Bluestem's been following Minnesota's nitrate pollution problem in the posts at the bottom of this post.
I always welcome the wisdom of Jean Wagenius, a retired Minnesota House member who worked for strong environmental policy. Her commentary on the larger issue of regulatory capture of Minnesota's agencies is a must-read.
From the Minnesota Reformer:
Knowing the history of regulatory capture on ag pollution can help us end it
By Jean WageniusFor 30 years, Minnesota governors of three parties have watched as groundwater used for drinking water has become more and more contaminated with agricultural chemicals. That despite a 1989 goal in law that groundwater be maintained in its natural condition, free from any degradation caused by human activities.
Now, a large but unknown number of Minnesotans, including children, are drinking water that is so polluted that it is not safe. State agencies abandoned them.
Understanding why
Most of Minnesota’s strong environmental protection laws were passed in the 1970s with bipartisan support. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency was created to be a regulatory agency to enforce standards, including water quality standards.
Things began to change in 1991 when Gov. Arne Carlson picked Chuck Williams to be his first PCA commissioner. Williams’ career started in the mining industry; when he left PCA, he joined a mining company as vice president.
This happened at a time when corporate interests were renewing their insistence that the government should act “more like a business.”
Williams viewed those seeking permits to emit pollution as “customers” of the PCA. Over time treating polluters as customers morphed into letting polluters volunteer not to pollute — putting the polluters in charge.
This approach spread to other agencies. Four examples tell the story of what happened to our waters.
The Minnesota Department of Health
When pollutants are found in Minnesota’s groundwater used for drinking water, MDH can use formal rulemaking to create safe drinking water standards called “Health Risk Limits.” MDH has created 162 health risk limits. But today MDH repeatedly tells polluters that it won’t enforce the limits, and that other entities that deal with drinking water can use them — or not — in their decision making. MDH says the limits are just guidance, not regulations that would ensure that drinking water is safe.
The limits are for many different pollutants. That includes pesticides — which can steal a child’s potential — found in Minnesota’s groundwater used for drinking water. The limits are health based, and they are meant to protect infants and children as well as adults, as required by Minnesota law. MDH stands by their accuracy, but doesn’t enforce them.
MDH does enforce federal standards, but there has not been a new federal standard since 2001 and the federal nitrogen standard doesn’t consider strong links between nitrogen and a suite of cancers and other diseases.
MDH’s policy of no enforcement, zero transparency, and no accountability protects polluters, not Minnesotans, especially not Minnesota’s infants and children who are more vulnerable.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
In 2010, when the nitrogen problem in Minnesota’s surface waters was obvious and getting worse, the Legislature gave the pollution control agency money to create a nitrogen standard that would protect aquatic life from the toxic effects of high nitrate concentrations. The PCA said they could create a standard in three years, but 13 years later, they still haven’t.
After the PCA determined that 73% of the nitrogen problem came from agriculture, state agencies chose to create incentives for farmers to voluntarily reduce nitrogen pollution instead of creating the nitrate standard required by law. Agencies have spent over $1 billion in Clean Water Legacy dollars. But the nitrogen has increased. Their failure to regulate is both harming aquatic life and costing taxpayers who are now paying for nitrogen removal at water treatment plants.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
A recent New York Times article reported that during the drought in the summer of 2021, big farmers “cranked up their powerful irrigation wells, drenching their fields with so much water that they collectively pumped at least 6.1 billion gallons more groundwater than allowed under state permits.”
The Times quoted a DNR hydrologist supervisor: “We may not be leaving enough groundwater for future generations.”
But Minnesota law says the DNR commissioner may issue water-use permits for appropriation from groundwater “only if the commissioner determines that the groundwater use is sustainable to supply the needs of future generations.”
DNR isn’t enforcing the law that protects future generations.
The Minnesota Department of Agriculture
Jennifer Bjorhus wrote in the Star Tribune: “In 20 communities around Minnesota, the drinking water supply is so contaminated with toxic nitrate from farm pollution that the state has the obligation to change the way farmers fertilize their fields. Yet four years after the state adopted its Groundwater Protection Rule, the Department of Agriculture has produced plans to help only three of those communities.”
Nitrogen isn’t just a water problem; it’s a climate problem. Roughly 25% of Minnesota’s greenhouse gas emissions are from agriculture — almost half of that from nitrous oxide.
But the response from Commissioner Thom Petersen of the Department of Agriculture shows he is moving only at the pace preferred by the agricultural chemical industry. He said, “We’re moving on it. I know it’s not going to be fast enough for the environmental groups.”
Environmental groups? It’s Minnesotans who have been drinking polluted water for years. And will continue to do so while the commissioner continues to stall. The ag department knows that a large but unknown number of private wells have nitrates over the health risk limit. It also knows that where there are nitrates, there are pesticides — the more nitrates, the more pesticides.
By failing to reduce pollution or make the agricultural chemical industry pay to clean up its pollution, MDA placed the burden of cleanup on the victims. Some Minnesotans don’t even know their drinking water is polluted. Others don’t have the money to clean up water before they drink it.
In response to a legal petition from the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy and 10 other groups, the federal Environmental Protection Agency has now intervened and told state agencies they must provide free safe drinking water to residents of Minnesota’s Karst area when their drinking water is above the federal health risk limit.
The EPA has also told state agencies they must reduce the nitrogen getting into groundwater used for drinking water. State agencies have responded saying they will provide safe drinking water, but have not yet committed to reducing the pollution causing the problem — even as state agencies are considering recommending rules that will increase the use of ethanol from corn, a heavy user of nitrogen.
Minnesotans’ health suffers while the agricultural chemical industry profits from the gross over-application of nitrogen to grow corn. It’s not farmers who benefit. They are pushed to spend more money on excess nitrogen.
Gov. Tim Walz chooses his legacy
“Regulatory capture” is often used to describe agencies becoming allies of the polluting industries they are supposed to regulate and helping those industries instead of protecting the public. But there is more nuance to “regulatory capture.” An agency doesn’t control itself, the governor does.
Gov. Tim Walz did not create regulatory capture in Minnesota. He inherited this system that has persisted from the 1990s through all the administrations of three political parties until now.
Minnesotans are paying dearly for regulatory capture while the agricultural chemical industry profits. We are suffering the consequences with our health, our tax dollars, our places to recreate, an aquatic habitat that is toxic, and more greenhouse gas emissions.
Walz could change that by telling his agencies to enforce the laws that protect Minnesotans and by helping farmers reduce their costs for agricultural chemicals.
It will take leadership. And a willingness to put the interests of Minnesotans over the interests of the agricultural chemical industry.
This commentary is partly adapted from a speech Wagenius made to the Lake Pepin Alliance.
This Minnesota Reformer article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
Photo: An aerial view of the Mississippi River-Lake Pepin watershed. Photo courtesy of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
Related posts
- Office of Legislative Auditor places MPCA nitrate rulemaking on list of possible 2024 audit topics
- Land Stewardship Project applauds court’s support of Winona County; launches ‘Story Center Powerline’ initiative for rural residents
- Minnesota district court rules against Winona County dairy expansion; owner will appeal
- Agweek Special Report on Rural Health: 10% of MN private wells pose a health problem
- This is fine: update on MN state agencies' response to EPA letter on karst country nitrates
- Following emergency petition regarding nitrate contamination in SEMN karst region, EPA sees further action needed to protect public health
- Though court strikes down EPA chlorpyrifos ban for farmers, product still illegal on MN state lands
- On ‘Cancer Road,’ a group of southeastern MN families ask if nitrate exposure is to blame
- Strib scrutinizes MN Department of Ag action on nitrate-related Groundwater Protection Rule
- Nitrates in Southwestern Minnesota water: 'Do not give the water to infants' in Ellsworth
- Commentary from MinnPost: Can the state control nitrates in Minnesota waters?
- Minnesota Department of Health isn’t properly enforcing drinking water law, and kids will suffer
- Jean Wagenius: For climate and clean water, state agencies need Walz to lead
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.
Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.
I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6
Comments