to build on this momentum and keep up with our evolving understanding of PFAS,” said MPCA Commissioner Katrina Kessler. “We are grateful for the opportunity to work with the Legislature on proposals that could accelerate essential pollution prevention measures and bring additional resources to work to avoid, manage and clean up PFAS.”
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz’s One Minnesota budget request includes a $45.57 million investment in the state’s capacity to prevent, manage, and clean up PFAS pollution. Funds would provide grants to public water supplies, assist local businesses with PFAS reduction, improve water and fish monitoring, and build lab and health guidance capacity for PFAS.
The budget request includes:
• $25 million in statewide grants to support drinking water systems.
• $4.42 million to assist businesses and local government with reducing PFAS use.
• $4.14 million to MPCA PFAS Blueprint capacity.
• $1 million to support MPCA PFAS water quality monitoring.
• $990,000 for DNR fish contamination assessment for mercury, PCBs and PFAS.
• $10.1 million to build a PFAS lab and health guidance capacity. . . .
Steven Lasee, an environmental toxicologist and chemist living in Duluth, made a startling finding last year when studying “forever chemicals” known to many by their acronym: PFAS.
Lasee and the team of researchers from Texas Tech University found concentrations of the perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances in six out of the 10 agricultural pesticides they tested in Texas that are commonly used to treat cotton. And PFAS, some forms of which are linked to health risks including certain cancers, was not a listed component in any.
“Regardless of how the PFAS got into the pesticides it will end up on anything they’re applied to, including our food,” Lasee told Minnesota lawmakers during a state House committee hearing in March.
The possibility of pesticides spreading PFAS across Minnesota and permeating soil, water and food has captured the attention of DFLers who control the state Legislature. And it’s behind a new effort to regulate the products.
Democrats are now poised to give the state’s Department of Agriculture the power to ban pesticides with PFAS. That won’t happen until at least 2032. However, by 2026, pesticide companies will need to report whether a product intentionally contains PFAS. Both policies were passed by the House and Senate on Thursday and sent to Gov. Tim Walz for his signature.
The regulations are part of a burgeoning effort to crack down on or research PFAS in agriculture, which has gained some traction in Maine and Maryland. And the limits come as Minnesota lawmakers agreed to ban a swath of other products from non-essential use of PFAS, including carpets and cookware, much sooner than 2032.
The Minnesota restrictions on pesticides still fell short of what at least some Democrats wanted. The House passed a bill earlier this year that would have banned any pesticide with PFAS starting this summer, a decision that could have impacted more than 14% of pesticides on the market, according to Walz’s administration.
But the potential for tougher action on PFAS in pesticides — and other DFL efforts to restrict pesticide use — drew fierce opposition from agriculture trade groups who said the regulations would hurt farmers and limit products that are closely scrutinized by federal environmental officials.
Even Walz’s ag department said the limits on PFAS could have prohibited more than 2,000 pesticides with little notice. And the Walz administration said it would have caused headaches for regulators who need more information to understand exactly where the chemicals are, why they are there, and what health risks they pose. . . .
Orenstein notes the legislation reported in Winter's article, then returns to the complications of regulating farm chemicals:
. . . Separately, lawmakers hashing out agriculture policy and spending have grappled with the question of pesticides.
During that hearing in March, state Rep. Rick Hansen, a DFLer from South St. Paul who chairs the House Environment and Natural Resources Finance and Policy Committee, said recent publications showing PFAS in the ag products were driving his bill that would implement a quick ban.
“I think this is a really stunning question, because if they are in pesticides and they are being purchased and being spread with the pesticide that is very concerning,” Hansen said. “We’re finding PFAS everywhere now, and if it’s in the pesticides we need to know about it and do something about it.”
That proposed ban, and a host of other regulations on pesticides, were approved by the House as part of a larger bill containing policy and spending tied to agriculture.
The Environmental Protection Agency has taken some steps to limit PFAS in pesticides. Last year the agency blocked the use of 12 chemicals from being used as inert ingredients in pesticides.
But the definition of PFAS in Hansen’s bill was broad, leading to a more expansive restriction on the chemicals.
Using that definition, at least 2,000 of the roughly 14,000 of the agricultural pesticides currently registered in Minnesota would include PFAS as an active ingredient. That does not include pesticides with PFAS as an inert ingredient. “So it’s likely the number of pesticides that contain PFAS is probably well above 2,000,” said Dan Stoddard, an assistant director in the ag department’s pesticide and fertilizer management division.
That, said Rep. Paul Anderson, R-Starbuck, would be a “pretty staggering number of ag chemicals.” It’s unclear whether or not there could be alternatives for every product, Stoddard said.
In a conference committee — made up of House and Senate lawmakers — meeting last week to negotiate a final omnibus agriculture bill, the ag industry pushed back hard against the proposed ban.
Daryn McBeth, a lobbyist for the pesticide trade group CropLife America, said the EPA and other federal agencies carefully evaluate pesticides. He said testing isn’t available to show a product is free of all types of PFAS laid out by Hansen’s bill and that those compounds aren’t the same. The one approved EPA method for testing in pesticides can only detect 28 PFAS substances, McBeth said.
“The practical effect would be, likely, a lot of products that are already registered and deemed to be safe would be unable to be registered because industry and the department couldn’t disprove whether there’s these molecules in there or not,” McBeth said. . . .
What survived the Ag Mafia lobbying? Orenstein reports:
In the end, the conference committee rejected some regulations the House wanted on pesticide-treated seeds that had also frustrated Republicans and ag groups. But the lawmakers agreed to a PFAS ban — starting much later, and with some exemptions.
Those provisions were part of the larger agriculture omnibus bill passed by the House and Senate on Thursday with a large chunk of Republican support. The bill, which contains a bevy of other policy and spending, now goes to Walz, who plans to sign it, said a spokeswoman for the governor.
Starting in 2026, pesticide manufacturers will be required to notify the state when their product intentionally contains PFAS. And they’ll have to state why it has PFAS, and the amount of it.
And by 2032, the commissioner will have to ban any pesticide that intentionally contains PFAS — with exceptions. If the use of PFAS is a “currently unavoidable use,” the product does not have to be banned.
That phrase is defined as use of PFAS essential for the health, safety, “or the functioning of society” when alternatives are not reasonably available.
Until then, the ag department will be asked to review published literature and other available information on the presence of PFAS in pesticides in Minnesota to gain a better understanding of the issue.
The proposal does ban unavoidable use of PFAS in cleaning products, which are regarded as pesticides, by 2026. That includes substances used for things like air care, vehicle maintenance and polishes.
The upcoming ban still drew some concerns from Republicans. Sen. Torrey Westrom, R-Alexandria, said on the Senate floor Thursday that lawmakers should retain the power over PFAS and pesticides, not an unelected agency commissioner. And he said he worries about prohibiting products when there may not be an alternative. . . .
Map: Closed Landfill Program sites in Minnesota and the level of PFAS found at each site labeled. PFAS was detected at 100 of the landfills. At 62 of the landfills PFAS levels exceeded health standards and PFAS levels were 10 times above health standards at 16 landfills. From MPCA's PFAS and closed landfills page.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, 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.
Provisions regarding climate and energy are still to come.
Sponsored by Rep. Rick Hansen (DFL-South St. Paul) and Sen. Foung Hawj (DFL-St. Paul), HF2310 would appropriate $1 billion from the General Fund during the upcoming biennium for the state’s environment and natural resources – an increase of $667 million. General Fund spending would be $499.7 million for the Department of Natural Resources, $279.6 million for the Pollution Control Agency and $120 million for the Board of Water and Soil Resources.
The agreement would increase triannual boat registration fees but would not change fees for state parks or fishing licenses.
“I think this is strong policy and a strong spreadsheet that everyone on this committee should be proud to vote for,” said Rep. Sydney Jordan (DFL-Mpls).
The DNR’s Get Out MORE program to modernize outdoor recreation experiences would receive $112.8 million, which includes $35 million targeted to updating boating access and $35 million to improve fish hatcheries.
Other new spending would include:
$100 million for resilient communities grants and technical assistance;
$25.8 million for waste prevention and reduction grants;
$19.7 million more to the Metropolitan Council, primarily for parks and trails;
$15.2 million more to the ReLeaf Program for community forests;
$7.3 million more to the Science Museum;
$1 million to the University of Minnesota to research and implement plans to fight aquatic invasive species.
Policy provisions
The committee adopted scores of policy provisions aimed at reducing boating deaths, curbing the spread of chronic wasting disease, limiting harmful chemicals in the environment, protecting native wildlife and improving health of communities historically overburdened by pollutants.
have the Pollution Control Agency address odor complaints in the metropolitan area;
bar new permits for farming white-tail deer;
ensure at least 40% of large PCA settlements would go to the health board in the affected community;
transfer the Upper Sioux Agency State Park to the Upper Sioux Community;
phase in boating permits and safety education for adults; and
prohibit PFAS in household products such as cookware, cosmetics, children’s products, ski wax and furniture starting in 2025.
Bluestem looks forward to seeing the conference committee report.
Photo: Conference committee chairs Representative Rick Hansen, DFL-S. St. Paul, and Senator Foung Hawj, DFL-St. Paul. From a tweet by Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, 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.
Sprawling Midwestern pipelines that would carry captured carbon dioxide from ethanol plants and other facilities would change little when they cross state lines.
The proposals would be constructed the same way in Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska and the Dakotas – with carbon steel pipe ranging from 4 to 24 inches in diameter with operating pressures of up to 2,200 pounds per square inch.
But the rules and procedures that determine whether they can be built in the first place vary widely among those states.
They range from seemingly no rules at all in Nebraska to Iowa’s robust system, which puts all regulation of the pipelines’ construction and operation into the hands of one governing body.
Yet, even in states with rules that give a measure of protection to people who own land in the path of the pipelines, there are calls to strengthen those protections.
Legislation failed in three of the states this year that would have restricted or prevented the companies from using eminent domain to gain land easements. It remains unclear whether regulators and courts in each of the states will decide that the projects are worthy of that forced power.
Some counties have adopted stricter rules about where the pipelines can be built, and landowners are arguing in court that merely allowing the companies to survey land without permission is unconstitutional.
“This is just the beginning,” said Vicki Hulse, a northwest Iowa landowner who is challenging Iowa’s survey law and alluded to further legal challenges as the permit processes advance. “There’s a long ways to go.”
The most prominent projects have been proposed by Navigator CO2 Ventures and Summit Carbon Solutions.
Navigator wants to build about 1,300 miles of pipe — mostly in Iowa — to transport the greenhouse gas to Illinois for underground sequestration or other commercial purposes.
Summit plans a route of more than 2,000 miles that would end with sequestration in North Dakota.
The wild West
While Nebraska has laws concerning pipeline transport of hazardous liquids, such as crude oil, it has not adopted regulations or oversight of carbon dioxide pipelines.
A proposal in 2022, which failed to advance in the Nebraska Legislature, was aimed at requiring companies that build carbon dioxide pipelines to remove the pipe once the pipeline was abandoned.
In reaction to the controversial Keystone XL pipeline and its initially proposed route across the state’s fragile Sandhills, the Nebraska Legislature a decade ago passed laws governing the routing of hazardous liquid pipelines. But those do not pertain to carbon dioxide projects.
Right now, some counties are considering local ordinances concerning the pipelines, according to Jane Kleeb, founder of Bold Nebraska, the citizen group that led the opposition to the Keystone XL crude oil pipeline. She said at least 430 landowners are rejecting offers to sell right-of-way to carbon dioxide pipeline developers in the Midwest.
Omaha lawyer Brian Jorde, who represents many of those landowners, said he doesn’t believe the pipelines have the right to use eminent domain to obtain right-of-way under Nebraska law, an issue that will likely end up in court.
At this time, none of the companies planning a carbon-capture pipeline in Nebraska – Navigator CO2 Ventures, Carbon America or Summit Carbon Solutions – has filed any eminent domain actions in that state, according to Jorde.
“As long as they don’t try to use it against any of my clients, they’ll be fine,” he said.
Jorde thinks Nebraska’s lack of a permitting process for carbon dioxide pipelines will benefit landowners if they must fight against eminent domain. Other states with laws about the permitting process explicitly say that eminent domain is allowed for the projects. Nebraska has no such edict.
Similar processes
All the other states have a board or commission to review and decide whether to grant pipeline permits. Some have publicly elected members and others are composed of governors’ appointees.
North and South Dakota have three-person commissions with elected members.
The commissions in Illinois and Minnesota have five members appointed by their governors, although the Illinois Commerce Commission cannot, by law, have more than three members of the same political party affiliation.
The Iowa Utilities Board has three members who are appointed by Gov. Kim Reynolds, who recently named a new chairperson. That prompted the existing chairperson — who was still set to serve on the board for several years — to “step down.”
Each of the state’s permit processes share the goals of evaluating the need for the projects, the environmental impacts and the best routes.
Iowa, Illinois and South Dakota hold one final hearing to make those determinations, and Illinois’ commission has 11 months from the application date to make its decision about whether to issue a permit.
North Dakota’s commission holds five final hearings in different parts of the state, the last of which for Summit is scheduled for June 2 in Bismarck.
Minnesota is an outlier: An administrative law judge presides over multiple hearings to determine the need for a pipeline and its proper route. The judge submits a finding of facts to the commission along with legal conclusions and recommendations. Then the commission decides.
Iowa is unique in that it is the only state to empower its board or commission with discretion over eminent domain. In the other states, eminent domain is handled by the courts after pipeline permits are granted.
Landowner interactions
The states also vary widely in how they govern — or don’t — the communications among pipeline companies and affected landowners.
Those communications most often pertain to informing the public about the projects, surveying land to help determine a pipeline path, negotiations for easements and, potentially, eminent domain.
All of these are state-by-state, uniquely different permitting processes,” said Elizabeth Burns-Thompson, vice president of government and public affairs for Navigator. “How and when we communicate with landowners. How and when we go about negotiation.”
In Iowa, the companies are required to hold informational meetings in each of the affected counties, after which they can begin negotiations with landowners and survey land without fear of trespassing charges – although that survey law was recently found by a district court judge to be unconstitutional.
There are similar rules for land surveys in the Dakotas, but in Illinois there is nothing in the law that forces the surveys until after a permit is issued and eminent domain is sought.
Negotiations for easements or rights of way can begin whenever in the Dakotas. In Illinois, the companies are required to send notifications by certified mail and can follow up in other ways if there is no response. The companies must generally show a “good faith” effort to negotiate before starting the eminent domain process.
Legislation that ultimately failed in Iowa this year would have broadly curtailed the companies’ abilities to conduct surveys without landowner permission and would have prevented them from limitless contact in regard to negotiations.
Court challenges so far
Jorde predicted it will be at least three years before all the legal challenges related to the pipeline projects are settled.
Dozens of lawsuits have been filed in Iowa and North and South Dakota regarding the pipelines. Most of them have been initiated by the pipeline companies.
In North Dakota, Summit has sued landowners to get access to their properties for land surveys. A judge in that state recently upheld the law that allows the surveys as constitutional.
In South Dakota, there are more than 100 pending state and federal court proceedings related to the pipeline proposals. Summit has sued landowners to gain access to their property for surveys and counties for moratoriums and other actions that would block construction of its pipeline.
Recently, Summit initiated more than 80 eminent domain proceedings in South Dakota court. Each of those cases will likely take a year or more to decide and must conclude before construction can begin, Jorde said: “That’s a humongous roadblock.”
And some landowners have sued Summit, claiming the company lacks legal authority to enter their land for surveys or to exercise eminent domain.
In Iowa, Summit and Navigator have sued landowners and counties and also the Iowa Utilities Board to prevent it from releasing certain information they have provided to the board as part of the permit process.
The lawsuits against landowners have sought to obtain injunctions to gain access to their properties, and more than 10 suits are pending in different counties. The landowners are arguing that Iowa’s pipeline land survey law is unconstitutional, and there is the potential for multiple, conflicting rulings.
In the first case to be decided – one of Navigator’s lawsuits – a judge ruled that the law is unconstitutional because it does not provide compensation for the duress landowners suffer by the mere act of the forced entries onto their properties. The law provides compensation for actual damage caused to land, which Navigator has said satisfies a constitutional requirement that land cannot be taken without appropriate compensation. In another Iowa county, a judge upheld the constitutionality of the law. A decision by a third judge in another county is pending.
A trial is also pending for a Summit land surveyor who was charged with trespassing in Dickinson County. The Iowa Supreme Court recently declined to review a district court judge’s decision to let the case proceed to trial.
Permits in Iowa
Summit is the furthest along in the hazardous liquid pipeline permitting process in Iowa. The Iowa Utilities Board’s recently departed chairperson had said a final, weekslong hearing on Summit’s permit would be held starting in October, but the board has not yet issued an order setting that schedule. Two new members recently joined the three-person board.
Navigator has said it will seek a permit hearing sometime in the first three months of 2024. The timing of a permit hearing for a third company, Wolf Carbon Solutions, which intends to build a much smaller length of carbon dioxide pipeline in eastern Iowa, is unclear.
Summit wants to construct about 680 miles of pipeline in northern and western Iowa and connect to 11 facilities. Navigator’s project would bisect the state from northwest to southeast and include about 810 miles of pipe that would connect to at least 14 facilities. Wolf’s project would span about 95 miles on the eastern edge of the state and connect to two ethanol plants.
Navigator and Summit have indicated they will use eminent domain to gain land easements for their projects. Wolf has said it will get voluntary easement agreements for the full length of its pipeline in Iowa.
Correction: This story has been updated to clarify that North Dakota’s final permitting hearing for Summit is scheduled for June 2.
This Iowa Capital Dispatch article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
Photo: An ethanol plant in Bridgeport, Nebraksa, is set to become the state’s first commercial carbon capture and storage facility. (Photo courtesy of Carbon America).
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, 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.
Another environmental measure was passed by the Minnesota House: reauthoring a constitutional amendment allocating 40% of state lottery proceeds to the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund (ENRTF).
As one House staffer tweeted:
Rep @AthenaHollins presents a proposal to renew the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund - which has provided over $875 million in dedicated funds to protect our air, water, land, and wildlife 🌎💨💧🐾 https://t.co/tN1I2LRvKJpic.twitter.com/DJmT3DvuV4
Sponsored by Rep. Athena Hollins (DFL-St. Paul), HF1900 was passed 87-41 by the House Thursday and sent to the Senate.
Per the bill, voters would see the following question on the 2024 ballot: "Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to protect drinking water sources and the water quality of lakes, rivers, and streams; conserve wildlife habitat and natural areas; improve air quality; and expand access to parks and trails by extending the transfer of proceeds from the state-operated lottery to the environment and natural resources trust fund, and to dedicate the proceeds for these purposes?”
Current authorization is scheduled to expire in 2025; the extension would move that to 2050.
Since voters first approved the fund in 1988, a percentage of lottery proceeds have gone toward the environment – a chief reason the loon is on the lottery’s logo, Hollins told the House Rules and Legislative Administration Committee May 5.
The goal is to safeguard long-term funding for the environment against short-term thinking, said Rep. Sydney Jordan (DFL-Mpls). She said trust fund dollars have been used to protect wetlands, lakes, forests, prairies and natural areas. “They protect our ability to use and enjoy the great outdoors.”
About $80 million from the trust fund is now distributed per biennium, but the bill would increase the allowable spending from 5.5% to 7% of the fund’s value.
The bill would also create a community grant program funded with 1.5% of the trust fund’s value — estimated at more than $20 million. The goal is to open trust fund dollars to organizations that don’t have resources to navigate the current grant process. Projects in areas that have been traditionally overburdened or underserved would be given priority.
Rep. Paul Torkelson (R-Hanska) successfully offered an amendment to clarify there wouldn’t be subgrants and unsuccessfully offered an amendment that would specify programs must provide measurable positive outcomes for the environment.
Here's the Minnesota House Information Services YouTube of the floor debate:
Minnesota House Environment and Natural Resources Finance and Policy Chair Rick Hansen, DFL--S. St. Paul issued a statement lauding the passage:
Today, the Minnesota House of Representatives passed HF 1900, legislation to renew and modify the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund, on a vote of 87-41. The legislation proposes a constitutional amendment to be on the ballot in the 2024 general election that would extend the dedication of lottery proceeds to the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund (ENRTF) through December 31, 2050.
Representative Rick Hansen (DFL – South St. Paul), chair of the House Environment and Natural Resources Committee, co-authored the legislation and released the following statement:
“Whether it’s funding cutting-edge research at the U of M, starting programs to get underserved communities outdoors, or funding the DNR’s conservation efforts, the ENRTF is a critical piece of our work protecting the environment,” said Rep. Hansen. “Minnesotans recognize the value of protecting, preserving, and enhancing our water, air, soil, and wildlife and that is why I am proud to vote to reauthorize the fund.”
If the constitutional amendment passes, HF 1900 increases the amount of the ENRTF available for the Legislature to appropriate from 5.5% to 7%. The bill will also establish a new Community Grants Advisory Council to oversee 1.5% of the fund and provide recommendations to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) on the administration of the grant program for communities that are overburdened or underserved. It also explicitly states ENRTF funds would not be available to pay for bonds or wastewater facilities in response to 2018 attempts to raid the trust fund to pay for wastewater infrastructure.
The ENRTF is a constitutionally dedicated fund that may be spent only on the “protection, conservation, preservation, and enhancement of the state's air, water, land, fish, wildlife, and other natural resources.” The fund was created in 1988 when 77% of Minnesotan voters approved an amendment to the constitution to create long-term, consistent funding for the environment and natural resources. 40% of the net proceeds from the state lottery go into the fund. Over the past 30 years, the ENRTF has provided over $875 million to nearly 1,800 projects around the state.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, 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.
— Minnesota Farmers Union (@MNFarmersUnion) May 11, 2023
While some provisions I liked--languge dealing with treated seeds, for example--didn't survive the conference committee process--it's not an AgMafia stinker.
Additional support for emerging farmers, provisions for farmer safety surrounding PFAS and meaningful protection for grain sellers are among the highlights of the commerce committee report on the agriculture finance and policy bill.
“This is a good, well-rounded agriculture and broadband bill,” said Rep. Samantha Vang (DFL-Brooklyn Center). She sponsors HF2278/SF1955* with Sen. Aric Putnam (DFL-St. Cloud).
Following Thursday’s 85-44 vote, the bill is on its way to the governor. The Senate signed off on it 49-16 earlier in the day.
It includes a $148 million increase in General Fund spending in the next biennium, of which $100 million would go to expanding broadband.
A key provision in the bill is the creation of grain indemnity fund, which can compensate farmers should an elevator go bust. The bill includes $10 million to get the fund off the ground.
Funding for four new positions at the Department of Agriculture are included:
a climate coordinator to help Minnesota farmers tap into federal resources;
a full-time emerging farmer coordinator;
a new staff member in the international trade office; and
a person to study and define a path forward on the use of PFAS chemicals in agriculture.
Other new spending appropriations include:
$4 million to support youth and urban agriculture programs;
$4 million to support milk producers through the Dairy Assistance Investment and Relief Initiative;
$2 million for meat processing grants; and
$1.25 million for soil health equipment grants.
“When we support farmers, we are investing in our rural communities and ensuring our state has a strong agricultural economy and sustainable food supply for generations to come,” Rep. Kristi Pursell (DFL-Northfield) said in a statement. “Whether it’s increasing support to first-generation and emerging farmers, promoting better soil and water practices, or passing the largest-ever investment in rural broadband, this agriculture bill will help Minnesotans all across our state.”
Though offering support and a yes vote, Rep. Paul Anderson (R-Starbuck) said there should have been more conversation in the conference committee, which only met twice.
“I think we’re doing committee work on the floor here,” Anderson said during floor debate on data privacy regarding fertilizers that may contain PFAS substances.
Among the more controversial provisions in the bill are ones that would:
increase the size of the Board of Animal Health by adding a veterinarian who specializes in companion animals;
allowing the Department of Agriculture to increase fertilizer inspection fees; and
phasing out the use of fertilizers with PFAS substances.
Here's the Minnesota House Information Services YouTube of the House floor debate:
Photo: Minnesota Senate Ag committee chair Aric Putnam, DFL-St. Cloud, and House Ag committee Samantha Vang, DFL-Brooklyn Center/ Minnesota Women's Press.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, 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.
While the constant infomercials on cable pitching the services of lawyers to victims of poisoning at Camp Lejeune can be repetitious, the human beings suffering from that poisoning is another matter.
Bart Pfankuch takes a look at South Dakotans stricken from serving at Camp Lejeune at South Dakota News Watch:
STURGIS, S.D. – When he left the U.S. Marine Corps in 1983, after spending six years at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, Ronald Lawson was a strong, healthy man with a barrel chest, strong arms and a solid frame that carried his 220 pounds with ease.
He was a roofer and mechanic who loved to fish and camp and spend days at a time enjoying the outdoors.
But roughly a decade ago, Lawson’s health and life began to change. In a period of about eight years, his knees and back gave out, he lost vision in one eye, he suffered severe stomach and intestinal pain, and he woke up one day with a lump the size of a goose egg in his neck that turned out to be Stage 4 throat cancer.
Lawson, who never smoked, was stunned at the pace and severity of his sudden illnesses.
“I was never sick a day in my life, and cancer doesn’t run in either side of my family,” he said.
During a recent visit to a Veterans Administration hospital in Sturgis, a doctor asked Lawson if he spent time at Camp Lejeune. In an instant, the doctor’s question dovetailed with all the TV commercials Lawson had been seeing about veterans who served at Lejeune and are suffering from cancer and other serious sickness.
“I suddenly knew where all my problems had come from,” Lawson, 65, said from a couch in the one-bedroom subsidized Meade County apartment where he spends most of his time. “The toxic water caused my cancer and all this stuff, there’s no doubt about that.”
‘A shell of a man’
Lawson’s physical condition continues to worsen.
He speaks in a growl that is hard to understand because radiation damaged his vocal cords. He weighs only 130 pounds and is frail from nerve damage throughout his body. He cannot eat or swallow normally, so he consumes half a dozen bottles of Ensure protein drink through a portal in his stomach each day. He takes 19 medications twice a day for pain, to sleep and to prevent constipation and other side effects from his medication regimen.
“I’m a shell of a man now,” Lawson said, taking a sip of soda with shaking hands.
Next up, Lawson will learn if he has Parkinson’s disease, another condition caused by the water at Camp Lejeune and which could be the cause of his increasing instability and shaking.
Lawson has contacted the Sokolove Law Firm and hopes for a financial settlement, which has been approved by the U.S. Congress to compensate military veterans and civilians. The federal government acknowledges they were sickened by the toxic water at Lejeune.
Despite that assurance, Lawson isn’t sure if he will ever collect.
“They say it might be settled in two years, but I might not be alive in two years,” he said.
Dry-cleaning chemicals in Camp Lejeune water
The federal government, and now Congress, have essentially acknowledged without qualification that people who spent 30 days or more at Camp Lejeune or nearby Marine Corps Air Station New River were exposed to toxic chemicals that entered into water treatment plants at the bases.
According to the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, an arm of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the contaminants came from a dry-cleaning company near the bases and leached into two water systems there.
In a statement on its website, the agency concluded that “past exposures from the 1950s through February 1985 to trichloroethylene (TCE), tetrachloroethylene (PCE), vinyl chloride, and other contaminants in the drinking water at Camp Lejeune likely increased the risk of cancers (kidney, multiple myeloma, leukemias, and others), adverse birth outcomes, and other adverse health effects of residents (including infants and children), civilian workers, Marines and Naval personnel.”
When the water toxicity was discovered in 1982, the agency reported that PCE levels in drinking water supplied to the base and family housing had 1,400 parts per billion, about 280 times the safe level of 5 ppb. The level of TCE found was 215 ppb, or 40 times the safe level, the agency said. The agency said benzene, vinyl chloride and dichloroethylene (DCE) were also present in the camp water.
According to the VA website section on Camp Lejeune, veterans and civilians may qualify for medical coverage or compensation payments if they served or lived a month or more at Camp Lejeune, were not dishonorably discharged and suffer from one of a long list of presumptive illnesses that include numerous cancers as well as female infertility, miscarriage or in-utero conditions. The site also includes information about how to apply for health coverage or payments.
Camp Lejeune part of PACT Act
In 2022, Congress passed the Camp Lejeune Justice Act, which was part of the larger Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act (PACT Act). It gave military veterans and civilian employees the ability to sue the government to obtain medical benefits and financial compensation for injuries or illnesses suffered due to exposure to toxic substances in the line of duty or work.
The act expanded the number of qualifying illnesses and added new categories of potential claimants, including those exposed to the defoliant Agent Orange and, more recently, veterans exposed to toxic burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan.
President Joe Biden signed the act, which also prevents the government from making its usual claims of immunity.
Republican U.S. Sens. John Thune and Mike Rounds of South Dakota initially opposed the expansions within the PACT Act, but both eventually voted in favor of the measure.
While pointing to logistical concerns over implementation of the PACT Act and potential costs, U.S. Rep. Dusty Johnson, R-South Dakota, voted against the program, which could cost $280 billion over the next decade.
In a written statement sent to News Watch, Thune said he supported the act after amendments made by GOP colleagues made it tenable. Both he and Rounds earlier told News Watch they were concerned if the current VA system could handle the influx of new PACT patients.
“Veterans pledged their lives to the service of our country and they took upon themselves the burden of defending liberty for the rest of us. We must stand behind our promise to care for them when they return home,” Thune wrote.
Rounds also sent a statement to News Watch, offering much the same sentiments.
“I supported the PACT Act and a provision within the law that provided long overdue relief to former service members, their families and staff who were exposed to contaminated drinking water and toxic materials at Camp Lejeune. Those who have been impacted served our country honorably and suffered far too long,” Rounds wrote. “As a member of the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, I remain committed to making sure these men and women receive the care they have earned. While this law is not perfect, it was a step in the right direction. I think improvements can continue to be made.”
‘What’s the value of a human life?”
Attorney Patrick R. Burns was born in Vermillion, grew up in Sioux Falls and has a law degree from the University of South Dakota. He now practices in Minneapolis.
He’s also a former U.S. Army lawyer licensed in South Dakota, North Dakota, Minnesota and Wisconsin and so far has about 260 clients who are part of the Lejeune class action suit.
His clients suffer from a variety of illnesses, and some lost children due to the contamination, he said. One client group includes a father, mother and their child.
Burns said the government will use a formula to determine potential settlement offers, which he said could range from the tens of thousands of dollars potentially up to millions.
“There’s tens of thousands of people affected by this,” he said. “What’s the value of a human life that has been cut short or altered?”
Like other lawyers handling Camp Lejeune claims, Burns will take 40% of financial settlements provided by the government, which he said is common practice in product liability or negligence cases in which attorneys work on a contingency basis.
Family legacy of service, and injury
Gene Ridenour, 73, is part of a classic American military family.
His late father, Gene Ridenour Sr., served in the Army in World War II. Gene served as a Marine in Vietnam. His son, Gene III, won a Bronze Star for valor as an Army intelligence officer in Iraq in 2009.
Ridenour, a native of Sioux Falls who still lives north of downtown, enlisted in the Marines and served as a machine gun operator during the Vietnam War for part of 1968 and all of 1969. He was stationed at Camp Lejeune for about six months after he returned from combat.
Several years ago, Ridenour lost use of his leg, which he attributes to diabetes brought on by exposure to the toxic defoliant Agent Orange during his service in Vietnam. Since then, he has made his way around with a prosthetic aid.
But in 2015, Ridenour noticed a new health problem while using the restroom at a Hy-Vee grocery store and seeing that his urine “was as red as ketchup.”
Ridenour was diagnosed with a bladder infection, but the trip to the doctor led to a further diagnosis of bladder cancer, among the most common cancers related to the toxic water at Camp Lejeune.
Ridenour had bladder tumors removed and received chemotherapy.
‘Who’s going to fight for them?’
Ridenour said he signed up for the Camp Lejeune settlement to learn more about what happened at the camp and possibly to receive compensation, though he isn’t holding out hope for a major windfall.
“I don’t give a damn if I get money or not, to be honest with you. And if I did get money it would probably be taxi fare or something because the lawyers are going to take all of it,” he said.
Ridenour said he feels terribly for veterans who drank toxic water but even more so for the women and children who lived on the base.
“Think of all the married women who had babies and the civilian workers who were on that base,” he said. “They all drank the water, obviously, and who’s going to fight for them?”
Ridenour said he still supports the Marine Corps, but he is angry with the federal government.
“I’m mad because they should have known, and somebody screwed up,” he said. “I’m pissed off because all these years later, you find out about this stuff. We are Vietnam veterans, and we served honorably, but I’m not proud of the way they treated us.”
VA benefits not affected by Camp Lejuene settlement
Burns, the Minneapolis lawyer, said some potential clients are afraid of suing because they’ve been misled or inaccurately told that a settlement related to Lejeune could jeopardize future VA benefits. Some also believe they may be forced to repay the government for coverage already received, he said.
Past, current and future VA benefits will not be affected by a Lejueune settlement, he said.
Burns said the U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General Corps has been tasked with handling the Lejeune cases, but staffing and technology issues have slowed claim processing.
He said he hopes that even with a large number of claimants, affected people should begin to see settlement offers and possibly payments by the end of 2023 or early 2024.
“It’s not the lawyers or the injured people that are delaying it. It’s on the government side,” Burns said.
Despite any logistical delays, Burns said the Lejeune restitution law should lead to fairly rapid settlements, as it largely takes away the need for clients to prove their illnesses are caused by toxic water.
“What’s unique about this law is that it really reduces the typical causation and liability elements associated with most mass tort cases,” he said. “There’s no fight about how it happened. If you can show you were there and you have these certain illnesses, there’s a presumption it was caused by consuming the water.”
One day in church, next day ‘trained to kill’
John Ercink, 76, grew up on a farm near Claire City in the northeast corner of South Dakota.
Ercink knew he was about to be drafted and enlisted in the Marine Corps after graduating from New Effington High School. He was sent to Vietnam in June 1966, where he served more than a year as a heavy artillery operator who also did foot patrols as a rifleman.
“When I got out of high school, I was going to church and church programs, and the next thing I knew I was going to Vietnam as an 18-year-old who the Marine Corps had trained to kill,” he said.
Ercink said he experienced the worst of war while in Vietnam, including the death of close friends.
Upon return to the States, many veterans were harassed by anti-war protesters, and Ercink began to suffer Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, both from his time in war and from the war at home.
“We got shot up all the time. And as you first come back, you try to push this stuff away from you. But I can never forget that country and what it smelled like, and what the war was like and what blood smells like,” he said. “And then the protesters hated veterans. They were protesting not against the war, but against the warriors, throwing things at you, and it put a lot of stress on us.”
After a 30-day leave spent back home in South Dakota, Ercink was sent to Camp Lejeune, where he lived for about six months in barracks on the base, drinking and bathing in toxic water.
“You take orders when you’re in the service — you go where they send you,” Ercink said. “You can’t say, ‘I’m not going there, because the water isn’t safe to drink on the base,’ you just go.”
‘I came back not so healthy’
His war memories, coupled with exposure to the defoliant Agent Orange and then the toxic water at Camp Lejeune, have left Ercink with a host of medical conditions.
He has nightmares and restless leg syndrome that make it hard to sleep, constant ringing in his ears, neuropathy that has damaged the nerves in his legs and feet, and he has had both colon cancer and prostate cancer. Ercink said he also had part of his colon removed and had radiation for prostate cancer, and is doing somewhat better and still working his land.
And while he can’t be sure that toxic water at Camp Lejeune is to blame for his cancer, Ercink notes that neither form of cancer runs in his family.
“Like I say, I was a healthy young man when I went into the service, and I came back not so healthy,” he said. “I’ve got all this medical crap going on and it sure wasn’t from farming. It was all related to the toxic water or exposure to chemicals during the Asian vacation as we called it, the 13 months spent in Vietnam.”
After his honorable discharge from the Marines, Ercink returned to Roberts County where he farmed and owned a gas station before retiring. He has three children and eight grandchildren and lives near Lake City, S.D., with his wife who is his constant companion.
Ercink called the Sokolove Law Firm of Minnesota after seeing a TV commercial about toxic water at Camp Lejeune, and he has shared his military and medical history with the firm.
While he believes the lawyers involved in the class action suit deserve about 20% of any settlement and not the 40% they will likely take, he hopes to get a financial settlement to supplement the small VA disability money and Social Security income he receives each month.
“It’s hard to make ends meet with the income I’ve got,” he said.
Ercink said he doesn’t spend time placing blame for the mistakes that led to the contamination at Camp Lejeune. But he remains angry that more care wasn’t taken to protect veterans and civilians who served their country.
“I’m ducking bullets for 13 and a half months, and I was hoping to go back to civilian life, and then I get exposed to toxic water?” he said. “If there was toxic water there that long, somebody was not checking things responsibly, and I sure hope they’ve learned something from it.”
Lawson to go down fighting
While Lawson, the Marine from Sturgis, predicts he may not live long enough to see a settlement, he said that if he were to receive any money, he would travel to be with his extended family in North Carolina.
“I’m not able to do a lot anymore, but I’d move back home to be with my family before we all die off,” he said.
Lawson holds no hard feelings toward the Marine Corps, which he still loves. But he’s angry that people in the federal government didn’t do more to protect people living and working at Camp Lejeune.
”Somebody in the government knew about this and didn’t do anything about it, which is pretty depressing,” he said.
While Lawson is angry over his exposure to toxic water, he refuses to give in to bitterness.
“I drank, bathed and ate food cooked in that contaminated water, and I’m mad as hell about that,” he said. “But what are you going to do about it? Sit here and complain every day? That isn’t me because I consider myself a strong man and I’m not going to go down to that level. You’ve got to live the life you have as best you can.”
Photo: U.S. Marine Corps veteran Ronald Lawson is mainly confined to his one-bedroom apartment in Sturgis, S.D. because he has throat cancer that prevents him from eating, knee and spine problems that limit mobility, and nerve damage that causes constant pain. (Photo: Bart Pfankuch, South Dakota News Watch)
This article is republished with the permission of South Dakota News Watch.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, 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.
While the House Omnibus Legacy finance bill passed on a 69-59 vote back in mid-April, the conference committee report fared better, with a 101 to 31 vote.
That’s what the omnibus Legacy finance bill intends to do for Minnesota’s environment, arts, and cultural heritage.
Sponsored by Rep. Leon Lillie (DFL-North St. Paul) and Sen. Foung Hawj (DFL-St. Paul), it would appropriate $818.75 million during the 2024-25 biennium.
The conference committee agreement to HF1999 was passed 101-31 Tuesday. If also passed by the Senate, it’ll then go to the governor’s desk.
With the second largest appropriation, the Arts and Cultural Heritage Fund would get $191.95 million, some of which could support arts education, preservation and access, as well provide statewide historic and cultural grants.
For the Outdoor Heritage Fund, the omnibus package would appropriate $171.79 million mostly for prairies, forests, wetlands and habitats.
Including protecting and enhancing thousands of acres of land, Lillie noted that investments in public land serve all Minnesotans, new and old.
Almost all the $136.61 million Parks and Trails appropriation would go to either the Department of Natural Resources or the Metropolitan Council for projects and grants that support parks and trails of regional significance.
Rep. Jeff Backer (R-Browns Valley) believes the Legacy conference committee cut corners. “We passed this bill out of conference committee, members, with no bill language. We had an outline.”
Here's the Minnesota House Information Services' YouTube of the floor discussion of the conference committee report:
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, 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.
This story was originally published by MinnPost on Monday. I post it as part of continuing monitoring of chronic wasting disease in Minnesota and policy intended to slow its spread.
Democratic lawmakers are close to banning new white-tailed deer farms in Minnesota, a decision that would serve a major blow to the statewide industry but one that DFLers hope will help curb the spread of chronic wasting disease and protect wild herds.
Legislators agreed to a moratorium last week as they hashed out differences between major environmental bills passed earlier this year by the House and Senate. The DFL is also poised to implement other regulations on deer farms and transfer oversight authority on captive white-tailed deer from the Board of Animal Health to the Department of Natural Resources.
“It is our hope that this will help address the problem of chronic wasting disease that affects our entire state,” said state Rep. Rick Hansen, a South St. Paul DFLer, during a night-time hearing at the Capitol on Thursday to announce the deal. Hansen chairs the House’s Environment and Natural Resources Finance and Policy Committee.
The final agreement still needs to pass both chambers of the Legislature, where Democrats hold narrow majorities. But it’s a strong sign major limits on deer farming are imminent after years of debate over whether the businesses pose a threat of spreading CWD among wild deer in Minnesota.
Chronic wasting disease is a fatal neurological illness that has spread to some parts of Minnesota. The contagious disease is caused by self-replicating, abnormal proteins called prions. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has found 216 CWD-positive wild deer since 2010, which is far less than in surrounding states like Wisconsin and Iowa.
But state officials say containing it must be a priority to protect wild deer — and the hunting industry. The DNR has estimated the economic impact of wild hunting statewide at roughly $750 million every year.
CWD found in seven captive deer farms since 2017 has raised significant concerns among lawmakers and some state officials, who worry the disease can spread from escaped deer — potentially transported from areas with CWD outbreaks — to the wild population, or through interactions between deer along fences.
And a 2021 case in Beltrami County particularly raised concerns when an owner dumped deer carcasses on public land that University of Minnesota researchers say had evidence of CWD. There have been no confirmed CWD cases on cervid farms this year, according to the Board of Animal Health.
Deer farmers have fought the idea that they are a significant risk to wild herds, arguing the science isn’t settled or that wild deer could also spread to captive ones. Scott Fier, president of the Minnesota Deer Farmers Association, said Friday that farmers test every deer older than a year that dies on their property, which is required under state law, and can take steps to limit the disease that aren’t so drastic as to drive people out of business. He said most farmers care deeply about avoiding CWD and shouldn’t be blamed for bad actors.
In late December, the Board of Animal Health estimated that Minnesota had 229 “cervid” farms with roughly 6,000 animals. Some farms are breeding operations, others have hunting enclosures. Some raise elk for meat and still others sell products like velvet, urine or semen. Those farms also include hobby farms where someone might have deer as pets.
Democrats have tried for years to put sharp new limits on deer farms, like fencing requirements and the moratorium on new businesses. Many of those regulations were rejected when Republicans controlled the state Senate. GOP lawmakers said the industry was being unfairly blamed and should be able to operate.
The final legislation unveiled by the DFL on Thursday includes several measures aimed at deer farms, in addition to the ban on new businesses. The bill says a licensed hunter can kill and, in most cases, keep a farmed cervid that escapes its enclosure.
The legislation says fencing must prevent physical contact between wild cervids and farmed ones, and state officials can compel businesses to fortify their barriers if they’re inadequate. That’s a change from double-fencing requirements that some Democrats wanted but farmers said, among many arguments against the plan, would be wildly expensive.
Under the DFL agreement, state law would prevent herd owners from moving white-tailed deer from a herd with a positive CWD test to any other location. If a CWD-positive deer is found, the farm has to maintain fencing — and not raise any deer there — for at least 10 years. Current law says deer farmers must “depopulate,” or kill, their herd after a positive test and keep fencing for five years. And the proposal includes new limits on importing deer and semen.
Fier, who owns Buffalo Ridge Whitetails in the west-central city of Porter, pleaded with lawmakers to “pump the brakes and take a step back.” He said deer farmers are desperate and have unsuccessfully pushed for a state buyout of farms. “I think it’s going to end pretty quick, to be honest,” Fier said of an industry facing a ban on new farms and other limits. “I’m trying to be optimistic.”
Fier said he’s been raising deer for 22 years. He took over the business from his parents and said he wanted his kids to take over some day. But the outlook for the industry, he said, “is very bleak at this point.”
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, 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.
Historic investments in emerging farmers, staffing help for the Department of Agriculture’s international trade office and a new safety net for grain farmers are all part of the omnibus agriculture, broadband and rural development finance agreement approved by a conference committee Saturday.
No floor vote has been scheduled for the final product that represents a $148 million increase over current levels, and includes $100 million to expand access to high-speed internet.
A centerpiece of the budget would be $10 million to start a grain indemnity fund, which would offer farmers recompense if an elevator goes bankrupt. Farmers choosing to participate in the program would pay premiums when the fund dips below $8 million.
“I’m happy this will be a legacy of this year’s agriculture budget bill,” said Rep. Samantha Vang (DFL-Brooklyn Center). She sponsors HF2278/SF1955* with Sen. Aric Putnam (DFL-St. Cloud). “I’m also excited to see we’re making historic investments in emerging farmers and strong investments in helping farmers take care of the land. I think we have a strong, well-rounded budget that encapsulates a growing agricultural community.”
Agriculture Commissioner Thom Petersen said the agreement represents a big increase in funding for the agency and support programs for farmers will help them sleep better at night.
Some new money provisions for the next biennium would include:
$7 million to maintain current services;
$4 million to support youth and urban agriculture programs;
$4 million to support milk producers through the Dairy Assistance Investment and Relief Initiative;
$2 million for meat processing grants;
$1.25 million for soil health equipment grants;
an $800,000 transfer to the pollinator research account; and
$90,000 for grants to prevent wolf/livestock conflicts by methods such as fencing, lights and alarms.
Not included in the final bill are House provisions that would regulate pesticide-treated seeds. Several other contentious House proposals are included – though modified – in the final bill.
The Board of Animal Health would, per an amendment, increase by one person, and its membership makeup would be altered to three livestock producers, a member of a federally recognized tribe who is experienced in animal husbandry, and three practicing veterinarians, one of whom specializes in companion animals. Currently, four livestock producers and two veterinarians comprise the six-person board.
A fertilizer inspection fee would be set by the Agriculture Department rather than the Legislature with a minimum of 39 cents and maximum of 70 cents per ton.
Use of PFAS substances in fertilizer would be phased out. Fertilizers with intentionally added perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances would be prohibited after Jan. 1, 2032 per an amendment adopted Saturday as part of the conference committee’s agreement.
Here's the Minnesota House Information Service YouTube of the meeting:
Photo: Minnesota Senate Ag committee chair Aric Putnam, DFL-St. Cloud, and House Ag committee Samantha Vang, DFL-Brooklyn Center/ Minnesota Women's Press.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, 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.
Reproductive rights is one of those issues that sharply divides the news in the state Bluestem covers: Minnesota and South Dakota. A new article first published by South Dakota News Watch illustrates a connection between the two states' radically different policies.
A Minnesota doctor who helps procure mail-order medication abortions for South Dakota women said she plans to continue that practice even if the U.S. Supreme Court outlaws or limits the use of mifepristone, one of the pills used in the process.
“It’s business as usual,” said Dr. Julie Amaon, medical director of Just the Pill.
The Twin Cities telemedicine provider assisted more than 150 South Dakota residents in 2022 and 2023 with online consultations and prescriptions to terminate pregnancies. The organization has provided service to more than 5,000 patients overall since starting as a nonprofit in 2020.
Amaon told News Watch that her “neck is sore from the whiplash” of legal wranglings that have intensified the abortion debate since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision in June 2022 to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling, allowing states to determine legality and access of reproductive services.
The new battleground focuses on medication abortion, which currently accounts for 54% of abortions in the United States, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health organization.
U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Texas-based Trump appointee, issued a ruling April 7 that threatened to halt the Food and Drug Administration’s authorization of abortion pill mifepristone, first approved in 2000.
Less than a week later, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals paused the mifepristone suspension but upheld Kacsmaryk’s rollback of more recent FDA policies that made abortion pills easier to obtain by removing the requirement of in-person provider visits.
On April 21, the Supreme Court issued a stay on that 5th Circuit ruling, reverting abortion access to post-Dobbs status while the appeals process continues, with a decision expected sometime in 2024 on the status of mifepristone and how medication abortion is administered.
Poll: 57% support legal access to abortion pill in South Dakota
Amaon, whose group aims to provide abortion access to women who reside in states with strict prohibitions, said Just the Pill will forge ahead no matter what the Supreme Court decides.
That could mean employing a one-pill regimen to terminate pregnancies if mifepristone is outlawed or using a mobile clinic to dispense pills in person to women who cross the border from South Dakota if FDA regulations change.
“What bothers me most is that the courts and lawyers are deciding matters of general health care instead of physicians and their patients,” she said.
A July 2022 News Watch survey of registered South Dakota voters showed that a majority (57%) of respondents support allowing legal access to abortion medications in the state, including 42% who “strongly support” such access. Nearly two-thirds (65%) said they support having a statewide referendum to determine South Dakota’s laws regarding reproductive rights.
The poll also showed that nearly 8 in 10 respondents (79%) oppose criminal penalties for anyone who helps a South Dakota resident obtain an abortion where it is legal, such as in a neighboring state. An overwhelming majority (71%) also support permitting South Dakota residents to leave the state to obtain abortions.
The random survey was conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling & Strategy and contacted voters in all South Dakota counties by landline and cellphone. It was co-sponsored by News Watch and the Chiesman Center for Democracy at the University of South Dakota. The margin of error was plus or minus 4.5%.
Provider: One-pill regimen less effective than two pills
Medication abortion typically involves two pills. The first drug, mifepristone, works by blocking the hormone progesterone, which the body needs to continue a pregnancy. That process causes the uterine lining to stop thickening and break down, detaching the embryo. The second drug, misoprostol, taken 24 to 48 hours later, causes the uterus to contract and dilates the cervix, which expels the embryo.
A misoprostol-only regimen involves taking the drug with the same dosage as typically used, then taking it again three hours later, causing the uterus to contract. This process is repeated for three separate doses, three hours apart, until the pregnancy is terminated, Amaon said.
“Because you have to take it more times, the side effects are not fun,” she added. “You might feel like you have the flu, there are some fever and chills, sometimes nausea, vomiting, diarrhea. Other than that, it’s very safe and effective. There are no greater risk factors or complications because you’re only taking misoprostol.”
There is a slight difference in effectiveness, with 95%-98% of abortions successful with the two-drug regimen compared with 85% with misoprostol only, according to the organization’s website. The two-pill regimen is recommended by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
Just the Pill provided abortion drugs to 43 S.D. women through April
Besides Minnesota, Just the Pill offers services in Wyoming, Montana and Colorado, which positions them to provide access to residents from eastern and western South Dakota and North Dakota.
Charging $350 per patient, the nonprofit saw about 1,300 patients overall in 2021. It increased to more than 3,000 in 2022, utilizing online pharmacies such as American Mail Order out of Michigan and Honeybee Health in California.
In the first four months of 2023, the organization served 1,135 patients, including 43 from South Dakota, 31 in Minnesota and 12 in Wyoming.
Patients fill out their information online, sign a consent form and then drive over the border to have a telehealth conversation with a clinician to discuss health history, medication protocols and what to expect. The patient then returns home and is notified when to return to Minnesota or Wyoming to pick up their prescription at a post office or FedEx pickup spot.
There is a telehealth follow-up in seven to 14 days to check on the patient and “make sure everything went as expected, Amaon said. We also reach out at four to five weeks for a pregnancy test at home, to make sure the process is complete.”
Border with Minnesota makes enforcement difficult
The dichotomy of Republican-dominated South Dakota and Democratic-controlled Minnesota as neighboring states during a time of increasing friction over abortion rights is a challenging one for law enforcement.
South Dakota had a “trigger law” from 2005 that took effect when Roe was overturned, making it a Class 6 felony for anyone “who administers to any pregnant female or prescribes or procures for any pregnant female” a means for an abortion, except to save the life of the mother. The crime is punishable by two years in prison, a $4,000 fine or both.
Minnesota, meanwhile, passed a law in January to strengthen abortion rights, establishing that “every individual has a fundamental right to make autonomous decisions about the individual’s own reproductive health.”
South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley told News Watch in early February that his office is monitoring the situation of women crossing the border to obtain abortion pills and that he expects state laws to be followed. Those laws focus on the person providing abortion services, not the woman terminating her pregnancy.
Asked if someone providing telemedicine abortion services to South Dakota residents in a different state could be prosecuted, Jackley said that “if you aid and abet or you conspire or you actively participate in a criminal act, our reach can go beyond the state’s borders.”
AG Marty Jackley clarifies interstate abortion stance
On May 2, Jackley clarified to News Watch that his office considers it a violation of South Dakota law if abortion medications are mailed to a South Dakota address. That means Just the Pill’s practice of dispensing pills in the state where they were prescribed would not be deemed illegal under current state law.
Jackley and Gov. Kristi Noem have cited safety concerns with medication abortion. If something goes wrong, such as excess bleeding or infection, there won’t be emergency medical care available if a woman is taking the pills at home, they said.
Criminal charges against the person who helped procure the pills could be “much more serious” than a Class 6 felony if a woman suffers harm from taking the medication to end a pregnancy, Jackley said.
South Dakota pharmacies barred from prescribing abortion pill
The issue gained prominence earlier this year when the FDA expanded the availability of abortion pills to include mail order and dispensing from brick-and-mortar pharmacies, finalizing a rule that started during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Noem and Jackley responded with a Jan. 24, 2023, letter to South Dakota pharmacists clarifying that “pharmacies, including chain drug stores, are prohibited from procuring and dispensing abortion-inducing drugs with the intent to induce an abortion and are subject to felony prosecution under the South Dakota law.”
Along with 19 other state attorneys general, Jackley signed a letter to national pharmacies CVS and Walgreens from Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey citing the Comstock Act of 1873, which the letter said prohibits using the mail to send or receive any drug that will be “used or applied for producing abortion.”
The Supreme Court will likely weigh the relevance of the Comstock Act and the mutability of FDA approvals in the coming year. And Jackley said his office would likely “join any letter or amicus that aligns with state law” while that process unfolds.
Pharmacies must apply for FDA certification to dispense mifepristone.
Amanda Bacon, executive director of the South Dakota Pharmacists Association, said most retail chains have stated “they will only participate in the federal program where it doesn’t conflict with state law,” which means none of them will be procuring or dispensing the drug in South Dakota.
“For South Dakota pharmacies, it’s pretty clear,” Bacon said. “It’s a felony to dispense the medication for that purpose. But it’s also a felony to prescribe it for that purpose, so therefore, it’s just not something we’re even dealing with at the pharmacy counter.”
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, 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.
. . .House Republicans expressed frustration in both of those instances, which they say breaks with past precedent of the majority party appointing at least one member from the minority party to a conference committee.
Specifically, House Minority Leader Lisa Demuth said Democrats are “shutting out” Republican voices in the environment, climate and energy bill by only appointing House DFLers to that conference committee who live within 20 miles of the State Capitol. . . .
Apparently, neither Demuth nor Long bothered to look review past years' conference committee appointments, as Bluestem did--we did and discovered that during recent Republican control of the House, DFLers were left off conference committees for omnibus and other bills.
. . .Rep. Kristin Robbins (R-Maple Grove) was critical of the conference committee process, saying three conference committees have zero House Republicans and that, in other cases, Republicans have been left out of “meaningful conversations” about the final product. . . .
Perhaps Republicans will create a rule about bipartisan conference committees the next time they hold power in the House--or simply not forget their own past completely partisan conference committee appointments.
At least, they should remember that the Legislative Reference Library maintains a readily accessible database of conference committees from 2017 and 2018, aka the 90th Legislature, the last time the Republican caucuses held both upper and lower chambers.
Or maybe look up the meaning of the words "precedent." [end update]
In recent legislative update emails, two first term Republican state representatives are complaining about conference committees in which none of their caucus members are taking part.
Conference committees have been in full swing this week which signals that this legislative session is almost to the end. While I am not serving on any of these joint committees they provide one last opportunity for our Republican members to influence the final bills that will head to the governor’s desk. Unfortunately, House Republicans have been shut out of three of these conference committees in Democrat’s continued abuse of trifecta control of state government. I believe it is a terrible precedent to set not having all of the perspectives gathered to provide input on these finalized pieces of legislation.
The same language shows up in first term Lake Shore Republican Krista Knudson's May 5 Legislative Update:
Conference committees have been in full swing this week which signals that this legislative session is almost to the end. While I am not serving on any of these joint committees they provide one last opportunity for our Republican members to influence the final bills that will head to the governor’s desk. Unfortunately, House Republicans have been shut out of three of these conference committees in Democrat’s continued abuse of trifecta control of state government. I believe it is a terrible precedent to set not having all of the perspectives gathered to provide input on these finalized pieces of legislation.
Is the absence of the minority caucus members on conference committees without precedent, part of the Evil Metro DFL Cult "continued abuse of trifecta control of state government"?
No.
Bluestem looked at conference committees assembled during 2017 and 2018, aka the 90th Legislature, the last time the Republican caucuses held both upper and lower chambers. (No easily accessed records for the 2011-2012 session are available).
We found a number of historical examples from the 89th session, when Republicans controlled the House.
Gillman and Knudsen are new to the Minnesota House, so perhaps they don't know that there's no rule dictating bipartisan appointees on conference committee--and that the custom and usage of such appointments includes single-party conferee appointments.
Indeed, their own caucus has shut out DFL members from conference committees in the past. Here are the conference committees in which the House was served only by Republican members:
2017
HF0399/SF0603 (CHAPTER 100) Senate and house of representatives funding provided, transfers required, and money appropriated.
House conferees: Anderson, S.; O'Driscoll; Fenton; Nash; Dettmer
HF0859/SF1059 Koochiching County; Transportation Department unused or divided land conveyance provided, highways on the trunk highway system removed or modified, and state-owned land conveyance authorized.
As for the 2023 conference committees with only DFL members in the House serving:
HF2310/SF2438 Omnibus environment, natural resources, climate, and energy finance and policy bill
Hansen, R.; Acomb; Hollins; Jordan; Kraft
SF2909/HF2890 Omnibus Judiciary and Public Safety appropriations
Moller; Feist; Becker-Finn; Frazier; Curran (only DFL senators are serving on this committee as well: Latz; Oumou Verbeten; Pappas; Seeberger; Westlin)
SF3035/HF3028 Omnibus Jobs, Economic Development, Labor, and Industry appropriations
Hassan; Xiong; Nelson, M.; Berg; Olson, L. (only DFL senators are serving on this committee as well: Champion; McEwen; Mohamed; Hauschild; Gustafson)
According to Roll Call votes, two of the three companion bills received Republican votes in the Senate
No House Republican voted for HF2310. In the Senate, Chanhassen Republican Julia Coleman voted for the bill--and is serving on the committee. Senator Duckworth
No House Republicans voted for the amended version of SF3035, while Anoka County Republican senator Jim Abeler cast the single yes vote in his caucus.
Perhaps Gillman and Knudsen could spend some time with the helpful and professional Legislative Reference Library staff learning about the wonderful resources available.
And maybe they might want to write their copy for their legislative updates--or give their staff a byline--once they've mastered those resources.
Photo: Magnolias bloomed on the grounds of the State Capitol this week. (Photo by Andrew VonBank/Session Daily/Minnesota House Information Services)
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, 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.
The agreement also calls for the DNR to take oversight of the industry away from the Board of Animal Health.
No new deer farms could be started in Minnesota under an agreement reached Thursday night by state lawmakers concerned about the spread of chronic wasting disease (CWD) in the state's invaluable wild deer population.
The negotiated deal, brokered by Sen. Kelly Morrison, DFL-Deephaven, also would shift oversight of deer farms from the Board of Animal Health to the Department of Natural Resources. Among other new provisions, the agreement would strengthen fencing requirements around captive whitetail herds and place new restrictions on the importation of captive deer from areas where CWD is a problem.
"I'm feeling relieved and happy this morning,'' Morrison said Friday. "This is a big deal for our state. … Our goal is to contain this disease.''
The deer farm measure was adopted by House and Senate negotiators as part of a larger environment, natural resources, climate and energy bill that would be sent to Gov. Tim Walz to be signed into law. On Friday, the conference committee was working to resolve differences over other aspects of the bill.
Rep. Rick Hansen, DFL-South St. Paul, said the agreement is a big payoff for five years of work by various groups to tighten controls on an industry that has been linked by DNR researchers to CWD outbreaks in the wild deer population. Nationwide, many wildlife officials, hunting groups, public health experts and economic development officials see CWD as a disease that must be reckoned with before it spins out of control.
"This is the most comprehensive chronic wasting disease package passed anywhere in the country,'' said Hansen, chairman of the House Environment and Natural Resources Finance and Policy Committee.
As of this week, Minnesota had 211 "cervid" farms containing 6,474 animals, mostly deer. The farms serve various purposes, including the raising of genetically engineered monster bucks for private, enclosed hunts. Other deer are raised for meat, antler velvet, urine scent for hunters or for the trade of semen to breeding operations. . . .
Morrison said the shift of deer farm oversight from the Board of Animal Health to the DNR is meant to improve on the existing system of joint oversight. A state legislative auditor's report from several years ago knocked the board for being cozy with deer farms and lax on enforcement. . . .
Another piece of the reform measure deals with live animal testing of captive deer. The University of Minnesota has developed what could become the first workable test for CWD in live deer. Current testing relies on tissue sampling of dead deer. Once the U.S. Department of Agriculture approves a live test, new requirements for the testing would already be written into law if the bill is passed. . . .
Read the entire article at the Star Tribune for more details.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, 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.
An effort to build a huge gun range and shooting complex north of Rapid City has created divisiveness and hard feelings between two of South Dakota’s most iconic populations.
The values run deep and histories stretch long among people in the two groups – those devoted to hunting and shooting, and rugged ranchers who have run cattle on the same rangelands for generations – but they are at odds on the gun range issue.
Other players include a well-heeled business owner who’s a frequent donor to the governor and the dominant Republican Party and a family that runs a rural Bible ranch for children.
It has all the makings of an epic battle that has raged for more than two years and will likely cause consternation that lingers long after the first rifle round is fired.
“We have a big stake in this,” said rancher Joe Norman, who lives closest to the proposed gun range site. “This is about our quality of life, and our livelihood.”
So far, no dirt has been turned on the proposed South Dakota Shooting Sports Complex.
It would include 175 shooting lanes and be the largest gun range in the state and possibly the nation. The project was proposed by the South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Department with strong support by Gov. Kristi Noem.
Setbacks delay shooting range project for now
Supporters say the complex will fill a great need for a formal shooting range in the Rapid City area, where hunting and shooting are popular. They say it will provide a safe, well-managed venue for children and adults to learn hunter safety, practice safe shooting skills and help uphold the state’s legacy of gun ownership. Backers say the range will also provide a training site for military and law enforcement and generate millions in local economic revenue.
But neighbors say the project will bring unwanted noise, traffic, pollution and possibly crime to their remote, rural region. A few opponents say the project is being driven by political concerns and is being pushed by people seeking to make a buck on the backs of longtime rural South Dakota residents.
Others, including some state lawmakers, have questioned the process GFP has used to generate support and funding for the project, arguing that the agency has not answered all their questions about the range or adequately addressed neighbor concerns.
The agency is well along in planning. It hoped to break ground in May 2023 and finish construction in 2024. GFP has purchased 400 acres for the site, generated an environmental impact statement, received permission from the Meade County Commission and raised nearly $3 million in private funds to build the range. GFP hopes to raise $7 million in donations, possibly tap federal and agency funds to pay the rest of the construction costs and use GFP money to staff the range.
But the GFP has suffered setbacks.
The Legislature in 2022 rejected a bill to provide $2.5 million in state funding. And in late April 2023, the GFP was forced to pause the project when its call for bids attracted only one offer – a $19 million bid by Scull Construction Service of Rapid City that was more than double the $9 million estimated cost.
GFP has rejected the bid and will seek new bids in the coming months, a spokesman told News Watch.
Few gun ranges near Rapid City
The GFP said the project could generate more than $3 million in new shooting-related revenue and be used to promote safe gun use by individuals and families with children.
As designed on paper, the shooting complex would be built on 400 acres of open prairie east of Elk Vale Road in Meade County, about 12 miles north of a fast-growing section of Rapid City. The complex would include three separate firing ranges up to 1,200 yards long, with 175 individual shooting bays and a hunter education building set amid a plaza with parking and restroom facilities.
GFP officials declined interview requests for this article, but GFP Director Kevin Robling told a legislative committee in 2022 there is a shortage of safe, managed shooting ranges in the Rapid City area. He said shooting enthusiasts are forced now to use unofficial sites that are marred by trash and unsafe behaviors.
Robling said the range will provide recreation opportunities for families, youth groups and individuals who want to safely uphold the state’s tradition of hunting and shooting.
The range would have areas where archers can practice, shotgun shooters can hone their trap skills, and it may host air-gun users who want to engage in their hobby.
“We’re a pro-gun state, and gun owners want a safe, secure, controlled environment to shoot,” Robling testified. “We view this project as a celebration of South Dakota’s outdoor heritage and what lies ahead. … We have an amazing opportunity in front of us.”
The complex would also provide training opportunities for law enforcement and military personnel from the National Guard and nearby Ellsworth Air Force base, he said.
Noise and safety protections planned for gun range
Robling said the agency has gone to great lengths to inform and work with neighbors.
He told lawmakers the range includes sound-muffling features and will have berms to ensure no bullets leave the site. The state has also taken significant steps to protect the land and water from lead or other contaminants, he said.
During legislative debate, the project was backed by representatives of the National Rifle Association and other shooting and hunting groups.
Sen. David Johnson, lead sponsor of the $2.5 million state funding proposal, said the complex would serve a large age range of shooters and provide a top-notch recreational opportunity for both hunters and gun enthusiasts who spend millions on their sport.
“This bill is about first-time gun users, it’s about kids, it’s about youth who are sponges as we all know for gaining wisdom through training in safe firearm use,” said Johnson, a Republican from Rapid City.
“It’s about kids who want to learn about the great recreation of the outdoors and such a deeply respected tradition and heritage here in the state of South Dakota. It’s about men and women, boys and girls who are outdoor enthusiasts.”
Ranch families near proposed gun range upset about project
But the project and the way it has evolved have angered the handful of ranch families who raise cattle and other livestock on land their families have owned and operated since the late 1800s.
Even as he sees the need for a West River gun range, Norman, the nearest rancher, said there’s no way that the shooting complex — which could attract dozens of people firing rifles, handguns and shotguns for eight hours a day in winter and more than 10 hours a day in the summer — will be a good neighbor.
Such a large, loud shooting facility located amid gravel roads where every vehicle is trailed by a plume of dust doesn’t belong in an area where families want to raise their kids, run their ranches and eventually retire in peace, quiet and relative solitude, Norman said.
“My wife and I aren’t against a gun range, we’re just against the location,” said Norman, whose home is about a mile from the shooting site and whose ranch land abuts the range boundary.
The Norman family settled their Meade County ranch lands in 1881 and Joe and his family now run 700 cattle on those 7,600 acres. During legislative testimony in 2022, Norman asked lawmakers how they would like to have a shooting range within sight and sound of their homes after a long week of work.
“You want to get home and spend a nice weekend at your house with your spouse, so you turn your phone off and your email, and you start to enjoy your Saturday when at eight in the morning, gunfire starts,” said Norman, 67. “And not just one shot — they have 175 bays in their project, so you could have 175 shooters at once, and for eight hours. But you think, ‘I’m OK,’ and then it starts again on Sunday, and for eight hours or maybe 11 hours a day.”
Norman said the project also has many unanswered questions, including the fact there is no water source on site for drinking or fire protection, that rural roads may fail under much heavier traffic and that staffing could be as low as one person at a sprawling shooting complex.
Bible camp operators have concerns about range
Larry Reinhold and his family run the Lonetree Ranch horse and cattle farm and operate the Rainbow Bible Ranch on a site along Elk Vale Road about three miles north of the shooting range location.
Reinhold said GFP officials have told him his operations won’t be affected by the gun range, but he has serious concerns nevertheless. The family raises Hereford cattle and quarter horses on about 4,000 acres that was homesteaded by their ancestors in the early 1900s.
The Rienhold family has run the Bible ranch for children ages 6 to 18 for more than 40 years. Part of the experience is the peace and quiet that are provided to visitors who come to camp out, explore nature, learn about agriculture and expand their spirituality, Reinhold said.
Bible campers sleep under the stars, fish and swim, go horseback riding and see a rodeo, and even shoot .22 rifles during their stay.
“There’s an awful lot of people who do not have the privilege of experiencing the natural setting that we are able to enjoy in western South Dakota,” Reinhold said. “That’s what is so appealing for the families that send their kids here. South Dakota has something to be very thankful for and grateful for … the quiet, the beauty and openness, that’s what we live here for, and that’s what we provide to the kids, and why would we want to impede that?”
Reinhold said he’s disappointed in the level of communication about the project provided by GFP, which he says has been minimal. He said the fact that a massive gun range is being proposed for a site close to a Bible ranch shows that “somebody didn’t do their homework.”
Reinhold said that even if the range gets built and his ranch is within earshot of frequent gunfire, he will continue to provide the best possible experience for the roughly 450 children who visit during the summer and others who come year-round for daylong events, evening barbecues or live nativity scenes.
“I plan to keep on going until the Lord says I’m done,” he said.
Support mixed among elected officials
GFP tried repeatedly during the 2022 legislative session to obtain direct state financial support for the gun range but came up short.
Senate Bill 175, which would have provided $2.5 million for the project, passed the Senate 28-7 but failed in a House committee and then on the House floor.
While House members acknowledged the need for a West River range, many sympathized with neighbor concerns over noise and intrusion on their operations and lifestyles.
Rep. Chris Karr, R-Sioux Falls, chaired the House Committee on Appropriations, which voted to kill the bill after a substantial public hearing. Karr said the proposal “didn’t pass the sanity check” because of a lack of ongoing funding for the project once it is completed. Another factor was the limited state staffing coupled with a proposal to rely significantly on volunteers.
Karr also criticized GFP for bringing the funding proposal well after it had plans for the project underway. He said it appeared the funding bill was brought before lawmakers “to give (GFP) that credibility to silence” opponents.
Karr added: “It seems like there’s been a lot of communication breakdowns and misunderstandings of what this thing looks like and what its intrusiveness would be.”
Reinhold said that even if the range gets built and his ranch is within earshot of frequent gunfire, he will continue to provide the best possible experience for the roughly 450 children who visit during the summer and others who come year-round for daylong events, evening barbecues or live nativity scenes.
“I plan to keep on going until the Lord says I’m done,” he said.
Support mixed among elected officials
GFP tried repeatedly during the 2022 legislative session to obtain direct state financial support for the gun range but came up short.
Senate Bill 175, which would have provided $2.5 million for the project, passed the Senate 28-7 but failed in a House committee and then on the House floor.
While House members acknowledged the need for a West River range, many sympathized with neighbor concerns over noise and intrusion on their operations and lifestyles.
Rep. Chris Karr, R-Sioux Falls, chaired the House Committee on Appropriations, which voted to kill the bill after a substantial public hearing. Karr said the proposal “didn’t pass the sanity check” because of a lack of ongoing funding for the project once it is completed. Another factor was the limited state staffing coupled with a proposal to rely significantly on volunteers.
Karr also criticized GFP for bringing the funding proposal well after it had plans for the project underway. He said it appeared the funding bill was brought before lawmakers “to give (GFP) that credibility to silence” opponents.
Karr added: “It seems like there’s been a lot of communication breakdowns and misunderstandings of what this thing looks like and what its intrusiveness would be.”
Opponent sees political motivations behind gun range
Norman, the lifelong rancher, has campaign signs for Republican candidates tucked inside his barn and is a big supporter of the Black Hills Stock Show. Still, he questions the motivations of Noem and Rapid City businessman Jim Scull, namesake of Scull Construction Service.
Noem, he said, wants the massive range to use as part of her platform to build a national profile among conservatives and potentially seek higher office. The governor recently spoke at a national NRA event and noted that her granddaughter who’s younger than 2 years old already owns a shotgun and rifle.
“She wants to build the largest gun range in the United States, and that’s what this is all about for her,” Norman said.
Noem declined a request for an interview.
Her spokesman, Ian Fury, told News Watch that the governor’s support for the range is not related to politics. Instead, he said, it is part of her longstanding efforts to support gun ownership and the culture and history of shooting sports in South Dakota.
“Growing up in South Dakota, shooting sports were a big part of how I was raised,” Noem wrote in a government report on the project. “Our residents and our visitors should have access to quality shooting ranges where they can learn safe and responsible use of firearms.”
Noem said it would be GFP’s finest outdoor shooting range and “provide opportunities so that generations to come can learn to love shooting sports just as I did.”
And yet, Diane Norman, Joe Norman’s wife, wonders if Noem would want a large gun range near the land where her family still farms and raises livestock.
“Gov. Noem grew up on a ranch, and I wonder if she realizes this is being put near ranches just like hers,” Diane Norman said. “There’s so, so many generations of ranchers out here, and it’s supposed to be our state’s No. 1 industry. But we’re not getting any support on this.
“Why would anyone want to spend $19 million to get kids to shoot when that’s such a problem these days?”
Businessman hopes to help children
Scull is influential in the West River business and civic community, and has donated to numerous local charities and causes.
He did not return a phone call seeking comment from News Watch.
Norman said Scull is seeking to benefit financially from the shooting range and is using his political connections to push the project forward. Norman’s suspicions rose in March 2023 when Scull Construction Service submitted the only bid to build the range, which included a $17.2 million basic bid and another $1.9 million in add-ons that included a shotgun bunker and solar array.
Though Scull never owned the land where the range would be built, he did locate and help broker the sale of the land from a private owner to the South Dakota Parks and Wildlife Foundation, which then sold the land to the state for $900,000, according to Kristina Coby, executive director of the foundation, and GFP meeting records.
Scull and his family are frequent donors to political candidates and causes, giving thousands to Noem’s campaigns for Congress and governor, as well as to state and national GOP political action committees, according to state and federal election records.
Scull testified before a state Senate committee in 2022 that he supports the project because it would provide a safe place to shoot for dozens of disadvantaged children who participate in the annual South Dakota Youth Hunting Adventures, a charitable youth outdoors group Scull helped found and continues to operate.
“I’m a passionate supporter,” Scull told the Senate Appropriations Committee. “We’ve never had a range and I’ve pushed this for years. … We have to have a place for these kids to go.”
Scull is retired but retains minority ownership of the construction company that has built numerous iconic structures in Rapid City and beyond, according to his son, Andy Scull, president of Scull Construction Services.
In an interview with News Watch, he referred questions about the bid package to GFP.
Andy Scull said accusations about the business and his father are “100 percent untrue,” though he did not elaborate.
GFP committed to completion
Fury, Noem’s spokesperson, said the fact GFP rejected the bid by Scull Construction Services shows there are no political forces at work.
The higher-than-expected bid is indicative of a larger trend in which both government and private construction project costs have risen rapidly in recent years due to higher material and labor costs, he said.
Fury said GFP has indicated it will break the project and the bidding process into smaller segments and get it going in stages.
Nick Harrington, a spokesperson for GFP, told News Watch in an email that the agency began to explore building a West River gun range in 2019. GFP considered the Meade County site “ideal” for the range, he said.
Harrington did not indicate the reason the Scull bid was rejected but noted that GFP will re-bid the project and continue to work with stakeholders to make it a reality.
“GFP is committed to building the South Dakota Shooting Sports Complex, which will serve all of South Dakota and its visitors,” he wrote.
Photo: Meade County rancher Joe Norman points to the area behind his ranch where a huge gun range has been proposed and which would allow shooting by dozens of people for at least eight hours every day. Photo: Bart Pfankuch, South Dakota News Watch.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, 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.
It's been awhile since Bluestem posted about ethanol CO2 pipeline projects proposed for this region.
I'll begin this brief digest with AgWeek reporter Jeff Beach's story in today's Alexandria Echo Press, Without eminent domain, Summit pipeline route in Minnesota looks different (see map above). Beach covers the first Minnesota Public Utilities Commission meetings on the Summit Carbon Solutions carbon capture pipeline on May 2 in Breckenridge and May 3 in Fergus Falls:
Unlike other statesalong the Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline route, Minnesota does not allow the use of eminent domain to help secure right-of-way for the carbon capture project.
One effect of that is a more jagged route, making 90 degree turns and following section lines rather than angling across fields.
“So we work with all of the landowners, we have since day one,” said John Satterfield, director of regulatory affairs for Summit. “We've made really, really nice offers in our opinion, for right of way agreements across people's property to site our pipe in Minnesota.
“We've worked with these landowners here without this eminent domain thing that keeps on being brought up. It's a very emotional topic and discussion,” Satterfield said.
“Some things that are a result of that though is that we have lots of 90 degree angles. … So there's actually more pipe going to be laid than what would be necessary if we were to go in a straight line, and so, more digging.” . . .
The project has met some resistance from landowners who are concerned about safety, damage to farmland and the impact on property values. Some environmental groups also question whether the impact of the project outweighs the potential environmental benefits.
Without eminent domain, where a court can force a landowner to provide a property easement for a project with a public benefit, landowners can tell Summit, “no,” and force the company to look for another route.
That’s what Sharon Leinen did when Summit contacted her family about her farm property about 3 miles south of Breckenridge.
“They told me about the pipeline going in and they wanted to do some surveying on the land,” Leinen said in an interview before Tuesday’s meeting. “And I wasn't for it right from the beginning.”
She declined their easement offer, where Summit offers to compensate landowners for the right to cross a piece of land.
“So I guess they know that I'm not going to sign an easement, so they're going to a neighboring piece of land,” Leinen said.
The pipeline will run up to the edge of her property, but then have to cross a road to a neighbor’s field to the south.
That doesn’t mean Leinen’s worries are over, however. She is still concerned about a possible rupture of the hazardous liquid pipeline that’s less than a mile away. She has a daughter who is considering moving back to the farmstead who shares her concerns.
“I've seen videos of one of these things when they rupture, and it affects a four mile radius area. So I would be in that area, so I'm very concerned,” Leinen said.
In a public meeting in Fergus Falls on May 3 in the afternoon, Peg Furshong, who lives near a different section of the pipeline route in Renville County, advocated for a study of what a rupture of a pipeline crossing beneath a waterway would look like.
"Modeling for dispersion in moving waterways is really important because when CO2 mixes with water, it creates carbonic acid and it's highly corrosive and it kills everything in its path," she said. "And so I think it's really important that we make sure that we have a studies commission for that, because Minnesota's natural heritage is our water."
Summit has touted the safety record of pipelines; however there was a liquid carbon dioxide pipeline rupture in Mississippi in 2020 that sent more than 40 people to the hospital.
Liquid carbon dioxide pipelines have to be built to federal standards. However the agency that sets those standards, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, is in the process of updating the regulations. . . .
Read the rest at the Echo Press. Beach concludes:
Other meetings are planned . . . online this week:
May 4: 6-9 p.m. online at https://bit.ly/CO2PipelineMtg . Those interested also can call-in to the meeting at 1-408-418-9388. The password is Commerce1.
A public comment period is open until May 18.
There will be more chances for public comment both before and after the environmental impact statement is finalized, which could happen before the end of the year, according to the PUC's presentation .
A final PUC decision on the Otter Tail to Wilkin CO2 pipeline permit may occur in March or April 2024, but that also is tentative.
Mike Klipfel knew this day would come soon enough.
On April 24 and 25, the Leola resident was named in three separate eminent domain lawsuits brought by Summit Carbon Solutions, the company behind a carbon sequestration pipeline that will chart a course across three different parcels of his land and 300 feet from his family home.
“If they can do it to us, they can do it to you,” Klipfel, who can trace his roots back nearly 140 years in McPherson County, told Forum News Service in a May 2 interview. “And they will if you have something they want.”
Klipfel is one of at least 80 landowners in 10 South Dakota counties, most of them in the northern half of the pipeline’s route through the eastern part of the state, facing eminent domain lawsuits filed by Summit Carbon over the past week.
Since the company has been “unable to acquire the necessary easements by agreement,” it’s seeking to “exercise its right of eminent domain,” the lawsuit against Klipfel reads.
Jesse Harris, the director of public affairs for Summit Carbon, framed these lawsuits as a “next step” in a process that has involved, among other things, “negotiating in good faith and partnering with thousands of landowners.”
“We look forward to continuing to work with regulators, policymakers, landowners and more to advance this critical investment in our economy,” Harris continued in a written statement to Forum News Service.
For most South Dakotans on the proposed pipeline route, contact with Summit Carbon began nearly two years ago. According to some of these landowners, the interactions with representatives of the company over that period of time have been frustrating.
“We can’t get any facts to even make these decisions, nothing is out in the open,” Jared Bossly, a Brown County landowner who is also the subject of condemnation proceedings, told Forum News Service. “It’s a one-way street. They want to get it rammed through as quickly as they can.”
Others recount “intimidating” groups of surveyors, as many as 20 vehicles strong, accessing property slated for the pipeline without permission.
“We don’t have any protections for that in this state,” Klipfel said. . .
State law that allows hazardous liquid pipeline companies access to private land for surveys is unconstitutional because it doesn’t provide compensation for intangible damages suffered by landowners, a district court judge has ruled.
“The damages resulting from a landowner’s loss of his right to exclusive use of his property are subjective in the same way that pain and suffering damages are as it relates to a victim of a tortious injury,” wrote Judge John Sandy, in his Wednesday ruling.
Because Iowa law does not compensate landowners for the duress they incur when they are forced to allow land surveyors on their properties without consent, it violates their constitutionally protected right to exclude people from their properties, Sandy said.
The ruling is the result of a lawsuit Navigator CO2 Ventures filed against landowner Martin Koenig in Clay County that sought a court-ordered injunction to conduct survey work on his land.
Those surveys will help determine the path and depth of Navigator’s proposed carbon dioxide pipeline, which would span more than 800 miles in Iowa. The pipeline would transport captured carbon dioxide from ethanol plants and other facilities for underground sequestration in Illinois or for other commercial purposes.
The lawsuit is one of four that have been filed by Navigator against landowners who have prevented the company from conducting the surveys. Another carbon dioxide pipeline company, Summit Carbon Solutions, has filed similar suits against several landowners.
Those landowners — represented by the same attorneys as Koenig — have all argued that the survey law is unconstitutional. Wednesday’s court ruling was the first to decide those arguments.
“Our client is thrilled,” attorney Brian Jorde said Wednesday of Koenig.
Iowa law allows the companies to conduct the surveys after holding informational meetings about their projects when they provide 10-day notifications of the surveys by certified mail to the affected landowners.
“The entry for land surveys … shall not be deemed a trespass and may be aided by (court) injunction,” the law says.
The law says companies must compensate landowners for actual damage they cause during the survey work, which satisfies a constitutional requirement that land cannot be taken for certain purposes without appropriate compensation, Navigator has argued.
“We believe the ruling is a deviation from existing precedent,” the company said Wednesday. “Similar survey statutes have been recently reviewed and deemed constitutional by courts in surrounding states.”
Navigator said it will appeal the Wednesday decision.
A Boone County landowner unsuccessfully challenged the Iowa law in 2015 amid land surveys for the Dakota Access oil pipeline.
In that case, another district court judge said: “The activity is not a permanent physical invasion or occupation of (the owner)’s property.”
Jorde has argued the law is deficient in properly compensating landowners because the companies decide the amount of compensation that is necessary for property damage.
In his Wednesday ruling, Sandy went further and said the mere forced entry onto private land deserves compensation, regardless of physical damage.
His rationale relies on a 2021 U.S. Supreme Court ruling about a California regulation that gave labor unions access to agricultural properties to solicit employees. The court decided in a 6-3 opinion that granting such access to the labor organizations amounts to a temporary taking of land.
Sandy noted that past decisions about Iowa survey law happened before that ruling.
He wrote that the law “results in a per se government taking without providing just compensation, in violation of … the Iowa Constitution and the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The court can find no other reasonable interpretation in which (the law) passes ‘constitutional muster.’”
Sandy also denied Navigator’s request for an injunction.
In a parallel case in Woodbury County involving Navigator and another set of landowners, a judge is poised to rule on the constitutionality of the law. It’s unclear whether Wednesday’s decision will have any effect on that case.
A final note
While it's not about the ethanol CO2 pipelines, but biofuels themselves, Art Cullen's latest column, Buying time for biofuels, is worth our readers' time. Who can resist this from Storm Lake:
. . .You can’t just pull the plug on ethanol and corn markets. It would be an economic disaster. But neither should we delude ourselves into thinking that we can pin our prosperity around corn ethanol burned by the ground transportation fleet. Our biofuel infrastructure needs help on transitioning to its next phase, not spending all our political capital defending the old structure.
There are ethanol plants in Kansas depending on those tax credits when they scarcely have enough water to grow corn, much less distill it.
If we didn’t grow corn where it doesn’t belong we would not need an ethanol market to suck up the excess. Nature is taking care of that, along with our help. The more soil we ship down the river, and the more we raise the temperature by burning fuel, the fewer bushels we will yield. . . .
Map: The proposed route of the Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline through Otter Tail and Wilkin counties in Minnesota. The liquid carbon dioxide would flow west into North Dakota.
Courtesy / Summit Carbon Solutions
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, 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.
I watched Tuesday's House floor debate of Hf2, which would provide paid family and medical leave for Minnesota workers, and was surpised by some of the rhetoric.
For an example of what I mean, here's a video tweeted by DFL communications staffer Brian Evans:
Minnesota workers would be able to take up to 12 weeks of paid family leave and 12 weeks of medical leave under a closely watched bill that passed the House on a largely party-line vote on Tuesday.
The bill (HF2) would bring Minnesota in line with all high-wealth nations and 11 other states that ensure workers have paid time off to care for newborns, help sick family members or recover from serious illnesses or injuries.
“At the heart of this bill is a recognition of our universal humanity,” said Rep. Ruth Richardson, DFL-Mendota Heights, and author of the bill. “A recognition that at some point in our lives, we or our loved ones are going to need time to bond, to heal, recover or navigate providing care for a loved one.”
The benefit would be available to workers beginning in July 2025 and would be funded through payroll taxes on employers and workers. It would be administered through the state’s Department of Employment and Economic Development, like unemployment insurance.
Workers would receive a percentage of their salary up to the state’s average weekly salary, which would be about $1,300 in 2023. Employers may opt out of the state-run program if they offer paid leave benefits that are equal or more generous than the state’s.
Providing paid leave is a core part of state Democrats’ plan to expand social benefit programs, including a public health insurance option, free school lunches to all students, a robust child tax credit and unemployment benefits eligibility for hourly school workers.
Republicans, who lost control of the Senate in the midterms, have been unable to stall Democrats’ agenda, other than offering heaps of scorn during lengthy floor debates.
“You’re like a drunk on a spending spree,” said Rep. Kurt Daudt, R-Crown, during the House floor debate on Tuesday, to audible groans. “I’m sorry I have offended all the drunks by comparing you to a Democrat.”
Two Democrats — Reps. Dave Lislegard of Aurora and Gene Pelowski of Winona — voted against the bill.
Studies show paid parental leave is associated with a host of positive outcomes, including lower rates of infant mortality, higher rates of breastfeeding, and overall better health for mothers and children. Paid medical leave may also improve health outcomes and provide an economic safety net for workers who are recovering from serious illnesses like cancer or caring for a sick family member.
Paid family and medical leave has broad support among the vast majority of the public, although Democrats and Republicans are divided on how generous the benefits should be and who should foot the bill.
Under the Democratic proposal, Minnesotans would be able to take up to 12 weeks of leave to recover from pregnancy or serious health condition and up to 12 weeks of leave to bond with a newborn or care for a family member.
Workers would not be able to take more than 18 weeks of family and medical leave combined in a single year unless they had serious pregnancy complications.
The bill has drawn enthusiastic support from unions, progressive faith groups, the AARP and small businesses represented by the Main Street Alliance, and fierce opposition from other business groups, including the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce and the Minnesota Business Partnership.
Republicans railed against the price tag on the bill, which includes $128 million in start-up costs and $668 million in seed funding for the benefits account. That includes hiring more than 400 full-time state employees, according to a state estimate.
The program would be entirely funded by payroll taxes after the state begins collecting premiums from employers in July 2025.
Republicans also expressed doubts that state workers would be up to the task, evoking the specter of another plagued roll-out like the health insurance marketplace MNsure or car tab program MNLARS.
Once the program launches in 2025, the state estimates it will cost about $1.2 billion a year, which will be paid for entirely through a 0.7% tax on employees’ wages, half of that paid by the worker, and the other half by the employer.
Those estimates weren’t available to lawmakers until after the bill had passed through several committees, which Republicans said was reason to delay its passage. They also expressed doubt in the state’s cost estimates, arguing it potentially underestimated how much leave workers would take.
Republicans’ own version of a paid family and medical leave, which they introduced Tuesday, would give tax incentives to small businesses to enroll in an insurance program administered by a private company selected by the state. Workers would be able to receive up to 67% of their wages for up to 12 weeks per year.
Republicans boast that the program wouldn’t increase taxes and isn’t a “one size fits all” mandate because enrolling in the coverage would be voluntary. If a business decided not to carry the paid family and medical leave, an employee could purchase the coverage on their own for $5 per week.
“This is a really good deal,” said Rep. Dave Baker, R-Willmar, who authored the proposal. “It’s not forcing something down someone’s throat.”
Richardson said the Republican plan wouldn’t change the status quo that low-income workers, people of color and rural residents are the least likely to have paid time off.
“Caring for yourself shouldn’t be about luck. Caring for your loved ones shouldn’t be about luck,” Richardson said. “I want to have the most inclusive leave (policy) that is not leaving people out because of the types of jobs that they’re in.”
Baker based his proposal after New Hampshire’s approach to paid leave, which he said has been a success.
Richardson pointed out that just 149 employers in New Hampshire signed up for family and medical leave insurance. Those companies employ just 6,100 of the state’s 600,000 workers. New Hampshire also enrolled its own 9,000 permanent employees, as Minnesota would do with its more than 50,000 workers under the Republican plan in order to lower the cost of the insurance.
Richardson also said employers and workers in New Hampshire pay more for worse coverage than Minnesota workers would receive under their plan. In New Hampshire, workers receive 60% of their weekly wages for up to six weeks.
Republicans balked at that claim and said Minnesota’s program will likely be underfunded and lead to higher tax hikes in the future.
Washington state, which served as a model for the Democratic bill, greatly underestimated how many workers would use the benefit, and the program ran up a $8.7 million deficit. Since launching the program in 2020, Washington has raised payroll taxes from 0.4% to 0.8%, just a hair over the 0.7% proposed in the Minnesota bill.
The DEED commissioner would be able to raise payroll taxes to maintain the program’s solvency. Under the Senate version of the bill, the commissioner would not be able to raise taxes beyond 1.2% of a worker’s taxable wages.
Democrats say the state is incurring significant human and economic costs in not guaranteeing paid leave for workers, and that they’re confident in the quality of their bill.
“This is one of the most thoroughly vetted bills I’ve ever seen,” said House Majority Leader Jamie Long, DFL-Minneapolis. “As Minnesotans, we value family. We value taking care of each other.”
The paid family and medical leave bill is one or the other, depending on who’s opining about it.
Rep. Ruth Richardson (DFL-Mendota Heights) sponsors HF2 to establish a state-run insurance program that would provide Minnesota workers up to 18 weeks leave of paid leave each year for family or medical purposes.
Calling it a boon for the state, she said the bill would reduce the workforce shortage by making it easier for people to take jobs knowing they would have the flexibility to take time off for family or medical issues.
“Paid leave is one of the top three policies people prioritize when considering a state for relocation,” she said.
Republicans say it would be a bane for small employers who wouldn’t have enough employees on staff or be able to quickly hire new workers to cover the duties of employees taking paid leave. They also dislike new taxes the bill would place on employers and employees.
The House passed the bill, as amended, 68-64 Tuesday night. The bill now goes to the Senate.
A matter of ‘our universal humanity’
“At the heart of this bill is a recognition of our universal humanity,” Richardson said. “A recognition that at some point, we or our loved ones are going to need time to bond, to heal, recover, or navigate providing care for a loved one with a serious health condition.”
She successfully offered an amendment to permit an additional six weeks of pregnancy leave above the 18-week maximum if there are complications with the pregnancy.
Richardson said this “long-overdue safety net” is needed because current leave programs are inconsistent and there are racial and socioeconomic disparities among those who have or do not have access to leave.
“Our current system design reinforces the notion that only some people are worthy of care; only some people are worthy of time off to rest, or to recover, or to care for their families,” Richardson said. “This bill will reject that harmful narrative and begin to build a long overdue and a much more inclusive safety net.”
It’s ironic, she said, that high-income people working for large corporations who can better manage a financial crisis are more likely to have employer-paid leave plans, while low-income people who may be one paycheck away from financial devastation do not.
Leave benefits would be unattached to a specific job or employer, which Richardson said would be particularly helpful to self-employed or gig workers, who could opt into the program.
Benefits would be available starting July 1, 2025.
During the many hours of debate on the bill, Republicans returned often to two themes: A state-run “one-size-fits all” leave program is especially burdensome to small businesses, and that it should be optional.
“House File 2 is a mess,” said Rep. Danny Nadeau (R-Rogers). “There’s too many unknowns. We don’t know what the impacts are, we don’t totally know what the costs are. And if we’re trying to target a population that’s underserved, I would suggest we do the hard work and create a program that serves that population rather than instituting a mandate across every business in this state that’s going to cripple them.”
What’s in the bill?
Benefits would be available to an employee unable to work due to a family member’s serious health condition, a qualifying exigency, safety leave, bonding leave, or the employee’s own pregnancy, pregnancy recovery, or serious health condition.
A self-funding family and medical insurance benefit account modeled after the state’s unemployment insurance fund would be created.
A $668.3 million allocation in seed money is called for in fiscal year 2024 before money collected via a new tax on employers and employees would fund the family and medical benefit insurance account to be overseen by a new Family and Medical Benefits Insurance Division within the Department of Employment and Economic Development.
Employers would be allowed to institute private plans and not be required to pay premiums into the state program. However, private plans would need to meet or exceed all the same rights, protections, and benefits provided to employees under the state plan.
Republican counteroffer rejected
Rep. Dave Baker (R-Willmar) unsuccessfully offered a delete-all amendment to substitute a Republican plan that would not mandate employers to offer a leave plan, but would let them voluntarily participate in a plan offering the same leave benefits that state employees currently have.
Baker said small businesses would be incentivized to participate in the plan through tax credits. The private sector would operate the program, not state government.
“HF2 mandates a new payroll tax that will impact everyone earning a paycheck in Minnesota and the massive government agency it creates is not something that Minnesotans are asking for,” Baker said in a statement.
Richardson said the amendment is modeled after New Hampshire’s paid leave program, which she said has higher premiums and offers fewer benefits to employees.
Other Republican objections were laid out in five unsuccessfully offered amendments that would:
exempt employers with fewer than 50 employees from being required to participate in the state paid leave program;
delay implementation of the paid leave program until the state completes an actuarial analysis to determine if it can be sufficiently self-funding;
exempt employers from participating in the state plan if they have private plans with 67% of the rights, protections, and benefits provided to employees under the state plan; and
Heckova show. Watch the seven-hour debate via the Minnesota House Information YouTube channel below:
The Minnesota Reformer article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
Photo: Supporters of paid family and medical leave rally in front of the House Chamber on May 2, 2023. Photo by Andrew VonBank/Minnesota House Info/ via Minnesota Reformer.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, 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.
Bluestem's been following the MMIW/R movement for many years and welcomes this graphic recognition of the epidemic of missing and murdered Indigenous people. Our partner, a Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate elder, has lost an aunt and a cousin.
Via press release:
Minnesota's first-in-the-nation Missing and Murdered Indigenous Relatives (MMIR) Office is publicly releasing the poignant image that will directly identify its work moving forward. Director Juliet Rudie and her staff worked with an Indigenous firm over several months, and took great considerations, to create the MMIR Office logo.
“Our goal was to have our logo recognize the growing epidemic of missing and murdered Indigenous people," Rudie said. “We hope this image brings a renewed awareness to the crisis affecting Indigenous people across Minnesota while evoking a sense of hope for a better and brighter future without violence, poverty, racism and injustice."
The main element of this logo features a gender-agnostic Indigenous person accompanied by a powerful image that many people associate with this movement of missing and murdered Indigenous people. The iconic red handprint is placed over the person's mouth. In addition to the color red, the MMIR Office wanted to incorporate various shades of teal to represent awareness, prevention and support of sexual assault survivors. Finally, the person sits in front of a red circle representing the sun, which signifies a new day and new beginnings for Indigenous people everywhere.
This logo release comes just days before the May 5 National Day of Awareness for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Relatives. Indigenous people make up just 1 percent of the state's population, but between 2010 and 2019, 9 percent of all murdered girls and women in Minnesota were American Indian.
“These may be shocking statistics, but I urge you to think about them in a different way," Rudie said. “These victims are not just numbers, but human beings with families, jobs, dreams and futures."
In its first two years of existence, the MMIR Office has welcomed a staff that has accomplished key projects to reach the ultimate goal of reducing and eliminating violence against Minnesota's Indigenous people. These accomplishments include:
Working with families who have missing or murdered loved ones by supporting and guiding them during a law enforcement investigation and connecting them to victims service professionals.
Building relationships with tribal leadership, victim service providers, law enforcement agencies, and Crime Stoppers Minnesota.
Presenting at public education events and offering lectures to youth, families and the community.
When a loved one goes missing or is murdered, the fear and grief can be overwhelming. Our office is here to help support and guide families and communities through this horrific time. For Minnesota's Indigenous population, the pain is compounded by the epidemic of violence their communities continually face. Understanding the root causes of violence, such as racism, colonization, and historical trauma, is key to identifying solutions of prevention and reduction.
In 2019, the Minnesota Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women (MMIW) Task Force and Wilder Research provided a report to the state legislature. The report included mandates aimed at reducing and ending violence against Indigenous women, girls and Two-Spirit people. As a result, the legislature created the MMIR Office to provide support and resources for affected indigenous families and communities.
Gov. Tim Walz signed into law the legislation to establish the MMIR Office in 2021. Staff are housed in the Department of Public Safety Office of Justice Programs (OJP) and will work to implement the recommendations of the MMIW Task Force.
. . . Rudie said Tuesday that she and her staff worked with an Indigenous firm over several months and took great considerations to create the office's logo.
"Our goal was to have our logo recognize the growing epidemic of missing and murdered Indigenous people," she said. "We hope this image brings a renewed awareness to the crisis affecting Indigenous people across Minnesota while evoking a sense of hope for a better and brighter future without violence, poverty, racism and injustice."
Over the past year, Rudie has spent much of her time visiting tribal communities across Minnesota, helping build relationships with tribal leadership, victim service providers, law enforcement agencies, and Crime Stoppers of Minnesota. Rudie said during the news conference that the issue of missing and murdered Indigenous people is something that can only be tackled with a 360-degree approach.
"It has to be a community restorative justice process," she said.
Rudie's advice to the public is to learn about the issue but understand the other underlying issues such as domestic abuse and sexual assault. She also said that people need to be supportive of advocates and agencies helping victims. . . .
Rudie, a Lower Sioux Indian Community tribal member, has 28 years of law enforcement experience and is currently working on a project with Wilder Research focusing on Brandon's Law, a law passed by the Minnesota Legislature in 2009 that specifically states there is no waiting period to report a missing person, even if the reporting party isn't in the correct jurisdiction. The law was passed in order to help family members quickly obtain assistance from law enforcement. . . .
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, 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.
Recent Comments