Plan to attend the public hearing June 30 and help spread the word! It's particularly important for residents of rural areas of Winona County where frac sand operations have been proposed -- like the Saratoga Township and St. Charles area, The Arches, and Stockton -- to attend and make their voices heard.
The Winona County Planning Commission's public hearing on the frac sand ban will be Thursday, June 30th, 7:00-10:00 pm, at the Tau Center, 511 Hilbert St., according to the page.
Bluestem Prairie is conducting its summer fundraising drive. If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
We've just gotten surprising news that the request by Duininck for a variance was turned down by the Renville County Board of Adjustment and Appeals at this morning's hearing.
In an email to Bluestem, Clean Up the River Environment (CURE) Water Program Coordinator Ariel Herrod writes in part:
This morning, about 20 people attended the hearing, although only 4 landowners were notified. . . .
At the end of the hearing, and to everyone's surprise, the Renville County Board of Adjustment and Appeals denied the variance request, citing the arguments made throughout the morning that issuing the variance would not "maintain the essential character of the locality."
. . .[T]he option still remains that Duininck will sue in an attempt to overturn the decision. However, without such a lawsuit, this mining project has effectively been stopped in its tracks, because residents in the area were given the chance to speak up.
The site, on the floodplain, was close to the Minnesota River and about a half mile from the Joseph R. Brown Wayside Park. The Brown mansion was destroyed in the 1862 US Dakota War. We enjoy taking guests to the Upper Minnesota River Valley to the site, which is also a favorite of geocaching enthusiasts. Please thank the county by visiting its lovely riverside parks and spending some money on your way up or down the river valley.
The wayside park is also within easy driving distance of Upper Sioux Agency State Park and the Swedes Forest and Gneiss Outcrops Scientific and Nature Areas (SNA).
Photo: The Joseph R. Brown Wayside Park is home to the ruins of "Farther and Gay Castle," the Brown family mansion that was burned in the 1862 US-Dakota War. We love to tell the story of Indian agent and inventor Joseph Brown's role in renegotiating treaties (and those terms' impact on the run-up to war) and the courage and eloquence of his French and Dakota wife, Susan Frenier, whose Dakota name is Hinyajice-duta-win (Soft Scarlet Down), in securing the lives of her children and hired hands when they were captured in fleeing the fire.
Bluestem is conducting a mid-August contribution drive. Please give if you can.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
The resignation of Houston County planning and zoning administrator Bob Scanlan was formally announced Tuesday at the Houston County Board of Commissioners meeting by Human Resources Director Theresa Arrick-Kruger. His final day with the county is Aug. 21. No reason was cited during the public meeting and Scanlan was not available for comment on Wednesday, but Commissioner Teresa Walter said he's accepted a new job elsewhere. . . .
Tuesday's announcement ends a controversial era in the state's southeast corner, where some silica sand critics have been so boisterous that law enforcement has removed them from public meetings.
Scanlan was suspended for three days last year by the county board after an independent investigation determined that he retaliated against some people who were opposed to frac sand mining. The investigation, which included interviews with 26 people, concluded that Scanlan had subjected mining critics to bogus zoning violations, sent an angry email to the boss of a citizen opposed to silica sand mining, and violated other ethics and conflict-of-interest regulations while generally acting as an advocate for the mining industry.
Those findings, revealed publicly in March via data requests by numerous media outlets, sparked an uproar among critics, including the Houston County Protectors, an opposition group that's worked for three years to ban all silica sand operations in the county. . . .
The local opposition group issued a press release Tuesday announcing Scanlan's departure with a headline that used 30 exclamation points.
Boese also reports that the Houston County Protectors filed an ordinance amendment proposal Tuesday that would ban all operations related to silica sand. The language was accepted by The board county board accepted the amendment for discussion at an upcoming planning commission meeting.
An environmental group on Tuesday proposed banning large-scale frac sand mining.
The Houston County Protectors offered the county board what the advocacy group described as a “thoughtful, balanced” amendment to the county’s mining ordinance.
Representing the Houston County Protectors, Ken Tschumper told the board the proposed change to the county’s mineral extraction ordinance “resolves much of the controversy … by proposing two significant changes” — prohibiting frac sand mining and resolving problems with nonconforming mines.
“I encourage you to read and study this proposed amendment carefully,” Tschumper told the board. “I think you will find that it is a thoughtful, balanced and substantive effort by members of Houston County Protectors to find common ground among most of the opinions and views on what is workable and what is problematic in Section 27.”
Readers can learn more about the Houston County Protectors at the group's website, The Sandpoint Times. Silica ("frac") sand is used in fracking oil and gas from shale; the boom in this technology has led to a demand for frac sand, which must be mined. South Eastern Minnesota's Driftless Region is home to many sand deposits.
Photo: A mine in Houston County via Sandpoint Times: "Based on records received from the Houston County Zoning and Planning Department, this is the Mathy Construction Co./Bonanza Grain Inc. Quarry. It is located two miles east of Caledonia, MN. It is one of approximately 120 permitted/existing "construction/aggregate" mines in Houston County."
Bluestem is conducting a week-long, mid-August contribution drive. Please give if you can.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
John Weiss's article in the Rochester Post Bulletin, Frac-sand mining still contentious in Houston County, helps flesh out more of the details about the new complaints against Houston County Zoning Administrator Bob Scanlan.
Scanlan was suspended for five days last year (two days were dropped if he completed some actions) because a long investigation found he had retaliated against frac-sand opponents by trying to use zoning rules against them, shared confidential information with others and gave special treatment by advocating in behalf of others.
Now opponents have filed new three new ethics complaints against Scanlan with the county's Human Resources Department.
• Bryan and Sue Van Gorp and Cory and Jackie Baker contend that Scanlan has undue influence over the permitting of the Tracie Erickson mine near Rushford. "He misrepresented the facts of the case at various levels of government," they claim.
• Ken Tschumper contends that Scanlan was active in writing the mining ordinance that didn't pass while owning a non-conforming shale mine. He could gain financially from the ordinance, so he should have disqualified himself, Tschumper contends.
• Bruce Kuehmichel contends that Scanlan was derelict in his duties by not administering county ordinances that require reclamation plans and bonds. "The absence of a bond puts the county at great financial liability to assume the burden of reclaiming an abandoned mine," Kuehmichel said.
While all of the charges of conflict of interest and preferential treatment (especially of a mine owned by a Houston County deputy sheriff) are troubling, the final new complaint is particularly troublesome in light of the fact that the frac sand industry widely touts its reclamation projects (while downplaying the limit use to which reclaimed lands can be put).
If the development of mining--through the undermining of the will of Houston County citizens through harassment and intimidation--is largely in Scanlan's hands, what are we to think of his statement to the Post Bulletin:
. . .While Scanlan hasn't spoken about the complaints, he has in the past said the ordinance that is now in place is good and has worked well.
Reclaiming the land after mines closed "has never been a high priority for the county board," Scanlan said. And the county doesn't have the staff to do that kind of work, he said. . . .
Echoes of January's pro-frac sand hearing in St. Paul
None of the citizens shoehorned in at the last fifteen minutes were from Houston County, but the episode illustrates the same attitude held by some electeds that somehow Minnesota residents are somehow a nuisance when they raise questions about who is being served--people or corporate interests. Somehow, we doubt the torches will be doused anytime soon.
Cartoon: Angry citizens with pitchforks and torches, Simpsons' style.
We're at the beginning of our spring fundraising drive. If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
Accompanied by excellent tweets by the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy and Friends of the BWCAW, the testimony was split between its presentation by Rep. Carly Melin (DFL-Hibbing), testimony from supporters and opponents, and questions from the committee members.
Committee Chair Denny McNamara (R-Hastings) moved that the bill be considered for possible consideration for inclusion in a larger bill, while reserving the possibility of moving HF1000 forward on its own.
The committee adjourned after nearly two hours and will resume tomorrow at 8:15 a.m., although tomorrow's meeting, which will consistent of only member's questions and comments, will not be livestreamed.
Here's the video. Melin presents, followed by supportive statements from business and industry groups. Around the 48:50 minute mark, Paula Maccabee of Water Legacy led off the opposition testimony given by environmental groups and members of Anishinaabekwe (Ojibwe) bands. Wild rice lays an important part in indigenous culture and believe.
From this morning's post
Written by Hibbing Democrat Carly Melin, the bill would prohibit applying a wild rice water quality standard until the commissioner of the Pollution Control Agency adopts rules to establish criteria for designating waters subject the standard.
A bill for an act relating to environment; prohibiting application of wild rice quality standards until certain conditions are met.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
Section 1. WILD RICE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS.
(a) Until the commissioner of the Pollution Control Agency adopts the rules to establish criteria for designating waters subject to a wild rice water quality standard as required under Laws 2011, First Special Session chapter 2, article 4, section 32, paragraph (b), and adopts the rule as required under Laws 2011, First Special Session chapter 2, article 4, section 32, paragraph (a), designating waters containing natural beds of wild rice that are subject to a wild rice water quality standard and designating the specific times of year during which the standard applies, the commissioner shall not:
(1) apply the wild rice water quality standard for sulfate in class 4A waters to any waters, including incorporating the standard or any requirements based on the standard within any permits, compliance schedules, orders, or other control documents; or
(2) list waters containing natural beds of wild rice as impaired for sulfate under section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act, United States Code, title 33, section 1313.
(b) For the purposes of this section, "waters containing natural beds of wild rice" has the meaning given in Laws 2011, First Special Session chapter 2, article 4, section 32, paragraph (b).
Here's the language of HF853 (Wild rice water quality standard application prohibited until conditions are met) which has been referred to the Mining and Outdoor Wrecks committee:
A bill for an act relating to environment; prohibiting application of wild rice water quality standards until certain conditions are met.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
Section 1. WILD RICE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS.
(a) Until the commissioner of the Pollution Control Agency adopts the rules required under Laws 2011, First Special Session chapter 2, article 4, section 32, designating waters containing natural beds of wild rice that are subject to wild rice water quality standards, the commissioner shall not:
(1) apply the wild rice water quality standard for sulfate in class 4A waters to any waters, including incorporating the standard or any requirements based on the standard within any permits, compliance schedules, orders, or other control documents; or
(2) list waters containing natural beds of wild rice as impaired for sulfate under section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act, United States Code, title 33, section 1313.
(b) For the purposes of this section, "waters containing natural beds of wild rice" has the meaning given in Laws 2011, First Special Session chapter 2, article 4, section 32, paragraph (b).
The bill would prohibit the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency from listing wild rice waters and applying the state's 40-year-old sulfate standard for wild rice until that standard is upheld by a current scientific review and re-adopted by the agency.
The bill specifically prevents the PCA from including the 10 parts-per-million sulfate standard to protect wild rice in any industrial permit issued until the ongoing sulfate study and reassessment is complete.
The PCA is nearing the end of a multiyear effort to determine whether the sulfate standard is needed to protect wild rice and, if so, what lakes and rivers the standard should apply to.
Northern Minnesota lawmakers have complained in recent weeks that the PCA has been including the sulfate standard in draft permits for mining companies even though the evaluation of the standard, ordered by lawmakers in 2011, is not yet complete.
Some mining industry leaders recently told Iron Range lawmakers that their ability to compete with a glut of cheap, foreign iron ore and finished steel could be compromised if Minnesota enforces the sulfate standard.
But Steve Morse, executive director of the Minnesota Environmental Partnership, said the bill is an end run around scientific review of wild rice protections. Similar legislation proposed in 2011 was panned by the federal Environmental Protection Agency as a legislative overreach and a likely violation of the federal Clean Water Act. Lawmakers can't simply undo water quality regulations already adopted under the act, it was noted.
"This legislation would roll back current water quality standards,'' Morse said in a statement. "We think our wild rice and our water deserve better — rules based on fact, not suspended through power politics. Our wild rice legacy depends on it." . . . .
We'll have more about this story as it develops.
Screengrab: Wild rice harvester Winona LaDuke, an Anishinaabekwe (Ojibwe) enrolled member of the Mississippi Band Anishinaabeg who lives and works on the White Earth Reservations, testified against the bill.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
Email subscribers can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen at gmail.com as recipient.
Grassroots organizing by ordinary citizens in a southeastern Minnesota county has resulted in a stunning vote by the Houston County Board of Commissioners to essentially ban silica sand mining for purposes other than local construction and agriculture.
It's a stunning counterpoint to the "informational hearing" that the Minnesota House Mining and Outdoor Recreation Committee held in St. Paul earlier this year in which only mining interests were first invited to speak.
Update: A friend suggested that a good way to illustrate just how rural this grassroots movement actually is would be to add a map that shows where Houston County is in relationship to the rest of the state. The Twin Cities is at the top of the "foot" where Houston County is the toe. Via Wikimedia Commons.
CALEDONIA, MN (WXOW) -Houston County commissioners added language to their mining ordinance that essentially bans frac sand mining.
Houston County would be the first county to ban frac sand mining in both Minnesota and Wisconsin.
The decision came after a two-hour long public hearing Wednesday morning where the majority of residents pleaded with commissioners to put a ban in place.
The language added bans sand, quartz, and/or silica crystals mined for uses other than local construction or agriculture.
Justin Zmyewski, District 2 Commissioner, said "We would like to take a cautious approach and make sure we're studying this thoroughly and giving the citizens what we took an oath to do and that's protect their health safety and well being."
More than 100 people turned out to the public hearing to voice their opinion. 92% of those people called for a ban. . . .
Kelley Stanage, Land Stewardship Project Member, said "Making certain that may's turn into shall's and just making certain that the ordinance can actually be enforced."
The county attorney now must finalize the ordinance. The commissioners also must give final approval. They are expected to do that by March, before the moratorium on frac sand mining expires.
After a heated public meeting, Houston County commissioners made a move on Wednesday to keep frac sand mining out of the county. The commissioners voted unanimously to revise the language in their existing ban against frac sand mining to close loopholes and keep big mining businesses away from Houston County.
We would like to take a cautious approach and make sure that we're studying this thoroughly and giving the citizens what we took an oath to do, which is to protect their health, safety, and well being," said District 2 Commissioner Justin Zmyewski.
An estimated 175 people packed into the Houston County Courthouse to give their thoughts about the controversial practice. The sentiment was nearly unanimous. Commissioners said 92% of people that gave their testimony on Wednesday were in favor of a stronger ban against frac sand mining, with reasons ranging from air pollution and the destruction of Houston County's environment to the motivations of mining companies.
Groups like the Houston County Protectors came out to the meeting seeking a ban. After the meeting, they were pleased with how the commissioners' attitudes switched to meet the needs of the people.
"By just casting that single vote the commissioners were going to change the future of huge numbers of people in this county by banning frac sand mining," said Ken Tschumper of Houston County Protectors. "Apparently they took that to heart."
The new ordinance was sent to the county attorney after the meeting. The commissioners will make a final vote on the new ordinance at their next meeting on February 24.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
While we were off digging into the influence of potato industry money in Minnesota politics and watching the Minnesota legislative session in all its glory, time marched on in the state's industrial sand industry news.
Superior Silica Sands CEO Rick Shearer says the opening last month of the company’s Arland, Wisconsin facility has allowed SSS to “move on.” But, county and local officials are still considering undertaking a truck hauling study originally meant to resolve issues related to a Superior Silica Sands project proposed in North Branch.
Shearer told the Press, “...not to say we’ll never be back (looking) at North Branch” but Superior is pursuing “other options” for accessing rail lines. SSS (a subsidiary of Emerge Energy Services) opened its 2.5 million ton plant in December at Arland, in Barron County, and Shearer explained that this is working out for transport of sand mined in west Wisconsin.
SSS found itself at the hub of too much community conflict, according to Shearer. He added, “We pride ourselves on being positive contributors to the local communities where we operate,” and the political turmoil over the potential for heavy truck traffic between Wisconsin and North Branch, via Taylors Falls, was enough to put the North Branch project on the back-burner.
Read the rest at the Chisago County Press. We'll keep an eye on this one, which has the many lives of a cat.
Minnesota Sands revives, pays for EIS as law demands
A major frac sand proposal for southeastern Minnesota, which stalled two years when the state demanded an extensive environmental review, is back on track with a $130,450 payment made to regulators to fund the first phase of study.
Minnesota Sands LLC delivered the cash in late December for the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB), founder Rick Frick said, and will submit a revised business plan by the end of February involving several related frac sand operations in at least four counties: Winona, Fillmore, Olmsted, Goodhue and possibly Wabasha.
The news prompted immediate criticism from one of the groups that successfully pressed regulators to require an environmental impact statement — the most expensive and thorough analysis the state can mandate for a project.
“This project would be devastating to the rural communities where it’s proposed,’’ said Johanna Rupprecht, policy organizer for the nonprofit Land Stewardship Project in Lewiston, Minn.
She said opponents believe the comprehensive environmental review will “clearly show that this project must not be permitted.” Among the concerns are lung disease from air pollution and contamination of drinking water in the environmentally sensitive karst geology of the region. Rupprecht said the step by Minnesota Sands is “important news because it clearly shows that the threat to southeastern Minnesota from the frac sand industry is still very far from over.”
The Houston County Board of Commissioners moved one step closer to ending their moratorium on new sand mining applications at its meeting Jan. 27. After hearing reports from the county’s planning commission – which recently reviewed an updated mineral extraction ordinance – the board voted to hold its own public hearing on the matter at 10 a.m. Wednesday, Feb. 18.
County attorney Sam Jandt told commissioners that a 10-day notice of the board’s intent to change the mining ordinance must be published prior to a final vote. The last regular meeting before the interim ordinance (moratorium) expires is March 17.
The interim ordinance to give the county time to study the effects of frac sand mining took effect on March 20, 2012. Originally set for one year, it has been renewed ever since.
The issue has been contentious from the start. The county began by forming a study committee on frac sand mining, but that group was disbanded when it could not agree on a plan. A second committee was later formed to draft a revised ordinance which takes the burgeoning frac sand industry into account. That document was completed recently, then changed before the planning commission met.
During the public comment portion of last week’s meeting, several citizens spoke in opposition to those changes.
Michael Fields of Winnebago Township challenged a statement by a planning commission member that “sand is sand” when it comes to high-silica content material.
“Sandbox sand won’t give you silicosis,” he said.
Yucatan Township resident Bryan Van Gorp said that in its current state, the proposed ordinance is no longer restrictive enough.
“The new ordinance throws open the doors and says, ‘Have at it boys,’” (to prospectors), he said.
Bruce Kuehmichel of Caledonia said the altered document represents, “The shredded remnants of good intentions.”
Commissioner Justin Zmyewski questioned some of the last-minute alterations as well. As a member of the ordinance-drafting committee, he noted that the process was not always “quite as transparent as it could be,” and that the group" was not in 100 percent agreement” on the final draft.
Contacted afterward to explain those comments, he said that he discovered four members meeting behind closed doors late in the process – before the rest of the nine-member panel was scheduled to arrive. While that did not necessarily represent an effort by a minority to control the process, some alterations were apparently put forward that lacked the consensus of the entire group, Zmyewski said.
At the regular county board meeting Zymewski shared his concerns with the other county commissioners regarding the process of adapting and adopting the Houston County Mineral Extraction ordinance.
“I’m a little concerned because I’ve walked in on four members of the committee who were meeting in what seemed independent of the rest of the group,” Zymewski told other commissioners. “I don’t think that was the directive of the board and I’m concerned the process wasn’t transparent.”
Zymewski wants to make sure that there isn’t any perceived bias on the part of the committee tasked with writing the ordinance.
Bluestem would also have to wonder if such a "pre-meeting" conformed to the state's open meeting laws. The editor continues:
Money Creek says “scrap”
In a letter addressed to the Houston County Board of Commissioners regarding the draft mineral extraction ordinance, the board of Money Creek Township says “scrap.”
“We, the supervisors of Money Creek Township have reviewed the proposed draft Mineral Extraction Ordinance. It is the opinion of this board that this proposed ordinance should be completely scrapped, and replaced with an outright ban of sillica sand mining in Houston County. It is this, the unanimous recommendation that in light of the recent overwhelming public statements and letters calling for a complete ban on silica sand mining in Houston County, that the County Board and ordinance committee focus on the appropriate language for such a ban, rather than attempting to amend the regulatory draft ordinance.”
We'll see if which Money Creek gets the county commissioners' attention.
Movie still: Pastoral innocent Dorothy threatened by sand in an hourglass. A lot of that going around.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
Late Friday, the Worthington Globe's Julie Buntjer reported in Lewis & Clark water project getting $9 million in federal money that Troy Larson, executive director of the Lewis & Clark Regional Water System, suggests that one option for deciding where the money will be spent is to play legislatures in Minnesota and Iowa against each other:
The Lewis & Clark Regional Water System announced Friday it will get $9 million from the federal Bureau of Reclamation this year to continue to expand its multi-state water pipeline.
The designated funds are nearly $6.6 million more than what had been proposed by the Obama Administration in its 2015 budget. . . .
Just which state will benefit from the $9 million depends on each state legislature’s willingness to approve another federal funding advance.
“Both Minnesota and Iowa are considering federal funding advances this session,” said Larson. “Where that $9 million is used will be based on those funding advances.
“Hypothetically, if Minnesota offers another advance and Iowa does not, we could put that $9 million into Minnesota.”
A decision on where the funds go likely won’t be made until both states wrap up their legislative sessions in May, Larson said. . . .
It sounds as if the Minnesota legislature is eager to snatch this $6.6 million dollars in unexpected cash from the grasp of our competition in the Hawkeye state, since fronting state money as an advance for federal money worked so well last year:
The announcement is good news for the water project, which has been 25 years in the making. The system is now serving 11 of the 20 member communities, with both Rock County Rural Water and the city of Luverne to be hooked in next. Those hookups — the line will actually extend to near Magnolia — are made possible thanks to the Minnesota Legislature approving a $22 million federal funding advance during the 2014 session.
Troy Larson, executive director of the Lewis & Clark Regional Water System, said Friday he doesn’t know yet where the $9 million in new money will be targeted. The funds aren’t enough to build the pipeline to another community, but it will nevertheless result in expansion progress. . . .
Minnesota received all of Lewis & Clark’s 2014 funding of $8.3 million with the legislative action last year.
Buntjer notes that the dribble of federal money into the system is just a drop in the bucket of what's needed to complete the system: "$48 million to bring the pipeline from Magnolia to Worthington and thus complete the last Minnesota hook-ups."
The Lewis and Clark system officials bemoan the drip, drip, drip of federal funds to the system, a chorus perfected ever since former President George W. Bush zeroed out the system in 2003. Republican and Democratic representatives stepped up to claim earmarks for the system until Boehner banned earmarks. Now President Obama's administration has stepped up to deprived the vote-and-potable-water-poor region of dollars to complete the system for the area, cursed by geology.
While each team trades the ball in this partisan blame game, Bluestem's been a spectator long enough to think that it's one of the best illustrations around of partisan games over level-headed policy about basic infrastructure.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
Citizens concerned about the expansion of frac sand mining might get a little time at the end of a House Mining & Outdoor Recreation Policy Committee hearing, but the overview? That's still the domain of industry and citizens aren't happy.
In an emailed statement, [Tom] Hackbarth [R- Cedar] said Tuesday's meeting on silica-sand mining is "purely informational" and "is meant to serve as an overview for panel members."
He added, "There will be a limited time reserved at the hearing for public comment. If, and when, we do hear legislation on silica sand mining or any other form of mining, we welcome and encourage public testimony. Citizens will be notified in advance of all bills heard in committee and we welcome their input.”
But the citizens want equal time, not an afterthought. Carlson writes:
Rupprecht said Hackbarth did invite her to testify before the committee on behalf of the Land Stewardship Project, but she declined because the group wants the public to be given the same amount of time to testify as lobbyists and representatives with the mining industry.
"What's necessary is equal time for members of the public and especially for rural citizens to speak on this with equal notice for people to be able to come up there and participate," she said.
Members of the nonprofit are planning to gather in front of the committee room before the meeting to reiterate their call that the hearing be canceled. Rupprecht said she expects 20 to 30 members to show up. If the hearing moves ahead, she said frac-sand opponents want the committee to schedule another hearing where members of the public will have a chance to testify.
Rupprecht asked, "Why don't they want to hear from people in places like Lanesboro or Houston or Wabasha down here in southeast Minnesota where outdoor recreation is a huge industry and is actually threatened by the potential for frac-sand development?"
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
Do grassroots citizens' groups that have organized out of concerns about industrial-scale silica sand mining have any information worth sharing about the industry?
Not as far as the Minnesota House Mining and Outdoor Recreation Policy Committee is concerned.
On Thursday, the committee administrator sent out this meeting notice:
From: Stephanie Lamphere [mailto:Stephanie.Lamphere@house.mn] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 10:56 AM To: Mining and Outdoor Recreation Policy Subject: 1-27-14 House Mining and Outdoor Recreation Policy Committee Notice
Below please find a meeting notice and agenda for the Tuesday, January 27th meeting of the House Mining and Outdoor Recreation Policy Committee.
Thank you,
Stephanie
COMMITTEE: Mining and Outdoor Recreation Policy
DATE: Tuesday, January 27th, 2015
TIME: 2:45pm - 4:30pm
MEETING ROOM: 10 State Office Building
CHAIR: Rep. Tom Hackbarth
AGENDA: Informational Hearing for Silica Sand Mining from Silica Sand Producers and State Agency Silica Sand Rule-Making Update.
Stephanie Lamphere Committee Administrator - Mining & Outdoor Recreation Policy Minnesota House of Representatives
Given the intense controversy surrounding frac sand mining in Minnesota, this is an extraordinary way to define and frame "information" about the issue.
While there are no silica sand mines in Houston County, the possibility that one might open led to big headlines in 2014.
Houston County Auditor Char Meiners, who also is the Houston County Board of Commissioner's secretary, said frac-sand mining has taken up a lot of the board's time.
"Frac-sand has been huge, there has been a lot of controversy about that," she said. . . .
The article cites the Houston County Protectors, one of several regional groups citizens have created in response to their concerns.
Houston County Commissioner Dana Kjome asked the board during a regular meeting Jan. 13 to consider adding a new section to the county ordinance that controls silica sand mining.
“I've been working on some language on banning frac sand (mining),” Kjome said. “I have with me a proposal, and I'd like the county attorney to go over it...”
That document would not throw out the updated mining ordinance (section 27) that is currently making the rounds of public hearings. However, it would add a new amendment (section 28), Kjome stated.
“I've always been a ban guy... “ he added, citing a 3-2 vote which the board took on March 25, 2014. That motion approved looking into language to ban frac sand mining within the county even as another group worked in parallel to draw up a mining ordinance aimed at regulating the activity.
“I want to get some input from you guys,” Kjome said. “When we get to the end of the process we can vote on your ordinances and possibly vote on this as well.”
The draft of section 28 essentially leaves existing silica sand mines alone, while prohibiting new silica sand mining projects. In that regard, it would resemble a continuation of the current moratorium (actually an interim ordinance) on new silica sand mining permits, which is set to expire in March of 2015.
The size and scale of industrial frac sand mines is cited in the document as being problematic, as the introduction of section 28 states: “The proposed ban is justified by the industrial scale and harmful nature of 'silica sand projects.' The ban is justified because the mining and processing silica sand is more harmful than the mining and processing of aggregate limestone and dolomite. The proposed ban does not distinguish between different end uses of silica sand. The proposed ban does not attempt to prohibit silica sand intended to be sold and used (for) any specific purpose, including for hydraulic fracturing.”
The document also justifies a ban based on seven specific “findings” on aspects the county's zoning ordinance is intended to address, including: “to promote and protect the health, safety and general welfare... to preserve agricultural land, to conserve the scenic beauty of the county, and to conserve natural resources.”
But however much their concerns are aired in local government hearings or the media, it appears that to Chairman Hackbarth, any information citizens groups might contribute simply doesn't matter. Perhaps someone might ask him why this is so.
Photo: What information about frac sand mining might this sign maker contribute? Photo from Houston County Protectors Sandpoint Times.
f you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
Since then, the mine owners have complained that their operation was being singled out, while the DNR replied that this was not the case (see letters below).
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources should be commended for its decisive action to ensure important new laws to protect trout streams from silica sand mining are not ignored. The law is straightforward and requires silica sand mines within one mile of a trout stream to get a DNR silica sand mining trout stream setback permit before mining.
The DNR told the owners of the Erickson silica sand mine in Houston County that mining at their site would require this permit. Despite this, the mine owners started mining without the permit. Acting quickly, the DNR ordered mining to stop, in accordance with the law. . . .
The misinformation about the issue from some Houston County officials is troubling and two issues must be clarified. First, the DNR permit is about silica sand mining. It does not matter what the end use of the silica sand is. The law mandates if a company wants to mine silica sand within a mile of a trout stream, it needs a DNR permit. Anything dug at the Erickson site will be silica sand. Calling it "construction sand" does not change that.
Second, the DNR permit is focused on protecting trout streams. It is up to the DNR to ensure silica sand mines within one mile of a trout stream apply for the permit and set the requirements for receiving one. It is separate from a Houston County land use permit,which also is required. This regulatory structure is common. For example, very large factory farms must receive a local land use permit and a permit from the state Pollution Control Agency. They need both to operate and getting the county permit does not guarantee they will get the state-level permit. Oddly, some Houston County officials seem surprised by this and that Minnesota state law applies to Houston County. . . .
And the DNR responds. Note that the agency is clear that the mine isn't being singled out. The new law was a compromise that lobbyists for the industrial sand industry helped craft.
Image: Map of Ferndale Brook and other trout streams. Ferndale Brook is in the lower left hand corner of the image, via DNR.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
A headline like that might gladden the heart of politician who fantasizes that sand mining builds "empathy" for copper mining projects, and fortunately, Bluestem can assess the reaction of local citizens to the delays that beleaguered corporation is facing at a merciless bureaucracy.
It is my understanding that there was another proposal on the table besides the one by Superior Silica Sands.
Chisago County HRA/EDA was willing to purchase that piece of property outright, market it and sell it.
No worry about silica sand in the air, no excess traffic, less wear and tear on our roads. Sounds like a win-win situation.
This would help with our ESSBY debt. Am I missing something here? To me, it seems like a no-brainer.
I live on Highway 95. I thought I was used to truck traffic. Lately it has increased with trucks transporting sand to Tiller Corp. Add another 250+ trucks to our highway and the downtown area, and the county offer looks excellent.
Our narrow highway downtown, with no expansion available, is a disaster-waiting-to-happen.
Fall back and use common sense.
Superior Silica will be back at the table when permits are received in February or before. Don’t let this mistake be your legacy.
So here’s where my nightmare begins. I recently returned home from Tioga, North Dakota, where I worked for two years in the oil fields. I came back to North Branch to enjoy a safe and quiet life. With property values returning, and jobs more plentiful, things were looking good until I heard that the city wants to put a silica sand trans-loading station in my back yard. Hasn’t anyone here learned of the hazards? Are the citizens of Chisago County prepared to pay for roads that crumble under the weight of hundreds of semis hauling frac-sand? I can’t absorb 30-percent depreciation on my home as a result of this type of development in my neighborhood. . . .
It may not be skullduggery, but it feels that way.
Our city council and mayor want to solve the city’s debt problem that will require a huge balloon payment soon. They ask: Who will save us from the indebtedness that previous councils, mayors and city planners brought upon us when they foolishly purchased the ESSBY land?
Superior Silica Sands to the rescue! This giant corporation is willing to solve the council’s problem by dragging thousands of tons of sand across state lines into our town for shipment to fracking sites. Our council seems to have made up its mind to accept this solution.
The folks who live in North Branch, however, are not so keen to have microparticles of sand floating through town promoting silicosis, fibrosis and other lung diseases, especially in their children. They don’t want to see huge sand-hauling trucks clogging and damaging the city’s roads. They don’t want their property values to plummet. They don’t want to open the door to further harmful developments of the sand industry which will surely come to North Branch as it has to other towns who have signed away their rights to large fracking enterprises.
It seems the mayor and council have decided the safest way to proceed is to keep as low a profile as possible. No referendums. No town meetings. Let the public comment at council meetings be relegated to the end of the meetings after all the votes of the evening have been cast. Don’t supply information on health issues, don’t warn people of decreased property values and don’t publish in the local papers the timeline for closing on a deal that’s already been decided on.
And especially don’t tell the citizens what the city officials offered to Superior Silica Sands that persuaded the company to pursue negotiations with North Branch after it withdrew its offer because of public outcry.
If the council is so set on going against the majority that has objections to the silica sand project, then let it be put on a referendum so we can decide our futures. You are compounding a mistake on the ESSBY project by rushing in with another.
There is a disease called silicosis. It comes from exposure to silica sand. Are these the kind of jobs meant for North Branch? Once you have this disease, there is no reversal. If the sand escapes, and I’m sure Superior Silica Sand will tell us it can’t, what about the rest of the citizens?
I know the council, planning commission and the EDA have already made up their minds and are voting yes, but remember the rest of us and why you are in office – to protect and serve us.
The town is strangled with traffic now by the Tiller Sand trucks making right hand turns from left lanes. They weren’t supposed to come through North Branch. The intersection is not equipped to handle this – yet another costly mistake on the rebuilding of the intersection.
If this is such a good project, stop, think and reassess. All components should be in place before going further.
We’ve talked about a bypass for years, but it hasn’t happened. We’ve always put the cart before the horse.
We’re a small town, not a metropolis. This project is not a good fit. We don’t have room on our roads for expansion. Look around!
So far, more than 3,000 people have signed a petition to stop the trucks, but last week the North Branch City Council voted to approve the deal with Superior Silica. Earlier objections from residents, Taylors Falls officials and the St. Croix Falls Chamber of Commerce seemed to derail the project, and Superior sent letters saying they were no longer interested in doing business in Minnesota.
But North Branch officials reached out to the company, and persuaded them to seal the deal, according to Taylors Falls Mayor Mike Buchite.
“Superior [Silica] Sands said they wanted to be a good corporate citizen and were no longer interested in the property,” said Buchite. “I wonder what North Branch offered to get them to change their minds.” . . .
If the situation in North Branch and Chisago County is building empathy for the mining industry, Bluestem doesn't even want to know what disdain looks like.
Photo: A banner objecting to those trucks.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
Bluestem has been writing about the need to complete the Lewis and Clark Regional Water System in Southwestern Minnesota almost as long as the blog has been around.
Unfortunately, the tristate infrastructure project has been caught in federal political games, enough though the support in all three states has long been bi-partisan. This spring, the Minnesota legislature approved funding to extend the pipeline into Minnesota, although finishing the pipeline all the way to Worthington will require more federal money.
Gov. Mark Dayton traveled to Luverne on Friday to meet with local officials and area legislators to discuss the next steps in advancing the construction of the Lewis & Clark Regional Water System.
Dayton listened, asked questions and offered his continued support to ensure the project continues on course toward completion.
Worthington Mayor Alan Oberloh opened Friday’s discussion by explaining that while the area did get hit hard with recent flooding, it didn’t solve the water issues that Rock and Nobles County are currently facing.
“Even though we had the amount of water that we did just recently, the wells in the Worthington area have not recovered and the need is still there,” Oberloh said. “(However) without your help, we wouldn’t be where we are at with the $22 million without your support.”
The Minnesota Legislature approved $22 million in May for Lewis & Clark in its biennial bonding bill. Troy Larson, executive director of the water system, told Dayton and others at the meeting where the $22 million will go in terms of the project’s timeline.
Globe staff writer Erin Trestor reports that Luverne should be online by the fall of 2015, while the line should make it to Worthington by 2018, provided federal money flows.
Read the rest at the Globe.
Photo: This will stop being the pipeline to nowhere by the fall of 2015. Photo via MPR.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
With the Republican gubernatorial primary less than a month away, the campaigns are departing from Gaylord B. Parkinson's 11th Commandment for endorsement battles as they try to distinguish their brand for those likely to cast ballots in the August 12 vote.
“I’ve followed the issue a little bit in the papers,” said Kuisle, a farmer of 160 acres between Stewart and Rochester. “You can’t be an expert on every issue, but I think you’ve got to look at all sides. That is a tough one.”
He added: “I think the moratorium, give it six months or a year, to study the issue is a good thing. You need to determine what you hope to protect. Is it air pollution, trout streams, transportation?
“I think one of the big things is that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the DNR, all these groups, there needs to be some coordination between them,” Kuisle said.
He said that the America has benefited from having the increased oil production that has taken place in western North Dakota.
“But there are several things to consider with gaining our independence from foreign oil.
“We need to make sure it’s being done right,” he said. “You want the least amount of environmental damage as possible.”
He continued that consideration needs to be given to the roads and transporting the sands to the railways.
“You want that to be as close a possible,” he said. “The roads are dangerous enough down here in this part of the state; you don’t want to add to that.”
Caledonia is county seat of Houston County, in the heart of silica sand deposits that have provoked much conflict over frac sand mining; in February, the Argus reported that Houston County commissioners unanimously voted to extend a county moratorium until March 2015.
Given that the article is structured by issue, rather than question, Bluestem contacted general manager and editor Daniel McGonigle about the context in which Kuisle made his comment. He emailed us this statement:
"Anyone who has ever interviewed a politician knows that they come to the media with talking points. Mr. Kuisle and the Johnson campaign wanted to discuss things like Obamacare and of course the staple of 'creating jobs.' I wanted to see where he stood on issues more important to the readers of Houston County, the biggest of which is Frac Sand Mining. To be honest, there were no talking points prepared and he tried to respond to the question without the benefit of having been coached by any political advisor, in my opinion. His opponents, who statewide haven't mentioned the issue of frac sand mining or if so only marginally, then pounce on the comments. Typical political spin. I believe Mr Kuisle was speaking about allowing the local authorities time to understand all sides of the issue. As has been done so many times in the political arena, someone's words are being used against them and manipulated to meet their ends. My take away from the interview was any politician who visits a particular area of the state when they are running for a state wide office should fully understand the issues important to the region and come in better prepared...or don't bother scheduling an interview with the paper."
Since Bluestem's editor was taught by her beloved high school journalism teacher at St. Peter High to check out one's own mother's statements of affection, we decided to check that out--although we heartily recommend his pro tip to candidates to fully understand the issues important to a region and come prepared.
Bluestem also would like bloggers writing about industrial sand mining to treat the issue on its own terms, rather than as a proxy for the Range war over copper mining, but in thir rush to read and publish dueling press releases, we fully understand that that might be asking a bit much of their talents.
What have the candidates said about frac sand mining?
Here's what we've found for prior statements from the Republican gubernatorial candidates and Governor Dayton's most recent iteration in Houston County.
•Silica sand mining: “I’m always going to lean toward local control on issues like that, so I would say that there should be little state involvement,” Johnson said, adding sand mining should be done in an environmentally safe way and the state is part of enforcing that.
Some campaigns are saying that Jeff Johnson wants to impose a statewide moratorium on mining for silica sand.
That isn’t true. When Bill Kuisle visited Caledonia, he said that if local governments wanted to put a temporary moratorium on mining to study the environmental impact, that would be their prerogative.
Neither Bill nor I believe that it is the role of the state to force any local government to change zoning regulations against its will or issue permits that its citizens oppose. The state government should encourage economic development, and in my administration we will ensure that the environmental review process is done in a complete and expeditious way. If the mining can be done in a responsible manner then the permits should be issued.
Local governments can and do have a say in these matters, and a Johnson Administration will not impose its will on local citizens making decisions as long as those decisions are legal under state law and the Minnesota Constitution.
That's consistent with the earlier statement.
Scott Honour
Bluestem found no statements prior to the Argus article by Republican gubernatorial challenger and investment banker Scott Honour on silica sand mining or frac sand mining, using both google and Nexis All-News database. We found no statements about sand mining by Karin Housley on the campaign trial. Both appear focused on cooper mining/PolyMet as a distinct issue.
However, Housley did take a recorded vote on the issue last year. Senator Housley voted no on SF786: Frac sand mining moratorium when it came before the Senate State and Local Government Committee on March 6, 2013, according to a page about the vote on Conservation Minnesota's website. The bill never made it to the floor when a compromise was reached by the legislators, lobbyists and the administration; a moratorium was not part of the deal, but local control remained an important piece of the compromise, MPR reported.
Marty Seifert
Gubernatorial challenger and former Republican House minority leader Marty Seifert also addressed sand mining when he visited Southeast Minnesota in June. In Seifert, running for governor, stops in Winona Thursday, Tesla Mitchell reports:
Although it wasn’t on his list of talking points, when asked how he felt about frac sand mining — he has openly supported mining — Seifert said it’s copper nickel mining in northern Minnesota he’s focused on but said generally he’s “supportive of private property rights and for people to use God’s resources in a responsible way.”
We're not sure what that means about the issue of local control, as it' Seifert's job to explain himself. He did provide one more qualifying sentence to the Caledonia Argus during an April visit reported in the Argus article, Gubernatorial candidate visits Caledonia:
In the topic of frac sand, Seifert said, “Generally, I think God gave us natural resources to use properly. I just think you have to make sure you do it right while respecting your neighbors.” Much like mining in northern Minnesota, Seifert said he is confident there is a responsible way to utilize the state’s resources.
Again, Seifert's a bit short on the details, and neither article makes Seifert seem hip to the nuances of the regional issue.
The Red Wing Republican Eagle article, Seifert talks rural, local issues such as sand, is now behind the paper's archive paywall, but we'll see if friends in Red Wing can dig out their old copies of the paper for details. He may have addressed specifics there; the article is not in the Nexis database.
He also touched on silica sand mining in Minnesota, saying he would not be in favor of a statewide moratorium on the practice. He said he generally would support the mining operations, as long as they are done properly and don't harm the environment or area.
That does clarify things someone.
Kurt Zellers
Former Minnesota House speaker and gubernatorial primary challenger Kurt Zellers played gotcha with Kuisle's comments in the Argus, releasing this statement:
In response to a July 17th article in the Caledonia Argus (http://bit.ly/UdbeSF), candidate for governor Kurt Zellers issued the following statement:
“I was surprised to read today’s article in the Caldonia Argus, in which Jeff Johnson’s Lt. Governor pick Bill Kuisle voiced his support for a sand fracking moratorium.
“The Dayton administration has stood in the way of responsible mining for far too long,” continued Zellers. “Our next governor cannot ignore or continue to delay the economic benefits of responsible mining and sand fracking. Putting a moratorium on sand fracking will cost hardworking Minnesotans thousands of jobs.”
Prior to the pounce, Zellers did not bring up the issue that we can find. At least not directly.
Zellers and the Tiller Corporation
While Zellers hasn't made sand mining an issue in the race until now, a December 12, 2013, press release announcing the formation of his campaign's finance committee included the following names:
Chad Sauer, Tiller Corp. Gary Sauer, CEO, Tiller Corp. Steve Sauer, VP, Tiller Corp.
The Tiller Corporation, headquartered in Maple Grove, Minnesota (in Zellers' district), describes itself on its home page:
Tiller Corporation is the holding company for a family of companies dedicated to providing high quality aggregates, hot mix asphalt, and industrial sands to the construction and energy industries. We are proud of our rich history of providing high quality materials and being a steward of the community and the environment. We serve our customers through a series of convenient sites located throughout the Twin Cities metropolitan market. Our divisions include: ...
Barton Industrial Sands, LLC mines and processes industrial sands for the petroleum and natural gas extraction industries.
According to records online at the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board, individuals employed by the Tiller Corp. gave the Zellers campaign for Governor a total of four contributions for a total of $3000. We are unable to determine how much the Sauers have raised for the Zellers' campaign committee. Perhaps it's the thought that counts.
Konwledge of this financial connection between the Zellers campaign and frac sand money may cause troubles for Zellers among voters in conservative areas where protests against frac sand operations have not followed traditional partisan lines: Goodhue County, Houston County, Winona County and most recently Chisago County, where North Branch residents are up in arms about a proposed Superior Silica Sands transloading operation that will come to a city with an existing facility with a trobuled past
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is investigating a company that did not have the necessary permits when it started construction on a silica sand processing plant in Harris. The building is now almost completed.
The plant, which is owned by Tiller Corporation, got the okay from the City of North Branch last year to build the plant, but did not have the proper environmental paper work to move forward. The company says it was an honest mistake. . . .
Two Minnesota companies have been fined for neglecting a massive sand mine spill that flowed into the St. Croix River for five days before being discovered by a hiker.
Interstate Energy Partners, LLC, of Plymouth and Tiller Corporation of Maple Grove were ordered to pay a total of $80,000 for not maintaining necessary dikes and berms in violation of Wisconsin law. The fine-grained sediment spilled from a frac sand mine in Grantsburg, Wis., in April 2012. . . .
The spill drew intense scrutiny from state and federal agencies charged with protecting the river from such mishaps. Ultrafine sand being prepared for oil drilling was washed through a flimsy berm into a nearby creek that funneled it to the St. Croix River. The sand, described as the color of milk in coffee and not native to the river, possibly smothered sensitive fish spawning areas and mussel beds, conservationists have said.
Bluestem suspects that many Minnesotans won't want the piper for whom Tiller is calling the tune.
“During the 2013 Legislative Session, Governor Dayton strongly supported a moratorium on frac sand mining in southeastern Minnesota. Unfortunately, that proposal was not supported by the Minnesota Legislature. Legal Counsel has advised that, absent legislative enactment of the moratorium, the Governor lacks the authority to unilaterally impose his own moratorium.
"However, local jurisdictions, such as counties, cities, and townships, have authority under existing Minnesota Statutes to declare moratoriums on frac sand mining and processing within their jurisdictions. Citizens living in those areas should urge those local officials to enact the measures they favor.
"Last year's law did greatly strengthen state agencies' authority to impose stringent requirements on any frac sand mining in that region. The Environmental Quality Board, DNR, and MPCA are all actively engaged in establishing and enforcing those restrictions.”
If readers have access to other verifiable statements made by Republican gubernatorial candidates about frac sand mining prior to the Kuisle comments, or a post-April remark by Dayton, please send them our way. Please: no PolyMet proxy warfare at the expense of southern Minnesota.
Photo: Aerial view of a frac sand mine in Wisconsin. Photo by Jim Tittle. Used with permission.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
As Bluestem noted in Sunday's post,Frey had a bone to pick with Cheri Pierson Yecke, Robert "Bob" Frey testified before the Minnesota Senate Education Committee on January 23, 2004, (part 1 of the audio tape) speaking against the proposed state science education standards' inclusion of the theory of evolution.
. . .they likes to say that humans probably evolved from bacteria that lived more than four billion years ago, but that's not what we find in the fossil record.
There's this 16-foot tall giant was found with numerous others around the world [Frey had placed a large plastic femur on the table before he started tesfying].
Dinosaurs have always lived with man. Is the rock wrong or is the theory wrong? I suggest to you that the theory is wrong.
Dinosaurs have always lived with man. And here's a plesiosaur that washed up on the beach on Nove Scotia in 2002. This is a juvenile that also washed up on the beach in Lake Erie.
Professor Krisman [sp?} passed on his letter of recommendation attached to the science minority report addressing that biology should be included in the science standards and benchmarks. I suggest doing the same types of revisions for other disciplines in the science standards as well--geology, cosmology, etc.
Reading from the proposed standards from the known fraud evolutionary theory worldviews being scientific fact and teaching real science based upon what can be observed and tested because there's so much good science that can be taught as students develop their worldview and behavior.
I also have a handout that I'd like the committee to have--
Senator Steve Kelley offers to have a staffer get the handout, then asks if there are any questions; Senaor Leroy Stumpf has one. The tape continues:
Stumpf: Mr. Chairman, Now is that --ah--bone, is that actually a real one?
Frey: This is a replica of a real one, the entire skeleton has been found. Numerous of them have found up in Wisconsin, Texas, Egypt, Turkey, around the world. The Bible says "there were giants in the land in those days," in the early days. This shows that things are winding down, not winding up.
Kelley: Thanks very--
Frey: I have about 25 hours of presentation material with lots of slides of dinosaurs, lots of slides of this sort of thing, and also the consequences of teaching known fraud and everything to society.
Does Frey know Allen Quist? Why yes: Quist and former Big Lake legislator Mark Olson spoke in Glencoe about the menace of "the federal curriculum" in 2003 to Citizens for Education Excellence, a group Frey and now state representative Glenn Gruenhagen (R-Glencoe).
Republicans in the district must choose between Frey and Jim Nash, the conservative and rational mayor of Waconia in the August 12, 2014 primary. The winner will face DFler Matt Gieseke in November's general election.
The open seat is a consequence of Ernie Leidiger's retirement; Leidiger is perhaps best known nationally for inviting toxic metal preacher Bradlee Dean to serve as guest chaplain in the Minnesota House. Dean's prayer, which questioned President Obama's faith, was redacted from the record.
We're working on another Frey story that doesn't, so far as we know, involve social issues. Stay tuned.
Screenshot: Bob Frey testifying with his giant bone in 2004.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
According to page 58 of the North Branch City Council agenda for July 14, 2014--posted online at the city's website in pdf form here(see screenshot above)--Superior Silica Sands LLC informed the city on Wednesday that the frac sand mining and processing corporation intends to "move forward with their facility in in North Branch."
While the mayor of North Branch has remained hot for this project, other public officials in the area are not as certain about the fit for their communities, the East Central Minnesota Post Review reports in Commissioners raise concern about pursuit of silica sand project:
The North Branch mayor’s announcement last month that the city would continue to try to persuade Superior Silica Sand to build a trans-loading station in the city’s ESSBY Business Park led to county commissioners weighing in on the issue at the Chisago County Board meeting July 2.
Commissioner Lora Walker asked Nancy Hoffman, County HRA and EDA director, to give the board an update about any correspondence the Economic Development Authority had with Superior Silica Sand during the past few weeks.
She said there wasn’t much movement on that front, but she is aware that North Branch is still looking to bring the business to the city.
County Administrator Bruce Messelt said he wanted to make it clear that the county has been fielding questions about the potential business, but it has not taken a stance on the issue.
“We are resisting taking a lead in this project,” he said. “This is not our project. But we are asking that we be invited to meetings. As of this time, the ball is in the city of North Branch’s hands.”
He added: “To say that we are helping is not accurate. To say that we are opposing or supporting is not accurate. We are responding to requests for information, and we are asking to be a part of those conversations.”
Even though the county hasn’t taken an official position on the possible trans-loading station, commissioners expressed their concerns about the impact it could have countywide.
“I think there’s an inherent danger in having so many vehicles driving through your community,” Commissioner Ben Montzka said.
Montzka added that although the city of North Branch’s tax base could benefit from the business, other areas the trucks would drive through wouldn’t be seeing any of that positive tax impact. . . .
The article does not mention the July 14 agenda and July 9 notice from the company. Read the entriely article at the ECM Post Review.
There was a question on the proposed frac sand trans-loading facility in North Branch. Rep. Barrett said it is a local decision; but there is no way he’d support hundreds of trucks negatively impacting the small town of Taylors Falls, hauling sand between North Branch and mines in Wisconsin. Barrett added, he does support “economic development” and has yet to see the actual sand plant project proposal.
Barrett's assertion is about to be tested. Bluestem will have more as this story unfolds.
Screenshot: From the North Branch City Council agenda for July 14, 2014.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
This post is part of a Summer Reading series about environmental policy in Minnesota at Bluestem Prairie. The series is indended to remind progressive voters that there's more to a discussion of environmental policy than just the debate over sulfide mining in northeast Minnesota.
by Mary Turck
“When I think about a groundwater aquifer, I think of a giant milkshake glass,” Arizona law professor Robert Glennon told MPR. “And when I think about a well, I think about that well as a straw in the glass. “
In Minnesota, we might have too many straws in the glass. Farm irrigation and mining are two obvious straws in the glass. Another is the lawn sprinkling system that runs on a timer, even when it’s raining. Even the water wasted by leaving the faucet running while washing dishes or brushing teeth adds up.
MPR’s great series, Beneath the Surface: Minnesota’s Pending Groundwater Challenge, is visiting Arizona this week, looking at lessons we can learn from that state. Hard to believe, isn’t it? In water policy, Arizona has some progressive policies that can teach Minnesota a thing or two.
MPR’s Dan Kraker, reporting from Tucson, describes their water crisis of 40 years ago, and smart solutions since then — legislation, education, enforcement, but most of all a change in attitude to “a new water conservation ethic.” Among the specifics: Tucson Water’s on-the-spot consultations for individual homeowners, higher prices for water beyond basic needs, requiring efficient toilets, discouraging front lawns and water-intensive plants.
Tucson’s result: declining water use, even as the population grows.
Arizona is drier than Minnesota, but we are developing water problems, too. Both quantity and quality matter in Minnesota water policy: dropping groundwater levels and contamination of lakes, rivers and groundwater.
“Even in the land of 10,000 lakes, water is no longer unlimited. Lakes shrink, groundwater drops, wells go dry or get contaminated. Some cities have to look harder for good municipal water or pay more to treat it. Twenty years ago these were isolated problems. But three-quarters of Minnesota’s residents get their water from aquifer-tapping wells, and today parts of the state seem to be on a path that is not sustainable.”
Irrigation is increasing in Minnesota. Decades ago, irrigation was mostly for dry land farming in other states. Now you can see irrigation systems across Minnesota fields. MPR found that irrigation is a major stress on ground water, and that a lot of it is off the books:
“Of roughly 1,200 crop irrigation wells drilled from 2008 to 2012, more than 200 likely are operating without a permit, a Minnesota Public Radio News investigation of public well records found. In addition, nearly 200 others operated without a permit until the past year or so.”
It’s not just corn — potatoes are a problem in Park Rapids, with water quantity issues complicated by nitrate pollution from irrigated crops.
Water use issues stretch across the country. The New York Times recent water-related stories include:
And that’s not even getting into the issues from significant “accidental” contamination, like the West Virginia toxic spill that left 300,000 people without drinkable water or the North Carolina coal ash spill or the still-lingering effects of the Exxon Valdez (Alaska) and the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.
“As a general matter, far too few journalists around the country pay attention to water. Whereas major papers like The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal throw multiple reporters at energy, the water beat doesn’t really exist, except at a handful of publications, and often as a forlorn subset of environmental or government coverage.”
One of the resources Galbraith cited is Circle of Blue, which has “an intense focus on water and its relationships to food, energy, and health,” and an international scope.
About this post:"Milkshakes and water policy" is crossposted with the permission of the author from Mary Turck's News Day blog. A native of rural Meeker County, where family members still farm, Turck is concluding a long stint as editor of the Twin Cities Daily Planet. Her career in journalism began when she was in high school, writing a weekly column for the Litchfield Independent Review.
Banner logo: A contribution from award-winning St. Paul artist Ken Avidor.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
Editor's note: While Minnesota's discussion of environmental policy seems to have narrowed to sulfide mining on The Range and vicinity--and for the DFL, whether or not to talk about it all--Bluestem Prairie thinks that we have more to talk about when we address concerns about progressive environmental policy in the state.
Afraid of the shadow of the Range, the DFL has reduced "messaging" this cycle to talk of economic issues--as if matter like climate change, renewable energy, soil health and water quality have no relevance to talk of jobs.
Since the environmental discussion seems to have been "focus grouped" out of campaign plans in 2014, it's up to the rest of us to have this discussion. We've asked friends to contribute posts for our summer reading series centered on the question: "What would environmental policy look like if Minnesota were a progressive state?"
Their opinions are their own, just as the assessment of the lack of discussion of environmental issues during an election year is that of the editor of Bluestem Prairie.
During the 2014 Minnesota legislative session, environmental policy victories mostly passed under the radar. For example, some of the most significant and positive policy changes in 25 years took place on recycling.
Rep. Frank Hornstein (DFL-Minneapolis) led the charge with legislation that:
Set a new 75% recycling and composting goal for the Twin Cities metro area by 2030
Requires most businesses in the metro to recycle
Made a substantial increase in grants to all Minnesota counties to support recycling and composting
In addition, Rep. Melissa Hortman and Sen. John Marty expanded a ban on mercury-containing devices and placed a disposal ban on syringes and similar devices, or “sharps” that pose hazards to workers in the waste industry.
There was also an afternoon-long informational hearing in January in Rep. Wagenius’ House Environment, Natural Resources & Agriculture Finance Committee that aired additional topics including extended producer responsibility (EPR) for packaging, composting, and zero waste. The MPCA also released a cost-benefit study on container deposits, although a bill was not introduced.
Minnesota Was Already Above Average
The Perpich Administration created the Select Committee on Recycling and the Environment (SCORE) at the end of the 1980s as old dumps and landfills fell out of compliance from new federal regulations. The results from SCORE and subsequent legislation are something that most states would love to have today.
The legislature required all counties to provide “convenient” opportunities to recycle and for all cities above 5,000 in the Twin Cities metro area to have curbside recycling.
We have a hefty solid waste management tax (SWMT) of 9.75% on household garbage service and 17% on commercial garbage service. Of the roughly $70 million generated annually from the SWMT, 30% has gone to the General Fund (boo), $14.2 million goes to counties for “SCORE” grants, and the rest supports the MPCA’s solid waste activities including cleaning up old landfills.
That landfill clean-up funding and state bonding over the years allowed the MPCA to buy up more than 100 old dumps and landfills and clean them up faster and more cheaply than federal Superfund actions.
SCORE set recycling goals of 50% of all municipal solid waste (MSW) for the Twin Cities metro area and 35% for Greater Minnesota by 1996. The metro has gotten close to 50%, but Greater Minnesota blew past 35% years ago.
That public commitment spurred millions of dollars of private investment. Minnesota’s recycling economy is substantial. Three paper mills (Duluth, St. Paul, Becker) use more than half a million tons of recycled paper a year. A steel mill takes our steel cans and turns them into reinforcing rod for construction, including all the rebar for the new 35W bridge. We have a high concentration of plastic decking manufacturers that use old milk jugs and other plastics in places like Albany, Worthington, and Paynesville. In total, about 15,000 manufacturing jobs in the state owe their existence to a steady stream of recycled material.
We have a budding composting industry that can use more food waste and other compostable material, and some big companies like Walmart (love them or hate them) are pushing for anaerobic digestion of their grocery store food waste to create renewable energy.
Biggest Changes in 25 Years
Rep. Frank Hornstein—who was a Clean Water Action organizer against waste-to-energy facilities (aka garbage incinerators) in the 1980s—suggested to me that we get environmental groups together to see if there was an appetite for legislation to increase recycling and composting. Over the course of the summer we found a lot of interest. Hornstein brought in local government representatives and drafted a bill that would increase our recycling and composting goals for the Twin Cities metro, require metro businesses to recycle, and put additional money generated by the SWMT back into recycling. Much to my surprise, it all passed! Here are the deets:
The seven-county metro must hit a recycling goal (which includes composting) of 75% by 2030. The MPCA had already suggested this goal and now it is in statute.
The MPCA will distribute an additional $4 million next year to counties and $3 million in future years over the existing $14.2 million budget. Half of that must go toward composting. Many cities in the metro are already doing this, especially in Hennepin County.
Most businesses in the Twin Cities metro that generate more than four cubic yards of MSW per week must recycle.
The above items were embedded in the omnibus budget bill. The business recycling requirement was opposed by the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce and Republicans introduced a successful floor amendment to strip it out of the bill. However, Rep. Hornstein had the provision amended on the floor to a different waste-related bill carried by Rep. Melissa Hortman (SF663). Sen John Marty carried the companion bill but the Senate only went with an increased budget to counties of $750,000. The Senate accepted the House language and settled on the $4 million increase.
Rep. Melissa Hortman has been a strong advocate for getting mercury out of the environment. In the 2007-2008 session, she passed legislation that banned the sale of mercury-containing devices such as blood pressure monitoring equipment. (Rep. Erik Paulsen protested on the floor and asked, “What the heck is a sphygmomanometer, anyway?”) Her bill (sponsored in the Senate by Sen. John Marty) this year extends the ban to a wider scope of products. The bill also makes it easier for manufacturers of mercury thermostats to collect old devices and tightens the ban on formaldehyde in children’s products. Rep. Diane Loeffler got an amendment passed on the House floor to prohibit the sale of triclosan in anti-bacterial soap.
I don’t want to neglect the efforts of Rep. Mike Sundin and Sen. Chris Eaton who passed legislation in 2013 to make paint manufacturers pay for the hefty taxpayer cost of recycling and safely disposing of old paint. The paint industry is now behind this kind of legislation and laws have passed in eight states so far. Sundin and Eaton worked with the MPCA to also create similar legislation for carpet (opposed by the carpet industry) and single-use batteries (supported by three of four battery manufacturers), but those provisions were stripped out in Senate committee.
How is Rural Minnesota Doing?
Much of this year’s new legislation focuses on the Twin Cities metro. However, many rural counties have or will receive state bonding funds to upgrade their recycling centers. Redwood County should have a regional center completed soon, and this year’s bonding bill included money for a new Becker County facility.
Open burning of garbage continues to be a major problem, and it is the largest contributor to dioxin pollution in the United States. The MPCA has pushed education on local governments for many years, and the situation has improved somewhat.
To sum up, the state legislature did more in the last two years on waste issue than it has for many years.
Thank you to all the legislators who made it happen!
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
Events surrounding the Erickson silica sand mine in Houston County are moving very fast, and citizen action is making a difference at every turn.
The Houston County Board of Commissioners was scheduled to vote at their Tuesday, June 3, meeting on approving the conditional use permit for the Erickson silica sand mine near Rushford, Minn. Approving this permit would be a violation of state law. The mine cannot be permitted while it remains under an environmental review requirement (see LSP's earlier post on this issue, “EQB Tables Erickson Mine EIS Question,” for details). And silica sand mining at the site would require a Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Trout Stream Setback Permit. Also, there is a moratorium on silica sand mining in Houston County until March 2015. Despite all this, some Houston County staff and officials were advocating for approving the Erickson mine now. The Houston County Planning Commission voted 5-2 on May 22 to recommend approval of the permit to the Board of Commissioners, and the Board appeared ready to make this vote June 3.
But legal action taken by Houston County citizens has stopped this silica sand mine for now, and perhaps will even stop it for good. Citizens filed a writ of mandamus with the court, which was signed by a judge on Monday, June 2. Essentially, a writ of mandamus is a process for asking a judge to order the government to follow the law. The writ requires the county to declare that the original Erickson mine permit has expired, that it cannot be renewed, and that if a new permit is applied for, it is subject to the county moratorium on silica sand mining and to all relevant state law. State law would require the site to receive a DNR Silica Sand Mining Trout Stream Setback Permit, which takes over a year to apply for and includes tough standards. Because the Erickson site is within one mile of a designated trout stream, no silica sand mining may take place there unless the DNR decides to grant this special permit.
Branch Mayor Ron Lindquist is fighting to get Superior Silica in North Branch, it is NOT over. . . . Here we go again. Somehow it is being floated that MNDOT will build an overpass in T[aylors] F[alls], not so says Rick Olseen.
Those who suggested that industrial sand mining would make Southeastern Minnesota's citizens have empathy for pro-copper mining on the Range are probably the same sorts of deep-thinking DFLers who believed e-pulltabs would pay for a Vikings Stadium.
Bluestem will leave it to the party and legislative caucuses to sing their praises, just as the Republicans so fancy mining is a winning issue for them this fall. While both parties squabble over who wins by framing this slag heap as a winning message, Bluestem expects to see more local citizens acting on their communities' behalf at the nexus of local land use and environmental issues.
Photo: The Erickson mine location in Houston County.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
Superior Silica Sands LLC has decided to discontinue any additional effort towards developing a frac sand trans-loading facility in North Branch's industrial park.
In a letter dated May 30, SSS told the city, "It has been a pleasure to work with you. We are truly sorry that this business partnership did not work out."
. . . No reason given by SSS as to why they dropped the proposal, however public opposition to the company's plan, which called for nonstop traffic of large frac sand hauling trucks through North Branch, Taylors Falls and St. Croix Falls while going back and forth to the company's frac sand site near Barron, Wis., had grown in recent weeks.
The letter was copied to the City of St. Croix Falls and shared with members of a grass roots group which gathered a petition with more than 1,400 signatures in opposition to the plan. The petition was presented it to the City of North Branch City Council nearly two weeks ago. The week prior to the presentation of the petition, the City of Taylors Falls sent a letter to the City of North Branch, asking they reconsider selling nearly 40 acres of land to SSS for the trans-loading facility and at least express concerns of the citizens of Taylors Falls, many who pointed to traffic safety, health concerns from potential dispersing of sand and how such traffic would hurt the tourism-based economy in Taylors Falls. . . .
Located in Chisago County on I-35 noth of the Twin Cities, North Branch is home to just over 10,000 people.
Photo: Anti-frac sand mining banner, via Chisago County Press.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen) to P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260 or use the paypal button below:
All of the statements, opinions, and views expressed on this site by Sally Jo Sorensen are solely her own, save when she attributes them to other sources.
The opinions, statements, and views of contributing writers are their own.
Sorensen, editor and proprietor of Bluestem Prairie, serves clients in the business and nonprofit sectors. While progressive in outlook, she does not caucus with any political party.
Recent Comments