Discussion over on Facebook this morning about a District 27A candidate who believes farmers ought to be able to drain wetlands because they pay taxes on them (read the full post on Bluestem Prairie) led to a critique of the Minnesota Corn Growers Association’s new billboard campaign: Farmers Do That.
The focus is basically the same as that cringe-worthy South Dakota Corn Growers Association “True Environmentalists” campaign, but this one’s a little more straightforward to pick apart based on the concrete statements the billboards make coupled with an observation of the landscape surrounding them.
For example, in eastern Chippewa County, an area referred to by many who live here as “the black desert” for its complete lack of ground cover except during the growing season, this billboard appears [see top of our post]
The message: Leave crop residue in fields to secure soil [Farmers do that]. Terk approves of the practice, but questions the reality.
A second story, New ethanol plants to make fuel from 'biomass', made us wonder what the take-away should be from messaging from farm country about ag best practices. Minnesota Public Radio reporter Mark Steil writes:
After years of being on the drawing board, the first commercial cellulosic ethanol plants are scheduled to start operation next year. . . .
One of the first cellulosic ethanol plants is nearing completion just 30 miles south of the Minnesota border in northwest Iowa, where more than 300 construction workers are building a facility for POET-DSM Advanced Biofuels.
. . . Much of the biomass from area farms already is stored near the plant in huge piles, ready to be turned into ethanol. It largely consists of six foot high round bales of corn stalks, husks and cobs. Merritt said the operation will extract sugar from the plant material, and then ferment the sugar into ethanol.
. . . Leading the effort to reduce the renewable fuel standard is a coalition of groups that oppose the policy. Oil industry leaders say the standard is unrealistic because it requires more ethanol usage than there's demand for. Many livestock farmers don't like it because it's helped boost corn feed prices to record levels. Environmental organizations say ethanol-related demand for corn has prompted farmers to grow the grain on marginal land, like erosion-prone acres.
Is that crop residue that was left on the fields to secure soil? Is it better gathered and fermented for ethanol? Is the corn ethanol industry a bridge to cellulosic ethanol plants, as the industry claims--and if so, is hoovering "waste" after harvest a net gain for soil and water health?
Or is there just a piece of the puzzle that the corn growers and ethanol industry has neglected to include in their narratives?
Coming soon to your local sheriff: 18-ton, armor-protected military fighting vehicles with gun turrets and bulletproof glass that were once the U.S. answer to roadside bombs during the Iraq war.
The hulking vehicles, built for about $500,000 each at the height of the war, are among the biggest pieces of equipment that the Defense Department is giving to law enforcement agencies under a national military surplus program.
For police and sheriff's departments, which have scooped up 165 of the mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles, or MRAPS, since they became available this summer, the price [free] and the ability to deliver shock and awe while serving warrants or dealing with hostage standoffs was just too good to pass up. . . .
But the trucks have limits. They are too big to travel on some bridges and roads and have a tendency to be tippy on uneven ground. And then there's some cost of retrofitting them for civilian use and fueling the 36,000-pound behemoths that get about 5 miles to the gallon.
The American Civil Liberties Union is criticizing what it sees as the increasing militarization of the nation's police. ACLU affiliates have been collecting 2012 records to determine the extent of military hardware and tactics acquired by police, planning to issue a report early next year. . . .
An Associated Press investigation of the Defense Department military surplus program this year found that a disproportionate share of the $4.2 billion worth of property distributed since 1990 — everything from blankets to bayonets and Humvees — has been obtained by police and sheriff's departments in rural areas with few officers and little crime.
In addition to the MRAP now in St. Cloud, a half dozen are now controlled by sheriff outfits the Minnesota counties of Dakota, Pine, Sherburne, St. Louis, Olmsted and Wright.
Dakota and Wright Counties are suburban-to-exurban places; Olmsted is home to Rochester, the state's third largest city, while Duluth's in St. Louis County; part of Sherburne is in St. Cloud. Only Pine County counts as purely rural, although its proximity to I35 allows some residents to commute to the Cities for work.
The Wright County Sheriff’s Office has obtained a surplus military armored personnel carrier and is getting the heavy-duty law enforcement vehicle ready to roll.
“It’s basically a big dump truck that’s got a lot of armor on it,” said Lt. Todd Hoffman. “”We picked it up at Fort Bliss, Texas. It came back from overseas.”
The Wright County Sheriff’s Office was placed on a short list for acquiring the 2008 International Navistar MaxxPro Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle because it plays a key role in security planning for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant in Monticello, Hoffman said.
“We’ve been working with the federal government ever since the nuclear plant has been here,” he said. “The Monticello pant, whether we like it or not, is considered a national asset. We have different types of plans for security, and there are different types of contingencies we have to be able to address. This vehicle fit nicely into our plan.”
The Military Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) operates a program called the Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO), Hoffman said. The LESO program assists local law enforcement offices across the country in acquiring surplus military supplies and equipment for no or little cost.
“These surplus fully armored vehicles are now being given to local law enforcement agencies at no cost. The sticker price on a brand-new vehicle is $658,000,” Hoffman said.
Wright County’s armored vehicle arrived Sept. 23 with 13,000 miles on it, he said. The Wright County Highway Department is currently working on the armored vehicle and giving it a thorough tuneup. Once operational, the vehicle will be used by the sheriff’s office and its emergency response team as part of its security plan for the nuclear plant. The vehicle will be used at other incidents if needed.
The Wright County Sheriff's office did remove the gun turret, a spokester tells the paper:
“There are two different types of vehicles,” Hoffman said. “The St. Cloud Police Department decided to keep the gun turret. We decided to take that off as well as some of the armor. Basically, it’s a transport built on an International dump truck frame. It doesn’t have any gun ports.”
Bluestem knew that St. Cloud State's Homecoming got rowdy, but this seems a bit overboard. Over at the Wright County Tea Party ally Wright County Watch, Tom McGregor approved the acquisition, although he had some reservations:
Troubling, in that there now seems to be a 20 year practice of distributing military-grade, assault weaponry to the local level. Here is a description of the Law Enforcement Support Office ( LESO ) program on the MN state web-site
“HSEM is the state administrator for the Minnesota Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO) program established by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) through the Defense Logistics Agency. It allows law enforcement agencies to obtain surplus military weapons, tactical vehicles, aircraft and other equipment for any bona fide law enforcement need at no cost.
All transferred surplus items must have a direct application to the law enforcement agency's arrest and apprehension mission.
Since the inception of the program in 1993, more than $25 million worth of equipment has been transferred to Minnesota law enforcement agencies including the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA), the Department of Natural Resources' (DNR) Enforcement Division, along with 85 county sheriff's offices and approximately 325 local police agencies.”
But ultimately, he's down with it:
In the end however, I guess that until I hear that a 50-caliber machine gun has been mounted in the turret of that armored vehicle, I believe that we are still a long ways away from any danger of Wright County Sheriff’s department becoming an instrument of tyranny and oppression and I have to say that the acquisition of this vehicle is a good thing for the citizens of Wright County and for the men and women in Wright County Sheriff’s department who risk their lives on a daily basis protecting our freedoms and keeping Wright County safe.
That MRAP and the direction of a citizen energy rebellion
Meanwhile, the Wright County Watch is rallying the citizenry against a request by Geronimo Energy LLC to install three solar projects that will supply energy for Xcel Energy, which also operates the nuclear power plant at Monticello.
So, here is your chance, citizen of Wright County, to make your voice heard regarding solar energy in Wright County, but act quickly as a vote on the issue will be taken next Tuesday's Wright County Board meeting. One question that seems germane is: Do we really want our county commissioners, in essence, lobbying for something that ( will most likely be funded with tax dollars ) when there are serious questions about the effectiveness of alternative energy production?
The Commissioners voted to withhold support for the project until the boards of the townships form opinions about the projects, three of thirty-one sites in the distributed solar energy project.
It's curious to see the local Tea Party ally, like legislative Republicans, kvetching about solar energy, while remaining mute about Monticello. Earlier this month, the Star Tribune's David Schafer reported in Xcel Energy seeks a $291 million rate hike:
Xcel Energy asked for its largest-ever Minnesota electric rate hike on Monday but offered ways to soften the pain, including spreading it over two years.
The increase of $291 million is slightly more than what Xcel sought in its 2013 rate-hike request, which utility regulators slashed by two-thirds. This time, Xcel proposed smaller, single-digit increases over two years for its 1.2 million electric customers in Minnesota. . . .
In its regulatory filing, Xcel attributed 37 percent of the requested increase to investments and expenses related to its nuclear power plants. The company’s oldest reactor in Monticello was recently refurbished and one of the two units at the Prairie Island nuclear plant in Red Wing, Minn., is now undergoing a major upgrade.
Xcel said 17 percent of the rate increase stems from transmission investments, 11 percent from wind and other generation projects and the remainder from an array of investments and expenses. Overall, Xcel said its been investing about $1 billion a year in Minnesota.
Earlier articles indicated that the refurbishing of the nuclear power generating plant at Monticello went way over budget, while Xcel sought to pass these expenses on to ratepayers. Shaffer reported in August in PUC slashes Xcel rate hike, votes to probe reactor upgrade:
One question getting special attention is how much Minnesota ratepayers will end up paying for the $655 million project to extend the life and boost the output of the Monticello nuclear power plant. The project ended up costing more than twice the 2008 estimate of $320 million.
Minnesota regulators are hiring a nuclear expert for their investigation of Xcel Energy Inc.’s massive cost overruns during upgrades to its Monticello nuclear power plant.
The state Public Utilities Commission on Thursday decided that a consulting engineer would help the state Commerce Department review the $665 million spent to extend the plant’s life and boost its output. The final cost was more than double the original estimate.
The PUC in August decided to investigate whether the investment was prudent — and whether ratepayers should pay for the overruns. The Minneapolis-based utility last month submitted to regulators a lengthy explanation, asserting that the five-year project turned out to be more complicated than first envisioned, but still worth doing. . . .
The cost-overrun investigation is expected to last into 2014, and is likely to play a role in the PUC’s eventual decision on Xcel rates. The company in October asked for a $291 million rate hike that will raise customers’ bills 4.6 percent increase in January, with a slightly larger increase possible in 2015.
If the PUC declares some of the Monticello costs imprudent, Xcel investors, rather than ratepayers, would pick up the tab.
And there you have it, gentle readers: the local Tea Party watchdog in Wright County is calling citizens to the barricades over three small solar installations, while remaining silent over the potential rate-hike spiking overruns.
Doesn't look like the Wright County Sheriff's Office will have to roll out its armored dump truck for that.
Photos: Generic MRAP via the Wright County Watch blog (above); Proto angry peasant mob from the Frankenstein movie (below). We can sorta guess who wins this fit, so maybe it's a lot safer to protest small solar projects than ginormous cost overruns (and simultaneous demands for a higher rate of return for investors) at a nuclear plant. Just saying.
If you enjoyed reading this post, consider giving a donation via mail (P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or paypal:
Republican gubernatorial hopefuls Kurt Zellers and Dave Thompson want more coal and natural gas burnt, and they were not at all shy in speaking up about the issue at last night's Central Minnesota Tea Party meeting.
Both said . . . limiting government
support for renewable energy should be priorities for the state’s next
governor. . . .
Energy issues also were part of the event. Both candidates said
greater use of carbon-emitting fuels such as coal and natural gas should
be encouraged, in lieu of state support for renewable sources such as
wind or solar power.
“It might make us feel good to pass windmill legislation, even though it’s killing bald eagles,” Zellers said.
Thompson said he doesn’t believe that global warming is occurring.
the small group of scientists who opposed the consensus
on warming proceeded in the manner of lawyers, considering nothing that
would not bolster their case, and publishing mostly in pamphlets, books,
and newspapers supported by conservative interests. At some point they
were no longer skeptics — people who would try to see every side of a
case — but deniers, that is, people whose only interest was in casting
doubt upon what other scientists agreed was true.
He adds: “Deniers of the scientific consensus avoided normal scientific discourse and resorted to ad hominem attacks that cast doubt on the entire scientific community — while disrupting the lives of some researchers.”
The emergence of a self-sustaining climate change denial movement
requires a deeper explanation, though. Deep pockets and corporate
backing alone cannot create a social movement. Nor can financial motive
alone explain how vicious the attacks on climate scientists have become.
Rather, like creationism, climate change denial has spread and
established itself in the political discourse by creating a perception
of conflict. Instead of the religious conflict alleged by creationists,
however, climate change deniers allege a conflict of economic and
political ideologies. Historians and public opinion researchers like Aaron McCright and Riley Dunlap
have found this conflict is perceived to exist between free market
capitalism and a science supposedly subverted by a communist, and even
fascist, ideology disguised as environmentalism. This framing is
entwined deeply in the rhetoric and psychology of movement conservatism.
. . .Through the 2000s, leading conservatives like Governors Romney and
Pawlenty and former Speaker Gingrich recognized the threat posed by
climate change, proposing or enacting policies to limit that danger. In
the early years of the Obama administration, conservative Senators
McCain, Graham, and Lieberman joined liberal Senators Kerry and Boxer in crafting cap-and-trade legislation that would fight climate change.
But by the summer of 2010, a shift in elite conservative opinion was
apparent. In October 2009, Senator Graham had co-authored a New York Times
op-ed with Senator Kerry, declaring, “we agree that climate change is
real and threatens our economy and national security … many scientists
warn that failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will lead to global
instability and poverty that could put our nation at risk.” By June
2010, however, he abandoned the cap-and-trade plan,
explaining to reporters: “The science about global warming has changed.
… I think they’ve oversold this stuff, quite frankly. I think they’ve
been alarmist and the science is in question. … The whole movement has
taken a giant step backward.”
The 2012 Republican nomination battle saw Romney, Gingrich, and
Pawlenty all disavow their past support for climate science and climate
protection. In one debate, Pawlenty was challenged on his climate change
efforts as head of the National Governors Association and governor of
Minnesota, and replied:
“It was a mistake, and I’m sorry … You’re going to have a few clunkers
on your record, and we all do, and that’s one of mine. … I made a
mistake.” . . .
Zellers' political shift on clean energy
Zellers appears to be in this category of unwavering principled politicians. His coal love is relatively new. In a January 11, 2008 op-ed column archived on his official Minnesota House legislator's page, OP/ED COLUMN LEGISLATIVE UPDATE: ENERGY, Zellers wrote:
Renewable Energy Standards
Minnesota has been a national leader for many years in the area of
renewable energy, and this year the legislature passed, and the Governor
signed into law, the highest renewable energy standards in the nation.
These New renewable energy objectives set standards for electric
utilities to supply a certain percentage of their energy from renewable
sources such as wind, biomass, landfill gas, anaerobic digesters, solar
and others. All electric utilities will be required to achieve a
standard of 25% by 2025. Xcel Energy must achieve 30% by 2020 with 25%
wind energy and 5% coming from other renewable sources. . . .
Another source of renewable energy the state is putting money into is
wind energy. The legislature did this by establishing then Rural Wind
Development Revolving Loan fund to enhance wind energy development in
Minnesota. You can already see some of the progress of this in southern
and western Minnesota. If you drive on I-90 you can see wind farms
being built. Also many school districts around the state are looking
into building wind mills to power the school building and provide extra
revenue by selling the extra energy to the power companies. . . .
Conclusion
These are just a few of the major programs and bills that were passed
during this last legislative session to help make Minnesota energy
independent. Looking at these options will assist Minnesota in being a
leader and spur economic growth across the state by bringing in new
business opportunities. . . .
That is so 2008.
Crocodile tears for wildlife
No longer. Bluestem hopes Zellers' new concern for wildlife will provoke renewed scrutiny of all "takings" permits that allow for destruction of endangered and threatened wildlife and plants. Surely this concern isn't only restricted to the wind industry.
After all, the only Republican to support HF 425, Rick Hansen's bill to fund scientific and natural area and wellhead easement protection area acquisition near frac sand mines, withdrew his name after four days.
The world of power generation is a very scary place for Emily Gruenhagen, wife of state representative Glenn Gruenhagen, and the other members of the Sibley County Republican Party executive board.
Natural gas pipelines are scary. Stray voltage is scary. Wind turbines are scary. The world is a dangerous place.
In a letter to the editor of the New Ulm Journal, Wind turbine truths blow in the wind, Mrs. Gruenhagen and nine other Sibley County MNGOP board members write (among other things). Emphasis added:
Pipeline Damage: Did you know there are three natural gas pipelines
near the proposed Cornish township construction site that these over
weight loads will be going over? Did you know one of the pipelines is
many, many years old? Did you know that these truck loads could cause
leaks where the pipes are deteriorated? Did you know there is no mention
of pipelines in the application and permitting process? No one told us
either.
Groundwater Contamination: Did you know pipeline leaks elsewhere have
created extensive ground water contamination? Did you know those
families now cannot drink their well water and must bring in bottled
water? Did you know that natural gas contaminated ground water may be
unusable for years? No one told us either.
Wildlife
Preservation: Did you know any contaminated run-off from the proposed
Cornish tower sites will go directly into tributaries going into the
Rush River, which goes through the Alfsborg Wildlife Area, right next to
the golf course, which finally drains into the Minnesota River? Did you
know any contaminated water along that stretch may be drunk by
wildlife? . . .
Stray Voltage: . . . Did you know stray voltage striking a natural gas pipeline may
have consequences of death, injury, and property damage, even for people
miles away, which could include Winthrop residents? No one told us
either. . . .
Those natural gas pipelines certainly are scary but we have to wonder if the committee then objects to electricity generated by the natural gas carried in pipelines. The alternative, wind, is scary. Stray voltage is scary--but it's also created by transmission lines, regardless of the energy source generating the electricity
The Republicans are also afraid of the price of wind energy.
The letter also claims that "that industrial wind is so ineffective that it leads to higher rates[.]" That might be news to Xcel Energy, which is not afraid of the price of wind energy.
Citing the ability to lower customer costs while cutting carbon
emissions, Xcel Energy today submitted to state regulators a proposal to
add 600 megawatts of wind resources in its Upper Midwest service
territory. Construction would begin in time to qualify for the extended
federal Production Tax Credit.
“These projects will lower our customers’ bills, offer protection
from rising fuel costs, and provide significant environmental benefits,”
said Dave Sparby, president and CEO of Northern States Power
Co.-Minnesota, an Xcel Energy company.
The additional 600 megawatts of wind power – enough to serve 180,000
homes – would lower customer costs by $180 million over the lives of the
projects. “Wind prices are extremely competitive right now, offering
lower costs than other possible resources, like natural gas plants,”
said Sparby. “These projects offer a great hedge against rising and
often volatile fuel prices.”
Maybe Mrs. Gruenhagen and her friends are holding out for coal, hydro or solar, but since they fear stray voltage, we're not sure how they'll transmission electricity generated by any of the three.
Yet, there is good to come out of this episode . . . all of us are being
reminded, again, of the inherent danger of accepting what government
agencies and officials or politicians tell us as being fact or "good for
us." We all know liberals never admit when they are wrong on the facts
because if they did once they would be at the confessional early and
often and on many issues. Conservatives concluded a long time ago that
liberal bureaucrats, both GOP and DFL, never quite get it right when it
comes to our economic well being and public health or the greater good.
The United States is on the verge of the largest energy boom in our history with trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. We also have over 800 billion barrels of recoverable shale oil, three times the reserves of Saudi Arabia (Source: Rand Corporation). This means that all of America’s liquid fuels can come from secure North American sources within 15 years. . . . Accessing these natural resources will lower energy costs for families and businesses in Minnesota and create tens of thousands of high-paying jobs
Perhaps the Gruenhagens can have a talk about pipelines and natural gas.
Photo: A natural gas pipeline explosion near Hinton IA in 2012, causing by a trenching machine, via Des Moines Register (above); A corroded natural gas pipe in Pennsylvania via Natural Gas Watch. Are wind turbines the real problem here or the need to better regulate and maintain natural gas pipelines if they're that dangerous.
If you appreciate reading posts on Bluestem Prairie, consider making a donation via paypal:
Polar explorer Will Steger and Fresh Energy's J. Drake Hamilton are hosting a public forum on clean energy, climate and health at 7 p.m. Sunday at the Granite Falls Lutheran Church in Granite Falls.
Steger is famous for leading the first confirmed expedition to the North Pole by dogsled without re-supply, and being the first to cross Antarctica by foot. His 1995 trip to the North Pole may be the last ever by dogsled for any explorer. The melting of the polar ice means it is now necessary to use some type of floatation -- either kayak, canoe or sled that floats -- to make the trip by foot.
Steger now serves as an eyewitness to climate change, and has joined with scientist J. Drake Hamilton to host public forums to describe what he has seen and what can be done. Steger and Drake Hamilton urge clean energy solutions to reduce our carbon emissions while also building our economy.
This should be a terrific event for people in the Upper Minnesota River Valley.
Disclosure: Bluestem's editor has done consulting work on food system reform and land use issues for event sponsors CURE, although she is not involved with Sunday's presentation.
If you enjoy reading posts like this on Bluestem Prairie, consider throwing some coin in the tip jar:
Glencoe-area Republican state representative Glenn Gruenhagen is back, flogging a fossil-fuel industry funded climate change denying website to his constituents, along with a site run by former television meteorologist whose academic credentials are sketchy at best.
Earlier this month, the release of a two-year study by the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University documenting Charles and David Koch's influence via Americans for Prosperity on politicians and elections focused on the little-known No Climate Tax Pledge, the New Yorker reported.
Minnesota's climate change deniers should be hanging their heads in shame on this one, as only the retiring Gentlewoman from Minnesota's Sixth, Michele Bachmann, and Minnesota House District 18B representative Glenn Gruenhagen have signed on to this particular loyalty oath to the Koch Brothers and their money.
The Koch Brothers make much of their money in the fossil-fuel industry.
In the post, we also noted that Gruenhagen and state senator Scott Newman were attacking a long-permitted wind farm set to begin construction near Winthrop:
This week, the Glencoe-area Republican and SD18 senator Scott Newman have launched a crusade against the wind industry, publishing this letter in area newspapers. They challenged a long-permitted wind farm in near Winthrop in Sibley County that's been scaled back from 13 turbines to 10 wind machines.
Now he's pushing back against a defense of the project in a new letter. And in this new missive, Gruenhagen isn't forgetting his wealthy-climate change denying pals, but directing readers to a couple of Koch Brother-funded websites for information:
If a citizen does even minimal research, you will quickly learn that wind and solar “enriches the few financially at the expense of the many”, as all government centralized planning programs do.
The previous editorial by Sen. Newman and me listed several websites that verify the many negative impacts and higher energy costs of wind turbines. In addition, concerned citizens can access “What’s up with that” and “CO2 Science”.
Bluestem welcomes Gruenhagen's internet research as a chance to exercise critical reading and thinking skills.
The skinny on CO2Science (The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change)
The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, also known as CO2Science is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization based in Arizona run by a family of climate change skeptics including Craig D. Idso (Chairman and former President), his father Sherwood B. Idso (President), and his brother Keith E. Idso (Vice President). Craig Idso founded the Center in January, 1998.
According to Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change hasreceived $100,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. [7]
Donor's Capital Fund (DCF) also donated a total of $283,800 between 2007 and 2009. DCF has recently been reveled
as a major funder of numerous climate change skeptic organizations, as
it offers a conduit for other individuals and organizations to donate
anonymously. [10]
Seriously, Glenn, WHAT is up with that?
And the other site Gruenhagen recommends? “What’s up with that” is actually Watts Up With That? which bills itself as "The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change."
Anthony Watts is best known as the founder and editor of the popular Watts Up With That(WUWT),
a blog that primarily publishes articles skeptical of climate change.
He is also the owner of the weather graphics company ItWorks. He is the
founder of Surfacestations.org,
a project with the stated purpose of documenting the siting quality of
weather stations in the United States. According to documents released
in 2012, Watts has received funding from the Heartland Institute.
. . . Watts admits "I'm not a degreed climate scientist" on his WUWT profile, and his primary credential appears to be an American Meteorological Society Seal of Approval. This does not mean that Watts is "AMS Certified" as some sources have inaccurately claimed. The AMS Seal of Approval is a discontinued credential that does not require a bachelor's or higher degree in atmospheric science or meteorology.
Minnesotans deserve energy solutions that make sense for their pocketbooks, which is why we, as your elected representatives, oppose alternative wind energy mandates that drive up electricity costs by as much as 20 percent or more. Higher electricity costs hurt families and businesses.
They then repeated a litany of data that had been "provided by local co-ops," although the local co-op itself does obtain power from the Chandler Hills Wind Farm near Chandler, Minnesota. The wind farm is part of the power generation co-op Great River Energy, of which the McLeod Cooperative Power Association is a member. There's little on either co-op's website condemning wind power.
Minnesota investor owned utilities reporting to the PUC indicate little or no negative impact on customer electric rates resulting from the Renewable Energy Standard. In fact, Xcel Energy, who supplies about 50% of the state’s electricity, reported that energy prices were about 1% lower with wind than without. A May 2012 Synapse Energy Economics, Inc., report says adding more wind power in the Midwest would lower overall energy costs for consumers, saving each ratepayer $63 to $200 per year. And, a July 11, 2013 article in Amarillo Globe News reports that, “Xcel Energy expects to save customers [in New Mexico and Texas] about $590 million in fuel costs over the next 20 years” with three new wind energy contracts it just announced. “These are very good deals for our customers. The prices we locked in are for the most part below the cost of generating with natural gas,” Xcel spokesman Wes Reeves said in the article. “It’s a decision based entirely on economics … .”
It’s wise for readers to look for specific reports or studies to substantiate such claims as those made regarding federal investment in energy production. The fact is, oil and gas companies have received more than 75 times the total cumulative dollar amount of federal subsidies that renewables have ($446.96 billion vs. $5.93 billion through 2009, according to a recent study from the venture capital firm DBL Investors).
Communities in Minnesota have benefited greatly from wind development. Residents in Jackson County, for example, have seen their property taxes go down and roads improved since wind development came to town. A restaurant on the brink of closing has paid off debt and considered expanding due to the influx of workers from wind development. Mortenson Construction, a Minneapolis construction firm, spent $30.9 million on supplies and services from Minnesota small businesses for the Lakefield Wind project. Wind developers in Minnesota pay nearly $8 million, annually, in property tax payments alone, which are used for roads, schools and other priorities identified by the community. Furthermore, there have been no complaints about adverse health effects. . . .
And she asks a good question:
It seems the real question to debate is why your own state representatives and senators would buy in to this fear-mongering rhetoric and deprive you of energy cost savings, jobs, and the economic development opportunities that come along with wind development.
UFO Digest and Speculation: bees and turbines
Gruenhagen and Newman's letter suggests getting in touch with " Kevin and Barb Wenninger, who are residents in Cornish Township" in order to "get more involved" the Sibley Wind Substation, LLC. Barb Wenninger has sent four comments to the PUC about the farm--which is already permitted. Her letters contain typical anti-wind complaints, about flicker, human health, setbacks--and there's one we hadn't seen before, about the danger turbines allegedly pose to bees. She writes:
Our town Winthrop sits in close proximity of the Sibley Wind project and is host to a bee keeping
business. This leads me to the question
:
Do these wind turbines give cause for concern to the
welfare of these bees and this bee keeping business?
We understand that bees hold a very key role in the foundation of our very delicate Eco system,
including the pollination of agricultural vegetation.
Please see
the
attached map, as there seems to be a correlation between the massive loss of bees
and the drastic increase in the
number of wind farms in the U.S.
Well then: that would be pretty awful then, wouldn't it, if the construction of wind farms--not the use of pesticides, not the destruction of bee habitat and fodder that comes with monocropping, not the stress colonies face as they as they're hauled, north and south, without a chance to hibernate, not the advance of invasive flora species that crowd out pollinators' rich and varied diet--no, but vibrations from wind turbines were responsible for the decline of pollinators.
But, it's not just the sources; it's the confusion of correlation and causality.
Bluestem hopes that she's at least genuinely concerned about bees, that this isn't merely an exercise in throwing words to see what sticks. After all, on May 16, CBS Minnesota reported--even though construction has yet to commence and not a single tower has been erected--that Winthrop's beeman faced a devastating wave of dead bees. In Minn. Farmer Blames Pesticides For Big Bee Die Off, the station reported that the keeper fingered farm chemicals as the culprit.
We can't say the same for Gruenhagen. He joined in the chorus--thought so brilliant by minority caucus communications head and social media maven Susan Closmore--of mocking spending on bee habitat, legislative language backed up by genuine scholarship at the University of Minnesota.
Now he promotes the anti-wind organizing of a woman who purports to worry about the decline of bees. Not that he cares about bees, but because he seeks to undermine a law he doesn't agree with.
It seems the real question to debate is why your own state
representatives and senators would buy in to this fear-mongering
rhetoric and deprive you of energy cost savings, jobs, and the economic
development opportunities that come along with wind development.
Here's the Wenninger comment, one of four filed since May 20, 2013. Public hearings for the project were held in 2008. The bee concern:
At the beginning of February, Bluestem posted Inspired by ALEC bill? Beard, Draz & Franson hating on MN renewable energy standards, which looked at an ALEC copycat bill introduced by ALEC member Mike Beard (R-Shakopee) and co-sponsored by ALEC-member Steve Drazkowski (R-Mazeppa) and Mary Franson (R-Alexandria).
State laws requiring utilities to sell a certain percentage of clean
energy have been attacked across the nation over the past year. But
these renewable portfolio standards have been holding their own just
fine.
Not only were all of the legislative efforts to roll back such
standards defeated, but some states actually strengthened their laws,
requiring still more clean energy to flow through the grid. From Bloomberg:
None of the 26 bills to roll back requirements passed
before most state legislature sessions ended, according to a July 9
report from Colorado State University’s Center for the New Energy
Economy. Eight states voted to strengthen or modify laws that require
utilities to purchase electricity produced from renewable sources.
Challenges to so-called renewable portfolio standards in effect in 30
states have increased since the lobby group American Legislative
Exchange Council released model legislation in October that state
lawmakers are using as a blueprint to try to water down rules supporting
wind and solar energy.
“There was a big push to slow down progress after ALEC got involved
but the momentum is in renewable energy’s favor,” Adam Browning,
executive director of the San Francisco-based Vote Solar Initiative,
said … in an interview. “Poll after poll shows that Americans want
clean, renewable energy and support these policies.”
Read the rest at Grist. Minnesota Republicans aren't ones to let popular sentiment stop their quest to stop clean energy. As Bluestem noted last week, Gruenhagen is going after a wind farm in his district that's already permitted because he opposes renewable energy standards.
If you notice an increase in your utility bills in the coming months, you can blame House Democrats! On Tuesday, the House passed a monstrosity of an omnibus energy bill that imposes a 40% renewable energy standard by 2030 for investor-owned utility companies (Xcel Energy, Minnesota Power, Otter Tail Power, Alliant) including a 4% solar mandate with a 10% solar mandate goal. The legislation actually gives a special exemption carve-out to the Iron Range so legislators from that area could support it. This bill makes Al Gore’s energy ideas look moderate in comparison! Setting these kinds of arbitrary renewable energy standards will make energy more costly and less reliable and ignores the inefficient and expensive nature of the energy sources being mandated. . . .
Update: Representative Franson kindly contacted Bluestem to let us know that she wrote about the final mandate in her May 24 Update. She wote there:
You’ll also be paying more in electric bills with the new solar mandate that the Democrats wrapped into the “jobs” bill with the 1.5% solar standard requirement of retail electric sales with a 10% solar mandate goal by 2030. Setting arbitrary solar standard will make energy more costly and less reliable. It also ignores the inefficient and expensive nature of the energy sources being mandated.[end update]
A major upgrade to Minnesota’s oldest nuclear power plant is finally finished — and way over budget.
Xcel Energy expects to restart its Monticello Nuclear
Power Plant this week after a four-month shutdown that allowed workers
to replace aging pumps and other equipment to keep the 43-year-old
reactor running another two decades and to boost electric output by 12
percent.
But the cost of the work surged $267 million, or 83
percent, over its 2008 budget of $320 million. The Minneapolis-based
electric and gas utility says the final costs will be even higher, but
hasn’t publicly disclosed the amount.
In the meantime, Xcel’s 1.2 million electric customers in Minnesota are
being asked to pay for the cost overruns. This sort of nuclear-related
expense is one of the major drivers behind Xcel’s requested rate hike
that an administrative judge recently recommended
slashing to 4.7 percent. The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission will
decide, probably this fall, how much more ratepayers will pay. . . .
Such cost overruns are further proof of the “very dicey” economics of
nuclear power, said Mark Cooper, a senior research fellow for economic
analysis at Vermont Law School’s Institute for Energy and the
Environment.
“They cannot build these things or repair them or expand
them without having severe cost overruns and that is part of the
technology,” Cooper said in an interview.
Last year, Xcel dropped
a planned power enhancement at its other Minnesota nuclear plant,
Prairie Island in Red Wing, saying it no longer was an economical
option. . . .
Will Franson be sharing this--along with news of the much smaller solar mandate--with her constituents? She ran on a pro-nuclear energy agenda last fall:
We have exciting renewable technology on the horizon, such as nuclear
energy. As a mother of three children, I know first-hand how spiraling
energy costs affect the family budget. Nuclear energy is clean and safe
and would be a cost-effective energy source as long as the government
stays out of the way.
Spiraling costs sure from Xcel's nuclear plant at Monticello sure will bite into families' budgets, but the problems with maintaining and upgrading the plants don't seem to stem from government action. And nuclear energy as renewable technology? Really? That's debatable, though Bluestem notes that it's low carbon. Nuclear energy has never been defined as part of the state's renewable energy standard.
Photo: Monticello nuclear power plant, where much of that rate hike is coming from.
If you appreciate reading posts like this one on Bluestem Prairie, consider making a donation via paypal:
Bluestem has been concerned about both frac sand mining and nitrogen pollution, so when we read industrial sand mining consultant Jeffery S. Broberg's guest column in the Winona Daily News, On water quality -- hold farmers to the same standard as frac sand miners, we snorted our coffee out of our nose the other morning.
It's not that we don't want to hold both industrial sand and industrial agri-business to high standards, since both extractive industries damage soil and water.
The irony is that Broberg--who once claimed at a public meeting that the would-be sand miners he represents had "a higher level of rights" than ordinary citizens speaking out--fails to connect the dots between the industries.
Natural gas is a key ingredient in the production of nitrogen fertilizer, and as fracking has brought on low prices and abundant supplies for domestic natural gas, shuttered American fertilizer plants are reopening while new plants are planned.
. . . The sand industry recognizes the importance of our water resources
and our trout streams and the sand industry's participation in
developing the new regulation is an example of willing water stewardship
-- a value that I personally wish was shared by local agricultural
interests who locally plow to within 10 feet of the streams, produce
massive erosion that continues to choke our watersheds and apply
nutrients and other polluting chemicals at ever greater rates, willfully
impairing and degrading our waters and our trout stream.
Last
week when I read the current MPCA study on nitrogen pollution
(http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=1962) that
reported that, on average, 73 percent of nitrogen pollution comes from
farms, that farmers annually loose 211 million pounds of nitrogen down
the Mississippi River, and nitrogen leaching out of groundwater into
surface water accounts for 30 percent of the total nitrogen loss. It is
clear that farming needs to come to the table to prevent and solve the
problems of water pollution, just like sand mines have pledged to do.
I
am happy to work with the sand miners who take water resource issues so
seriously and are engaged in protecting this critical and
life-sustaining resource -- even when totally surrounded by row crops
and even when they are harangued by wayward and ill-informed Soil and
Water Conservation Districts and state agencies who are syncopates for
production agriculture, but, who care little, and do even less, to
actually protect or enhance our groundwater, surface water or our trout
streams from agriculture. I'm hopeful that the public will begin to see
that if we want to protect our water, and protect or enhance our trout
streams, we are better off with responsible sand mining than we are with
the intractable resistance of farmers who say that they "care for the
land" but truly neglect, and continue to degrade our water.
In my
opinion farming should follow the example of mining and seek a fact
based, scientific and technical analysis for the impact of farming
within one-mile of all trout streams, wetlands and groundwater recharge
areas, including all karst areas with less than 50 feet of soil. . . .
The use of "willing" to describe the sand industry is laughable, for those of use who attended the hearings on proposals to regulate silica sand mining in Minnesota heard industry witness after witness testify that, no sir, they were regulated enough and gosh darn jobs it, sure didn't need anyone else poking their noses into their business.
In short, the industry was dragged kicking and screaming into the late session compromise by massive citizen opposition to the removal of a working landscape.
Now one industry representative is claiming that those citizens would be better off with sand miners working the land than farmers using one of the end-products of frac sand mining. It's like reading a flack for the shackle industry condemn the use of chain gangs.
The devastating explosion at a fertilizer-blending facility in West,
Texas, on April 17 called attention to the risks of ammonia-based
fertilizer production and storage. Between 1984 and 2006, the U.S.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration reported 224 accidents, resulting in 50 fatalities, at ammonia plants around the U.S., and ammonia-based fertilizers and explosives were involved in a variety of intentional attacks,
including the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. Now, a different kind of boom
in the fertilizer business—no explosives required—could also spell
trouble.
No ammonia plants—which produce 90 percent of the fertilizer used
worldwide—have broken ground in the U.S. in more than 20 years. But in
the next three to five years, that’s changing. Today there are as many
as 14 ammonia plants proposed in the U.S., with nearly 12 million tons
of new capacity and $10 billion of expected investment. Several older
plants are also being recommissioned and upgraded. Louisiana, Iowa,
North Dakota, Texas and Indiana are among the proposed sites. This boom,
driven by low prices for natural gas—the main ingredient in ammonia
production—will drive a corresponding surge in the industry’s already
substantial carbon footprint.
North Dakota corn growers are planning a $1 billion nitrogen fertilizer
manufacturing plant to be built near here in rural Grand Forks County.
Gov. Jack Dalrymple and Grand Forks Mayor Mike Brown will make a formal announcement today.
The
plant will produce nitrogen fertilizer by converting gas currently
being flared from oil wells in western North Dakota, according to Tom
Lilja, president of the North Dakota Corn Growers Association. Other
details will be released during today’s news conference.
The facility, which has been estimated to cost between $1 billion and
$1.5
billion, could supply fertilizer for up to 12 percent of corn and wheat
acreage in North Dakota, South Dakota and Minnesota, Lilja said last
summer, when the group initially announced plans to build a plant
somewhere in North Dakota.
The plant will address two problems,
according to the corn growers: It would use the natural gas that now is
largely flared off – or wasted – in western North Dakota, while
providing farmers in the region with a guaranteed supply of fertilizer
without relying on imports. . . .
The group plans to market and distribute nitrogen fertilizer and other
commercial products to farmers and industries in North Dakota, South
Dakota, Minnesota, Montana, as well as Manitoba and Saskatch-ewan,
according to a grant application to the North Dakota Agricultural
Products Utilization Commission.
And the North Dakota Corn Growers aren't the only ones building a plant, Bonham notes at the end of the article:
CHS Inc., working with North Dakota Farmers Union, is also planning to
build $1.4 billion nitrogen fertilizer plant in Spiritwood, N.D., also
using flared gas from oil production.
Rather than the false dicotomy that Broberg sets up, industrial mining and industrial farming are part of the same supply change. Indeed, both industries spend an inordinate amount of time pissing and moaning about regulation. Broberg may kvetch about the unfairness of regulation in this piece, but the frac sand mining industry facilitates nitrogen fertilizer production. Once those fertilizer plants are built in North Dakota, the sand coming out of the driftless region will be used to frack shale oil, and the flared gas that's a by-product will create the fertilizer Broberg loathes.
Not that he's telling readers that.
Permits and repeated violations
Broberg contends that permitting will protect Minnesota's waters from potential risks, but Wisconsin's experience--sometimes with the same companies operating processing facilities in Minnesota like Tiller and Preferred Sands--suggests another scenerio.
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources says four Trempealeau
County frac sand facilities violated stormwater permits when they
allowed sand to run into nearby streams and wetlands.
The DNR is
still investigating the extent of the environmental damage. If it’s
extensive, the mines could have to pay for the streams to be repaired.
Sediment
spills can damage plant and fish habitats because the sand gets in the
way of microorganisms, kills aquatic plants and creates algae blooms
that remove oxygen from the water.
The mines’ stormwater ponds
gave away in late May after a heavy rainfall filled them with excess
water and sand, said Roberta Walls, a DNR stormwater management
specialist. The sediment left in the pond entered the streams and the
wetlands when the ponds flooded. . . .
That's Wisconsin, but the multiple violations suggest that unlike St. Genevieve, permits can't hold back the water.
In Wisconsin, frac-sand mines in Trempealeau, Buffalo and Barron
counties are creating unstable piles of sand waste and illicit
wastewater runoff.
In Minnesota, state health officials are studying two
chemicals widely used in frac-sand processing as contaminants of
“emerging concern.”
Four years into a mining boom that is reshaping parts of
the rural countryside, mining companies and government regulators are
coming to grips with the reality that the new industry involves much
more than scooping sand out of the ground and hauling it away. . . .
From pyramids of discarded sand to sludge that accumulates in
filtering devices, the mines create tons of waste byproducts that must
be managed until they can be plowed back into the ground as part of
reclamation plans designed to protect the environment and preserve the
rural landscape.
“The industry just came on too fast,” said Ruth King, a
stormwater specialist with the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources. “I wish we could turn back the clock a couple of years and
start over.”
In a rash of continuing violations that started last
year, heavy rains have combined with sand-processing water to overflow
holding ponds on several mining sites. The breaches have dumped sandy
sediment into public waters, where it can suffocate fish eggs, kill
aquatic plants and rob fish of habitat they need to reproduce. . . .
Read the entire article at the Strib.
Rethinking mining and extractive agriculture
Broberg does have a point about fertilizer use by farmers, and while Minnesota's devastating study of nitrogen pollution is a well-documented science-based wake-up call.
However, Broberg calls for increased regulation for farmers, because--one supposes--Minnesota's brand spanking new state water permitting system for mining will work so well. Just look at Wisconsin.
But a larger look at nitrogen fertilizer by Grist magazine several years ago--before the price of natural gas plummeted and domestic fertilizer production started up again, suggests that rethinking farming practices--just like rethinking fossil-fuel based energy--might be a more promising solution than regulating the industries, however willing or unwilling they are.
The magazine's multipart series, The N2 Dilemma: Is America Fertilizing Disaster? is worth a read, as the consequences of the practice remain, wherever the fertilizer is manufactured. Rather than the rhetorical game Broberg plays, the series' introduction suggests there's much harder work to be done:
In this special Grist series, we’ll be looking at where synthetic
nitrogen comes from and what our reliance on it is doing to our health
and to the health of our waterways and climate. We’ll also be looking at
ways in which synthetic nitrogen can be used more wisely — and, as much
as possible, phased out.
The question of where our food comes from will take us on a journey
from the farm out to the fertilizer factory — and even farther, to the
globe’s finite [sic] and far-flung natural gas deposits. And more important
than where synthetic nitrogen comes from is where it will take us.
As with anything fueling a system that feeds a nation of 300 million,
there are no easy answers to the nitrogen dilemma. But we will pose the
hard questions — and try to generate debate about a critical ecological
issue that remains obscure and little-discussed.
Frac sand mining isn't a paradigm to be held up while demonizing farmers. Rather, it's part of the industrial base that faciliates industrial agri-business. It is, as one blogger writes, The Gas We Eat.
Earlier this month, the release of a two-year study
by the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University documenting Charles and David Koch's influence via Americans for Prosperity on politicians and elections focused on the little-known No Climate Tax Pledge, the New Yorker reported.
Minnesota's climate change deniers should be hanging their heads in shame on this one, as only the retiring Gentlewoman from Minnesota's Sixth, Michele Bachmann, and Minnesota House District 18B representative Glenn Gruenhagen have signed on to this particular loyalty oath to the Koch Brothers and their money.
The investigative study tracks the political influence wielded by the
billionaire Koch brothers, who have harnessed part of the fortune
generated by their company, Koch Industries, the second largest private corporation in the country,
to further their conservative libertarian activism. Charles Lewis, the
Executive Editor of the Investigative Reporting Workshop explained that
the I.R.W., a non-profit news organization attached to American
University, spent two years focussing on Koch Industries because, “There
is no other corporation in the U.S. today, in my view, that is as
unabashedly, bare-knuckle aggressive across the board about its own
self-interest, in the political process, in the
nonprofit-policy-advocacy realm, even increasingly in academia and the
broader public marketplace of ideas.” Formerly head of the Center for
Public Integrity in Washington, Lewis has focussed for years on the way
money affects American politics. “The Kochs’ influence, without a doubt,
is growing,” he believes. A spokeswoman for the Kochs declined to
comment.
In its multi-part report,
“The Koch Club,” written by Lewis, Eric Holmberg, Alexia Campbell, and
Lydia Beyoud, the Workshop found that between 2007 and 2011 the Kochs
donated $41.2 million to ninety tax-exempt organizations promoting the
ultra-libertarian policies that the brothers favor—policies that are
often highly advantageous to their corporate interests. In addition,
during this same period they gave $30.5 million to two hundred and
twenty-one colleges and universities, often to fund academic programs
advocating their worldview. Among the positions embraced by the Kochs
are fewer government regulations on business, lower taxes, and
skepticism about the causes and impact of climate change.
Climate-change policy directly affects Koch Industries’s bottom line.
Koch Industries, according to Environmental Protection Agency
statistics cited in the study, is a major source of carbon-dioxide
emissions, the kind of pollution that most scientists believe causes
global warming. In 2011, according to the E.P.A.’s
greenhouse-gas-reporting database, the company, which has oil refineries
in three states, emitted over twenty-four million tons of carbon
dioxide, as much as is typically emitted by five million cars. . . .
Since there's an election coming up next year, Bluestem anticipates those hoping to replace Dayton, Franken and Bachmann hopping on to this gravy train, a fulfilling vehicle for proving one's fealty to the Koch Brothers' various funding tracks.
Gruenhagen's floor statement blaming the United Nations for the "climate change lie"--video below from The Uptake--attracted nationwide attention in May.
This week, the Glencoe-area Republican and SD18 senator Scott Newman have launched a crusade against the wind industry, publishing this letter in area newspapers. They challenged a long-permitted wind farm in near Winthrop in Sibley County that's been scaled back from 13 turbines to 10 wind machines.
Photo: A still from Gruenhagen's famous floor speech.
If you enjoy reading posts like this on Bluestem Prairie, consider throwing some coin in the tip jar:
Bluestem's editor is a member of the Minnesota Farmers Union and passes along this statement about ag funding and policy in the session that wrapped up last week.
The passage of language tweaking "Buy The Farm," the extension of the Farmer-Lender Mediation Act and the authorizing of funding of the new voluntary Agriculture Water Quality Certification Program (with guidelines set by a board that's peopled largely by active farmers, watershed activists and soil & water types) are all good things.
The statement:
Minnesota Farmers Union (MFU) applauds action of Legislature.
“MFU thanks the legislature and Governor Dayton for
passing a strong agriculture budget,” said Doug Peterson President of
the Minnesota Farmers Union. “MFU is also pleased that the Farmer-Lender
Mediation Act was extended for an additional
three years, allowing time for farmers and lenders to find solutions
when financial stresses hit rural Minnesota.”
Key legislative actions:
·
$20 million in the AGRI-fund, which can be used for livestock, NextGen energy grants, and farm to school programs;
·
$2 million for educational and cultural programs at fairs;
·
The current wolf hunting and trapping season
was not eliminated, however, MFU was disappointed wolf depredation
funding was decreased;
·
Buy the Farm legislation passed which
provides landowners facing the threat of high voltage power lines more
rights regarding attorney’s fees, appraisals, relocation and a
reasonable time frame;
·
Farmer-Lender Mediation Act was extended for an additional three years;
·
authorizing language and funding of the new voluntary Agriculture Water Quality Certification Program; and
·
language that clarifies estate tax by saying
agriculture land held by farm trusts and other business entities will
qualify for the extra $4 million exception from the state estate tax.
Photo: A riparian buffer zone.
If you enjoy reading posts like this on Bluestem Prairie, consider throwing some coin in the tip jar:
The Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture conference committee meets at 1:00 p.m., and Bluestem hopes that the House conferees--Jean Wagenius, David Dill, Jeanne Poppe, Rick Hansen, and Andrew Falk--can prevail on keeping $190,000 for the Sustainable Agriculture Demonstration Grant Program in the final conference report.
Competitive grants for up to $25,000 are awarded to individuals or
groups for on-farm sustainable agriculture research or demonstration
projects in Minnesota. The purpose of the Grant Program is to fund
practices that promote environmental stewardship and conservation of
resources as well as improve profitability and quality of life on farms
and in rural areas. . . .
Eligible recipients include Minnesota farmers, individuals at Minnesota
educational institutions, non-profit organizations, and local natural
resource agencies. Priority is given to projects that are farmer
initiated. All non-farmer initiated projects must show significant
collaboration with farmers. . . .
The program objectives are to research and demonstrate the
profitability, energy efficiency, and benefits of sustainable
agriculture practices and systems from production through marketing.
Grants are available to fund on-farm research and demonstrations and may include, but are not limited to:
enterprise diversification and organic production using traditional and non-traditional crops and livestock;
cover crops and crop rotations to increase nitrogen uptake, reduce erosion, or control pests;
conservation tillage and weed management;
cropping systems to implement integrated pest management systems for insects, weeds, and diseases;
nutrient and pesticide management including prevention of entry into water bodies;
energy production such as wind, methane, or biomass.
The program does not fund projects that duplicate previously funded projects. . . .
It's not a big program, but one that's useful for farmers, especially those in fast-growing sectors like community supported agriculture (CSA). It's not as if traditional production agriculture is starved in either chamber's bill, so the omission of the program in the Senate bill seems a casual error that can be easily corrected.
Here's the Land Stewardship Project's position on the project (via LSP's lobbyist Bobby King:
Funding for the Sustainable Agriculture Demonstration Grant Program. LSP
supports the House position that provides $190,000/ year funding for
this program. (HF 976 lines 6.7 – 6.20) There is no dedicated funding
in the Senate position.
Here's the House staff comparison and contrast chart. Perhaps the greater problem with the Senate bill is the absence of funding for the Minnesota Agricultural Water Quality Program, which would be developed by the Minnesota Department of Ag and a board composed mostly of farmers and local soil and water commissioners. Oddly, Republicans have objected that farmers would not have a voice in establishing the program's policies. The program is a priority of the Minnesota Farmers Union.
With the suspension of the sustainable food production diploma program at M State-Fergus Falls, a peculiar hostility to toward small-scale, innovative agriculture seems to be gaining steam among some state lawmakers and bureaucrats. This is unfortunate, as the local food movement has been a boon for small business and job creation for those who seek to serve consumer demand.
Update: Those who support fostering our state's sustainable farming sector might consider contact the senators on the conference committee to ask them to agree with the House bill and fund this modest program. Be polite to the legislative aides who answer the phones and listen to the voicemail messages.
David Tomassoni: 651-296-8017
Tom Saxhaug: 651-296-4136
Dan Sparks: 651-296-9248
Jim Metzen: 651-296-4370
Torrey Westrom: 651-296-3826
Photo: Sexy buffer strips, via MnDA.
If you enjoy reading posts like this on Bluestem Prairie, consider throwing some coin in the tip jar:
. . . Timothy Zinniel, president of Sleepy Eye-based Zinniel Electric, said
his company started selling and installing solar panels in 2007 and now
makes 50 percent of its annual sales from solar power.
“If (municipal power providers) and power companies could offer
electricity from a local standpoint, they’d be creating more jobs
locally. Our largest export is our dollars. Let’s keep them here,” he
said.
Zinniel estimates he’d hire at least five more people if the solar standard passes.
That doesn’t include the jobs created by Minnesota’s two solar panel manufacturers, tenKsolar and Silicon Energy.
When Zinniel is working with a customer, he offers them both American-
and foreign-made panels. The Chinese ones are sometimes cheaper, but
Zinniel said many of his customers are willing to pay a bit more to buy
American. . . .
Zinniel supports a measure that would require Minnesota's utilities togenerate 4 percent of their
electricity from solar power by 2025 and to get 40 percent of their power from renewable sources by
2030.
Although Xcel Energy and other utilities oppose the bill, a representative for Xcel conceded that the development of Minnesota's wind industry hasn't led to higher rates for the out-of-state utility's customers in Minnesota. Linehan reports:
That said, McCarten said Xcel’s wind energy spending hasn’t led to any
price increases for customers. In other words, if the company had bought
natural gas instead of wind, customers would be paying roughly the same
amount.
[J. Drake] Hamilton, the renewable energy advocate, said people who support the
higher renewable energy standard should contact their legislators.
Bluestem suspects that as Minnesota's solar industry matures, costs will come down. Could the utilities' own commitments and contracts for fossil-fuel generated power be as much factor for the resistance to the development of solar as concern for the hypothetical costs for consumers?
Manufacturing jobs creating high-quality Minnesota-made products, as well as jobs based in Greater Minnesota small businesses, sounds pretty electifying to Bluestem. Governor Mark Dayton supports the development of Minnesota's renewable energy portfolio.
Photo: Solar panels, via Zinniel Electric.
If you enjoy reading posts like these on Bluestem Prairie, consider throwing some coin in the tip jar:
Our friends at Clean Up the River Environment asked people from the Upper Minnesota River Valley and West Central Minnesota to travel to the state capitol for an Earth Day rally for clean energy. A group of enthusiastic MPIRG students road in from U of M Morris; hundreds of passionate high school students turned out to join them.
In addition to those rallying in the rotunda, over 300 citizens showed up to lobby for solar and other clean energy on a day graced by another spring snowstorm and difficult driving in greater Minnesota.
Renewable energy advocates on Monday afternoon rallied in the state
Capitol rotunda in support of energy policy legislation that seeks to
boost solar energy in Minnesota. Gov. Mark Dayton and House Speaker Paul Thissen
were among the officials who rallied a couple hundred activists to
support bills in the House and Senate that would call for utilities to
generate 4 percent of their electricity from solar energy by 2030. The
bills sponsored by Rep. Melissa Hortman, DFL-Brooklyn Park, and Sen. John Marty, DFL-Roseville, had committee hearings on Monday with neither being voted on.
Dayton said the nation’s energy policy “has been to hang on to the
status quo for a long as possible.” He said he hopes Minnesota someday
runs on 100 percent renewable fuels. . . .
. . .“We need your help,” Hortman said. “Because as you know, the energy
lobbyists are here. The folks who like coal are here. The folks who like
natural gas are here. …You need to make sure you let your senator and
your representative know: Minnesota is ready for solar.”
The legislation is controversial, however, and was laid over on
Monday night in the Senate Environment, Economic Development and Energy
Finance Division in order to find a compromise in the next couple days.
Here's a video of several high points in the rally: Paul Bunyan puts in an appearance, as do labor environmentalist Javier Morillo-Alicea, polar explorer Will Steger and Governor Dayton.
Bluestem will swap out the Youtube with a higher quality video when we return to our fast prairie connection.
Photo: A few of the University of Minnesota Morris students who braved slippery roads to rally for clean energy.
If you enjoy reading posts like these on Bluestem Prairie, consider throwing some coin in the tip jar:
Remember when Rod Hamilton and House Republicans got the fantods over an urban, earth-friendly woman chairing the House Environment, Natural Resource and Agricultural Finance Committee? Because she would so not understand farmers?
From December 2012 through January2013, one could scarcely pick up a paper in a swing rural district won by a DFLer in the November 2012 election and not read an example of the collective Republican butthurt.
Looks like Hamilton was just acting like that frienemy who really doesn't wish us well with our new date, despite all the concern trolling.
Both the House and Senate are moving their versions of the omnibus agriculture and environment finance bills authored respectively by Rep. Jean Wagenius and Sen. David Tomassoni. The House version also carries agricultural policy provisions the Senate version does not at this point. The House version has a strong budget for agriculture including full funding for the AGRI fund, and other MFU priorities including sustainable agriculture, dairy development, county fairs, AURI, and Board of Animal Health. Members can track House bill progress here: House Finance bill the Senate version will be released later today. The bill also addresses water usage fees and reduces fees for irrigators from .35 cents to .22 cents per million gallons pumped as originally proposed by Rep. Wagenius. The Senate is not likely to include water usage fees in their bill.
Minnesota media mogul Stan Hubbard, who has written big checks to
Crossroads and other conservative groups, said the GOP has had too many
candidates who are “nut cases” and pledged to donate and raise money for
Conservative Victory Project.
“Some areas obviously are more conservative in their constituencies
than others,” Hubbard said. “But I don’t think anybody anywhere with any
sense is going to want to elect a candidate who says, ‘If your daughter
gets raped, it’s God’s will’,”
he said, referring to Richard Mourdock, who defeated incumbent Sen.
Dick Lugar of Indiana in the 2012 GOP primary only to lose the general
election after suggesting that “God intended” pregnancies occurring from
rape. “I mean, give me a break, will you?” Hubbard said.
So who is Hubbard funding locally, however much he's seen the light about post-moronic rape malarky?
Regardless of the headline, it's not Minnesota's Tea Party candidates for whom Hubbard won't be bringing the bread.
And as far as Fifty Shades of Cray goes, Hubbard's funding some doozies. There's the ever-chatty Mary Franson, who recently cited discredited theories linking autism and vaccines. From the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board individual contribution database under "Hubbard, Stanley":
Perhaps Hubbard is thinking of North Star Tea Party co-founder, Representative Cindy Pugh. His name is absent from her campaign finance reports.
One conservative source suggested that the headline itself is misleading, and Hubbard isn't objecting to the Tea Party, so much as the Ron Paul faction in the Republican Party of Minnesota.
However, Bluestem suspects buyer's remorse in the comment about Mourdock. A little over a year ago, Hubbard gave Hoosiers for Mourdock $1000, as did his spouse.
Today, Representatives Mike Beard (R-Shakopee), Steve Drazkowski (R-Mazeppa) and Mary Franson (R-Alexandria) introduced HF306, which would abolish Minnesota's renewable energy standards.
The Beard-Draz-Franson bill is unlikely to pass, given renewable-energy friendly DFL majorities in the Minnesota legislature. The state is home to a flourishing wind industry and expanding solar energy production. Companies such as tenK Solar also manufacture components in the state for solar production.
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is suffering
backlash from its battle on a new front: renewable energy standards.
The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) and the Solar Energy Industry Association (SEIA) have let their ALEC memberships expire, according to Greenwire.
Why? Last October, ALEC adopted the "Electricity Freedom Act"
model bill. This model bill, which ALEC is now seeking to roll out in
various states, would end requirements for states to derive a specific
percentage of their electricity needs from renewable energy sources.
Given the gridlock on national legislation, renewable energy
standards, which are typically passed at the state or local level, set
targets for shifting from fossil fuel energy to renewable sources, such
as solar and wind energy.
SEIA let its one-year membership expire last fall; AWEA let its membership drop this month.
State Rep. Mike Beard is a nice guy. The Republican from Shakopee is
the former president of the local chamber of commerce. He says he cares
about humanity. He is a man with deep Christian values, a free-market
conservative and a veteran of eight years on the Minnesota House
Environment, Energy and Natural Resources Policy and Finance Committee.
. . .
. . . But right now, Mike Beard's solution is more coal-fired power
plants. He told me that having more coal plants would pave the way for
renewable energy. I think he meant it would buy time for innovation
without a drop in base load electricity as demand increases. . .
A lot of what Beard knows he learned in church. One Congressman,
talking about global warming, recently said that God wouldn't allow man
to do anything to destroy the planet. Beard told me, "It is the height
of hubris to think we could." I asked him about nuclear war. He said:
"How did Hiroshima and Nagasaki work out? We destroyed that, but here
we are, 60 years later and they are tremendously effective and livable
cities. Yes, it was pretty horrible," he said, "But, can we recover? Of
course we can." . . .
Beard believes that "God is not
capricious. He's given us a creation that is dynamically stable. We are
not going to run out of anything."
On Friday, the Fergus Falls Journal reported in State OKs power plant plan that the utility will close its Hoot Lake coal-burning plant by 2020:
The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission Thursday approved the
recommendation by Otter Tail Power to retire its Hoot Lake coal plant by
2020.
In October, Otter Tail Power Company officials recommended the idea of closing the plant in 2020.
“The
Public Utilities Commission approved an Otter Tail Power recommendation
that the utility company install pollution control equipment to comply
with mercury and air toxic standards by 2015, and make plans to retire
the plant in 2020,” said Cris Oehler, director, public relations for
Otter Tail Power. “(The decision) wasn’t a surprise. It was based on our
recommendation.” . . .
. . .In today’s meeting, the PUC also ordered Otter Tail Power to consider
stronger energy efficiency and expanded renewable energy in their future
integrated resource planning process. . . .
Though enviromental groups agreed the decision takes a step in the
right direction, they have urged OTP to consider the retirement of the
Hoot Lake Plant sooner than 2020.
“Mercury emitted from the Hoot
Lake coal plant affects our water in western Minnesota,” said Duane
Ninneman, Renewable Energy Program Director of Clean Up the River
Environment (CURE). “Today’s decision will lower the risk of mercury
contamination in our waterways. Phasing out coal vastly improves the
health of the surrounding community and helps us keep our water clean.
Every day that pollution comes from the Hoot Lake plant, our health is
put at risk.”
Other clean energy allies echoed the same concerns about Hoot Lake’s retirement timeline. . . .
Read the rest at the Fergus Falls Journal. Given the troubles with mercury burning coal creates, we hope that Rep. Franson will reconsider sponsoring HF 306, which repeals renewable energy standards in favor of polite suggestions.
Photo: Michael Beard, R-Shakopee, has faith in God's creation, if it's coal. Those renewables? Not so much.
If you enjoyed reading this post, consider giving a donation via paypal:
Early this month Minnesota Representative Rod Hamilton (R-Mountain Lake) had been sounding a partisan battle cry about the possibility that agri-fund dollars might be spent on urban projects.
A top priority will be to protect money in the agri-fund from being
raided for non-agricultural proposes as the budget is put together this
session. I want to work on strengthening ag education, both through
funding to our local K-12 system and by supporting farm business
management programs at Minnesota State Colleges and Universities
institutions.
Riverland Community College is one of the shining
examples of how this program should work. Extensions of farmer-lender
mediation and Minnesota Agriculture Education Leadership Council, and
cleanup language for the $5 million exemption to the estate tax for
farmland that was passed in the last budget should also be addressed.
Back in December, Bluestem wrote that in Representation Rod Hamilton to defend rural Minnesota against his own worst fears, that you were positioning yourself as the Republican lead to warn rural Minnesotans about how much Democrats in Minneapolis hate us, especially those who are tillers of the soil and the keepers of livestock.
This frame was something we recognised from past years when former Marshall-area state representative Marty Siefert, and Steve Sviggum before him, led the Republican caucus in the house, although in those days, those dirty hipsters mostly just didn't share rural social values as the caucus defined them.
It wasn't so much about agriculture during their tenure--and that would have been a hard one for Kurt Zellers to pull off from Hennepin County. Those appeals to those social values didn't pan out so well in November, however, so on to the Old McDonald defenders riffs it is.
Since the first day of this session, Bluestem's been sad to see you more than live up to our expectations, as you go on and on (and on and on) about agriculture committee structure and leadership. You've gone on the floor of the House, in letters-to-the-editor of rural papers serving swing districts where Democrats were elected, and in your own column.
Most Minneapolis lawmakers spend their careers thinking the only
important activities happen within the metro area, and telling folks in
Greater Minnesota how to live.
Forgive us if we find that a little hard to believe. The last time Bluestem's editor saw Rep. Jean Wagenius, whom others in your caucus (Rep. Drazkowski comes to mind) call an "environmental extremist," she was at the Minnesota Farmers Union convention just before Thanksgiving, taking time to listen to farmers. While exceedingly civil in the tradition of the organization, those farmers weren't shy about sharing their concerns.
I can't say I heard her tell anyone how to live.
Help for Beginning Farmers: You Know You Want To
Nor does that seem to be the preoccuption of Speaker Thissen, unless you consider some of the past legislation he's introduced as telling us how to live. I suppose that we could see HF 3290 from the 86th session that way.
That's an bill in which there are:
Income tax credits provided to encourage beginning farmers, beginning
farmer program administered by the Rural Finance Authority modified, and
money appropriated for beginning farmer individual development
accounts.
Pretty rough stuff by a guy from the mean streets of Minneapolis telling people in Greater Minnesota how to live, I thought, until I read the bill and thought it sounded familiar.
It's pretty much identical to HF0860, a bill which you introduced in the 87th session, in which "Beginning farmer program tax credits provided." My former state Representative, Ron Shimansky, was a co-sponsor, as were DFLers Terry Morrow and Kent Eken.
That the sponsorship passed from Thissen to you with the change in control of the House isn't surprising. What is disappointing is that the Legislature hasn't passed the bill. Bluestem can't think of any group of farmers organized in Greater Minnesota--from the Land Stewardship Project to the Farm Bureau--that doesn't want programs to help beginning farmers.
It's even more apparent that the state should be working on this, given the unfortunate fact of Congressional ag leaders--and funding for the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program--being left out of the fiscal cliff deal.
Getting together with Speaker Thissen and Representative Eken and re-introducing this legislation--then getting it passed through both ag policy and the environmental, natural resources and agriculture finance committee--might be a better use of your time than drafting divisive, urban-bashing columns.
Had I continued to serve as chair of the now eliminated House
Agriculture and Rural Economies Finance Committee, I planned to use the
majority of these funds (Agri Fund) for rural development and ag literacy and
education programs — things like 4-H, FFA, and Farm America. Now they
appear to be gone in favor of economic development programs which may or
may not assist rural Minnesota.
Really? That's a foregone conclusion? You so lack ability as a legislator that you can't make the case for 4-H and FFA? Or other types of rural development that helps the whole state? We're willing to bet that you can, if you spend less time submitting letters newspapers in swing districts and grandstanding in front of the cameras in the House chamber. Or writing inflamatory sentences like:
Minnesota cannot survive without our farmers and agriculture, so why is
the House majority attempting to demonize the men and women who put
food on everyone’s table?
. . . I was disappointed to read my colleague Rep. Rod Hamilton’s letter
in this newspaper attacking specific DFL legislators over the issue of
how the agriculture committees are structured and accusing DFLers of not
representing our rural districts. The session is barely a week old, yet
Rep. Hamilton would rather fan political flames than join together in
working productively on important agriculture issues.
Traditionally,
we have successfully advanced agriculture issues in the Legislature in a
bipartisan fashion. For example, in 2011, the agriculture budget was
the only finance bill we passed with broad bipartisan support before the
state shutdown. Rep. Hamilton’s negative tone is not the right
approach. As Chair of the Agriculture Policy Committee, I believe that
we will present a stronger voice for rural Minnesota by working together
as both Democrats and Republicans.
Challenging the advocacy
skills or commitment of rural members just because they are DFLers and
now are the majority caucus of the Minnesota House is not helpful in
getting to the outcome we all desire.
Poppe's concerns are echoed by Wagenius's vice chair, Andrew Falk, in an article in today's Sauk Centre Herald. Now, Bluestem not only knows young Falk, but his father, Murdock-area farmer Jim Falk, so it's hard to imagine any of the Falks not standing up for farmers and rural Minnesota, much less engaging in "demonizing" farmers.
Representative Andrew Falk (DFL-Murdock) is the vice-chair of the House Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture Finance committee. He has been an active farmer his whole life, and has served in the legislature since 2008.
"I really believe that Rep. Hamilton is trying to make hay with this simply because he's upset about no longer being chair of the Ag Finance committee," Falk stated.
Falk stressed two important points on the matter.
"First, Dennis Ozment, who retired in 2008, was chair of the former House Ag, Environment and Natural Resources committee in the 2005 and 2006 sessions. While I haven't served with him, I've since gotten to know him and think highly of him," Falk said. "This structure was not an issue while Republicans were in charge. This seems like petty partisanship to me.
From 2007 to 2010, agriculture finance was a part of the House Agriculture and Veterans Affairs Finance committee. Rep. Al Juhnke (DFL-Willmar) chaired that committee before he lost re-election in 2010.
Ozment, a fire captain, represented Rosemount and Dakota County, which, although part of the metro area, still includes farms, and parts of Goodhue and Washington Counties. The committee also had the same name for a stretch in the 1990s, when it was chaired by former St. Paul representative C.Thomas Osthoff.
Indeed, Osthoff chaired the committee at height of the "Hog Wars" in Renville County. While some tried to frame the controversy as simply city folks moving out to the country without anticipating the smell of manure, if we're honest about the fight, we'll recall that the citizens of Renville County ended up electing DFLer Gary Kubly in that fight, certainly no ally of "Big Pig" but no enemy of farmers, either.
And the Sauk Centre Herald article goes on, with Farmer and Representative Falk adding that he'd like to talk to you and Rep. Wagenius, who holds some farmland of her own, about your concerns:
"My point is that throughout the years, agriculture has been included with other committee focuses," Falk said. "I know Rep. Wagenius. She has a farm in Douglas County with 50 acres. Between the work of her and myself as vice-chair, we won't let agriculture be diminished."
And Falk's quite willing to work with you on preserving that funding from ethanol payments for rural projects:
When asked about Hamilton's concern about agriculture funding, Falk replied, "If he knows of specific bills being introduced that take funding away from ag and put it to other areas, I'd like to know about them. In terms of something like the expiring ethanol producer payments, I'd like to focus on gearing that funding towards next-generation renewable energy. I don't want us to get into these rural vs. metro fights, especially in the opening week of the session."
Bluestem looked up the funding you're concerned about, Representative Hamilton, and it looked like the enabling legislation funds rural development projects through five years.
Write More Pro-Rural Legislation, Fewer Partisan Letters
If someone drops a bill in the hopper proposing to change that, take Vice-Chair Falk up on that. You and the Caucus might have to forego setting up your 2014 campaign rhetoric to do this, but maybe really working for rural Minnesota, rather than a return to power on the part of your caucus, is more important--especially given the demographic loss of power for all of rural America, regardless of party.
You haven't introduced any bills yet, as far as your page and the revisor's office reveal. Those proposals for ag youth education from last session? The ones you didn't have a co-sponsor for? They're good ideas.
Maybe you should talk to the chair and the vice-chair of the committee whose structure and leadership you scorn and see if they'll co-sponsor them. Of course, FFA and 4-H don't have to be just rural organizations; indeed, engaging urban kids in agriculture education is the bee's knees, if you ask us.
But Bluestem might not be the ones to help you out with that, Representative Hamilton. Reach across the aisle and chambers to check out freshman Senator Foung Hawj, from St. Paul's East Side. He's on the right committees and prior to getting elected, he received an award from the USDA for efforts related to urban agriculture. You might have some common ground.
In short, write fewer letters and more legislation for farmers.
Sincerely,
Bluestem Prairie
P.S. Speaking of common ground, Representative Hamilton: please quit framing urban and rural as environmentalist versus farmer. We've been going to watershed meetings and listening to farmers talk about erosion and water quality. We're pretty sure we heard farmers in the Le Sueur River Watershed say that they'd rather see the soil staying on their creeksides than becoming sediment choking Lake Pepin. Dividing people upstream and down doesn't help anybody.
Graphic: A Rod Hamilton meme.
If you enjoyed reading this post, consider giving a donation via paypal:
Blue Dog Collin Peterson is angry about the short shift farm programs got in the fiscal cliff deal. Minnesota's Land Stewardship Project, which works on local food, sustainable farming and economic justice issues in rural Minnesota, isn't pleased either.
That's a wide spectrum of ag grumpiness--although there's no sign yet that producers are ready to tractorade to DC. Yet.
Many farm groups sought changes that would have given farmers
protections, such as in the case of bad weather, while eliminating
controversial direct payments to farmers.
They didn't get them because the 2012 Farm Bill didn't get a vote in the House--although the Senate and the House Ag Committee approved it. Instead, Davis reports that the reset button was hit, and Congress has to work up a new bill. Meanwhile, the fiscal cliff deal cut out or didn't fund some important projects for conservation, new farmers and other pieces of the puzzle that help rural communities.
Farm policy takes a dramatic step backwards in the fiscal cliff deal
brokered in Congress and soon to be signed into law by President Barack
Obama. Rather than moving forward with much-needed financial and policy
reform Congress and the Administration prioritized continued excessive
commodity subsidies.
After expiration of the farm bill on October 1, 2012 and the
inability of the U.S. House to deliver a bill for conference, pressure
was on to include a farm bill extension in the ongoing fiscal cliff
deal. But along with a few other plums, what ended up being the center
point of the farm bill extension was continuation of the egregious
commodity program known as direct payments – subsidies provided to
producers with no regard for current production or market realities. The
fiscal cliff deal and all agriculture policy within it was initiated by
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Vice President Joe
Biden.
Extending direct payments was unexpected since nearly everyone in
agriculture has recognized the $5 billion a year in subsidies for this
commodity program as outdated and in need of reform. There is no logical
explanation for the extension of direct payments other than it panders
to southern commodity growers in favor with Senator McConnell.
And while wasteful commodity spending was extended, frozen out of the
late-breaking deal was virtually any support for new farmers, rural
development and even disaster aid; despite the worst drought gripping
our country in decades.
Another major failure was the decision not to remedy a funding
hang-up that will prevent farmers from using the Conservation
Stewardship Program (CSP) in the coming year. CSP is aimed at supporting
farmers who are maintaining and improving soil and water conservation
on their active farm land. The program has been popular in the Midwest
and nationally with 50 million acres now enrolled by farmers and
ranchers.
To add insult to injury, Congress gave the wealthiest Americans
increased exemption from estate taxes, a measure that is not only
fiscally imprudent, but will serve to keep more land locked up in the
hands of the heirs of large landowners and decrease new farming
opportunities.
All in all family farm agriculture loses in the fiscal cliff deal –
reverting to the policies of old and disregarding the growth areas in
this sector of our economy.
LSP continues to be committed to advancing a farm bill and
agriculture policy that provides for prosperous rural communities, a
healthy environment and more, not fewer opportunities in agriculture. In
the coming year we will renew efforts to demand reform and
accountability to wasteful and detrimental spending while supporting new
farmer and conservation provisions.
While Peterson and LSP don't always see eye-to-eye, clearly there's a lot of shared frustration over ag and rural America taking a back seat (or no seat at all) in Congress. When it comes to making cost-cutting elimination of programs like direct payments, the Senate and House Ag committees got that work done but had it disregarded, while far less costly but innovative programs that farmers and consumers want are cut or left without funding.
Urban readers: remember this the next time you blame Minnesota's farmers for direct payment subsidies. That's not what they've asked Peterson and Walz for in a farm bill.
And while Bluestem doesn't agree with all the cuts the House Ag committee made in the now-moribund 2012 Farm Bill, Peterson does have a point here:
The ag committee cut $35 billion in the bill it passed, but House
leaders never allowed the full body to consider. That cut was sought by
top Republicans, but Peterson said other committees did not comply by
finding cuts in their parts of the budget.
“The committees that were irresponsible and didn’t do their work got
what they wanted, and the Agriculture Committee got screwed,” Peterson
said. “It is a little hard for me to swallow.”
Hard not to be grumpy about that.
Photo: We're all Grumpy Cat now.
Donate: If you enjoy reading posts like this at Bluestem, consider throwing some coin in the plate at Paypal:
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