To learn more and register, go to www.freshwater.org.

Omnibus Environment and Game and Fish Bills’ passage further chips away at Minnesota’s environmental foundation

Legislative Approval of Rules Bill (HF 203)
Governor Dayton’s veto of this bill is good news for Minnesotans. With the Governor’s veto, a very real restriction and defacto moratorium on the executive branch’s authority on some measures to protect our air, water and health, was avoided. We are pleased the Governor vetoed a bill that would have removed the authority of state agencies like the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to protect our environment and the health of Minnesota citizens.

Omnibus Environmental Policy Bill (HF 2164)
We are disappointed that some key parts of this legislation have become law. This bill does more harm than good for Minnesota’s environment. As a statewide coalition of nonprofits advocating for environmental protections and conservation, we are concerned about the long-term impacts of this bill, particularly the damage to Minnesota’s long-standing goal of no net loss of our state’s wetlands. With the signing of this bill, the Land of 10,000 Lakes also abandons its policy against export of our increasingly valuable water to other regions and countries. We are disturbed by the bad legislative processes that created this bill: Legislators added new language to this bill at the 11th hour in conference committee with no public testimony.

Our coalition is disappointed that good policies to enhance management of Aquatic Invasive Species and to maintain the ban on open-air manure lagoons were shoehorned into this omnibus bill with other unneeded provisions. If legislators were serious about protecting our waters from Aquatic Invasive Species, they could have easily passed a separate bill instead of including AIS enforcement in a controversial bill like this.

Game and Fish Bill (HF 2171)
We are pleased that with Governor Dayton’s signature, the long-overdue increases on license fees are instated, ensuring the Department of Natural Resources’ important work will continue. However, we are deeply concerned about the section that orders the DNR to manage the wolf population in a way that does not reflect the best, original judgment of professional game managers at the department.

In both the Omnibus Environment bill and the Game and Fish bill, politicians crammed good provisions into controversial legislation. Logrolling is one of the oldest political maneuvers, but that doesn’t mean Minnesotans want our elected officials to use it.

These compromises continue to chip away at Minnesota’s core environmental policies and are not in line with Minnesotans’ expectations that elected officials do what’s right for our state’s future by protecting our Great Outdoors.

Dear Governor Dayton,

As you know, this Legislature has made a number of efforts to weaken environmental protections in this state.  Your staff and staff from the MPCA, DNR, and BWSR have done a great deal to eliminate most of the worst proposals, and we appreciate those efforts.

As we appear to be nearing the end of the legislative session, however, there are three bills before you which open the door to serious erosion of Minnesota’s environmental safeguards.

HF 2164 – Omnibus Environmental Policy bill (McNamara/Ingebrigtsen)
This bill does very little to protect the environment.  There is a ban on open-air manure lagoons and some small enhancements in aquatic invasive species management which could be helpful.  But, for the most part, this bill is a collection of rollbacks, some minor, but three which are potentially significant:

• New advisory inspections:  At a time when continual budget and staff cuts make enforcement less and less effective, this bill creates even more competition for those scarce agency resources with the 11th-hour addition of an “advisory inspection” section.  This was not heard in committee, and, while there may be merit to the concept, this has not received the kind of public vetting that such an important policy change requires.
• Wetland Conservation Amendment (WCA) changes:  The expansion of the exemptions that were in earlier versions of the bill has been whittled down, but there is no compelling case for expanding WCA exemptions at all, at least not without careful consideration by the involved stakeholders.  The grant of unilateral authority to BWSR to enter into memoranda of understanding with NRCS that could reduce WCA’s applicability may not be a major concern with the current board and staff, but a future BWSR less concerned with wetlands protection would be able to do real damage without any guidelines to constrain its actions.
• Elimination of policy to discourage water diversion: This is a step backward in providing clear state policy on not diverting Minnesota water to other states or Canada.

We urge you to VETO this legislation.

HF 203—Legislative Approval of Rules (Senjem/Westrom)
This bill requires the legislature to approve any rules that would cost a business or a municipality with less than 25 full-time staff more than $10,000.  The authority of the executive branch to adopt reasonable and necessary administrative rules to implement state and sometimes federal statutes is critical to protecting Minnesota’s public health and the environment.  This is an unnecessary and, in the hands of the wrong legislature, potentially disastrous restriction and defacto moratorium on the authority you and your agencies need to protect the health of Minnesota’s citizens.  We urge you to VETO this legislation.

HF 2171:  Game and fish bill (Ingebrigtsen/Hackbarth)
We strongly support the long-overdue increase in license fees so the DNR can do its job.  We oppose the policy rider that orders the DNR to manage the wolf population in a way that does not reflect the best, original judgment of professional game managers at the department.

We acknowledge that the omnibus environmental bill and the game and fish bill are likely to be signed.   We are disappointed, however, that, after showing great courage in using your veto authority to turn back several other negative measures from this legislature, that we are asked to compromise and accept the continued  chipping away at Minnesota’s core environmental policies.

We look forward to working with you further as you develop your Administration’s environmental agenda.

Sincerely,

Steve Morse
Executive Director
Minnesota Environmental Partnership

See the full list of members who signed on in support by downloading the letter here (pdf).

Key examples of where this bill falls short include:

• Over $6 billion in cuts to voluntary conservation programs are unwise and excessive. This is especially true in this time of intense pressure on American farmland with strong crop and livestock prices demanding more from every farmer and every acre.
• The failure to link conservation compliance to crop insurance benefits is inexcusable. As a result of this failure, federally subsidized crop insurance does not require the same rigor as other farm programs — where farmers are required to maintain healthy soil and water on their land as a condition of receiving public support.
•  Furthermore, the Senate bill will worsen economic disparities in agriculture. The bill fuels a runaway train of federally subsidized crop insurance, which removes risk for massive commodity operations and expands their ability to increase land holdings at the expense of family farmers. Even as the bill takes some steps forward in the commodity title, it still guarantees revenue protections for massive commodity production, which is a major step backwards.
•  The fact that this bill cuts $4 billion from programs that help hungry people in need of food assistance is unacceptable. As our communities rebuild from one of the worst economic crises in memory, this in not how our country should respond.
•  The bill also misses an historic opportunity to support thousands of beginning farmers and ranchers wanting to enter agriculture, and cuts deeply into the needs of minority farmers. Compared to the 2008 Farm Bill, the Senate cut the effective Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program by as much as 47 percent annually, and will result in less assistance, training and support for new farmers. The 2501 Outreach and Assistance to Socially Disadvantaged Farms and Rancher Program was reduced by as much as 73 percent annually.

We commend the Committee for including a “sod saver” provision that aims to protect land which has not been cropped or is in native prairie, as well as some commodity program reforms that better target and improve eligibility requirements for these programs.

The Land Stewardship Project believes it is important to address and improve the measures noted above. Our organization is committed to work with policymakers on changes that can make farm policy more equitable, accountable and sound for the future. There is still time for change.

All those pesky citizens around Ely and Isabella, asking the state’s executive council to protect their private property from mineral leases underneath? Let’s cut them off.

And, do we really have to write that report on how Minnesota can reduce its greenhouse gas emissions? Some folks really liked this freaky warm winter.

These provisions and more are in the current Minnesota House Environment Omnibus bill, HF 2164. Or, as some are calling it, the “Ominous” Environmental bill. As one clever writer from the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy (MCEA) put it, these provisions “need to get buried somewhere in a very dark place.”

Sure, I’m oversimplifying some complex legislative concepts. My point is that there has been a fundamental shift in our policy making, away from proactive, high-quality standards for our state’s natural resources, and toward shortcuts and national political agendas.

This is not just election year sloganeering. It’s a movement of deeply-held beliefs from elected representatives intent on moving Minnesota in a direction very different from what the majority of Minnesotans want.

Environmental policy-making used to be about safe limits for drinking water quality or about adequate funding for land protection. Now environmental policy-making has become a series of proposed shortcuts to make it easier for private companies to impact and extract natural resources, even those resources like parks and rivers we have worked hard in the past to protect.

It reminds me of a question posed long ago by Henry David Thoreau, “What is the use of a house if you haven’t got a tolerable planet to put it on?”

If you’re concerned about the policy precedents this bill would set, read more about it at MCEA or at Minnesota Environmental Partnership . The bill is working its way through the House and Senate and a final version will be headed to Governor Dayton soon. We all want clean Minnesota water and clear Minnesota air…and clear Minnesota policy-making as well.

This blog entry originally appeared in Hindsight 2020, the Minnesota 2020 Blog

The third annual Brooklyn Center EarthFest took place on Saturday, April 14 from noon to 4 p.m. with Will Steger of the Will Steger Foundation as the speaker from noon to 1 p.m. Over seventy exhibits in the auditorium featured how local businesses and organizations were committing themselves to be environmentally friendly.

Will Steger held a presentation on how he has witnessed firsthand the effects of climate change in the Arctic. He has made numerous treks across the ice with sled dogs, and understands the danger of polar ice breaking up. When you’re out there on the ice, you learn that water on top of it means it’ll break up soon, which means immediate danger. Steger finished with a call to action: everyone can do something small for the environment.

One step many took was stopping by the Sierra Club booth and sign a postcard petition to the EPA!

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is collecting comments from the public on a new proposed rule. They recently proposed new limits for carbon emissions for any new power plant in the United States. Sierra Club volunteers collected postcards in support of this ruling against carbon pollution at EarthFest on Saturday. Visit the Sierra Club's website to submit a comment online.

Other booths at EarthFest included demonstrations of green cleaners made out of vinegar, water, and dish soap, garbage companies with demonstrations of how to recycle and compost, food and a kids area where they could make their own paint and plant seeds to start a garden.

Fortunately, Virginia farmer Joel Salatin has done an excellent job of doing a point-by-point deconstruction of McWilliams’ argument that sustainable farming is actually bad for the environment. Salatin’s piece does a wonderful job of combining his own practical experience as a livestock producer with the general, well-known scientific/economic facts at hand. And it’s that latter point that is perhaps the most troubling about McWilliams’ screed: his misstatements aren’t just off by a little in the facts department—they’re off by a lot.

Here’s one example: he claims right out of the chute that “grass-grazing cows emit considerably more methane than grain-fed cows.” McWilliams then goes on to use that as one of the major reasons we should not look to farming methods such as pasture-based livestock production as a basis for a more sustainable food system. Large-scale confinement of livestock may be inhumane, McWilliams maintains, but environmentally it’s preferable to pasture-based systems.

As Huck Finn would say, that’s quite a stretcher. The fact is, research conducted by the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service found that total emissions for the greenhouse gases methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide were 8 percent lower in systems where dairy cows were kept on pasture. When fields were converted from row crops to perennial grasslands for grazing, annual carbon sequestration levels climbed from zero to as high as 3,400 pounds per acre, according to the research. Overall, a well-managed dairy herd kept outdoors year-round had a 6 percent smaller carbon footprint compared to its confinement counterpart.

This research takes a big-picture look at the whole greenhouse gas emissions issue by going beyond what comes out of the back end of a cow at any given time and examining the entire system over the length of a growing season—from what and how the feed is raised for the cows to what happens to their manure afterwards. And isn’t it the long-term impacts that matter in the real world?

“The carbon sequestration benefits really add up,” ARS agricultural engineer Al Rotz told the publication Agricultural Research. “When farmland is transitioned from rotated crops to perennial grassland, you can build up lots of carbon in the soil and substantially reduce your carbon footprint for 20 to 30 years.”

The other benefits of such a transition are significant as well. When cows were kept in barns year-round, sediment erosion from growing corn and alfalfa for feed averaged 2,500 pounds per acre. But when cows were allowed to get their feed from perennial grasslands, erosion dropped 87 percent. Phosphorus runoff dropped from 57 pounds per acre to 44 pounds when cows were put on pasture.

These research results came out in May 2011, giving McWilliams plenty of time to correct his facts for an April 2012 newspaper commentary. (He’s also apparently chosen to ignore the elephant in the room when it comes to large-scale livestock’s environmental unsustainability: the Gulf of Mexico’s Dead Zone.) The USDA, which has long promoted confinement livestock production, should be applauded for finally letting the science on sustainable animal farming speak for itself.

If only Professor McWilliams was as open-minded.

Excerpt from the letter:

“The Minnesota Environmental Partnership believes the following principles must be affirmed in the next Farm Bill.

1. Provide sound and robust funding for voluntary conservation programs.

An investment in Farm Bill conservation delivers positive outcomes that benefit everyone. With the Conservation Title, Congress can leverage additional state and private funding to assist landowners, farmers and other stakeholders in safeguarding our natural resources. Protecting soil and enhancing water quality are long-term investments in food security and in health that end up being cost saving measures as well as an economic stimulus. The Conservation Title includes a suite of working lands programs, easement programs and public/private partnerships that have served Minnesota well.

Congress should prioritize the Conservation Title by funding it at the current baseline average of $6 billion a year.

2. Enact reforms to curtail wasteful spending and irresponsible policy consequences.

Within farm program spending, the overwhelming bulk of public dollars provide assurances to protect farmers and ranchers from major price declines or crop failures from year to year. These assurances offered through the Commodity Title and federally subsidized crop insurance have laudable origins. However, wasteful and detrimental spending must be curtailed and policy reforms should be advanced to lessen unintended consequences that can have disastrous environmental effects.

Those include:

• Invigorating a stewardship compact that ensures basic soil and water conservation on American farmland.
  The federal crop insurance program has evolved to become the primary “safety net” for major segments of agriculture. Insurance is offered to farmers through insurance companies and in large part subsidized by federal dollars. This generous public support, whose initial aim was to stabilize our nation’s farmer base and production abilities, lacks a quid pro quo for assurances that agricultural producers sustain basic levels of soil and water conservation.Subsidizing risk can create an incentive for taking serious risks with our natural resources – attaching the same basic stewardship obligations that apply to other Farm Bill subsidies (provisions known as “Conservation Compliance”) would directly combat some of the unintended destructive consequences of taxpayer-subsidized crop insurance.

  Conservation compliance has worked with federally subsidized crop insurance in the past and can work again. Conservation compliance needs to be a condition for producers to receive subsidies for federally supported crop insurance

• Eliminate wasteful provisions that incentivize habitat destruction.
  High commodity prices and subsidized crop insurance offer powerful incentives to convert marginal lands such as native prairies into row crop production. A sodsaver provision would ensure that those who plow up native grassland or other environmentally sensitive land should be ineligible for USDA subsidies and benefits on those lands.

• Equitable allocation of finite resources.
  We recognize that Farm Bill cuts are imminent and savings must be real. Better targeting of crop insurance and commodity programs to those in need or where it is most likely to produce positive outcomes for the American public is the most logical place to identify savings. The strong agricultural economy foreseen for upcoming years provides policymakers with an opportunity to reduce spending in these areas without unfairly burdening farmers or jeopardizing conservation investments.Establishing stronger payment limits and per individual caps are examples of ways to better target crop insurance and commodity programs. Additionally, Congress should augment the eligibility criteria for commodity programs so they truly assist those actively engaged in the agricultural operation, not just partners on paper or those with insignificant contributions but reaping farm program payments.

On behalf of the members of the Minnesota Environmental Partnership and Minnesotans from across our great state, we ask your support to incorporate these Minnesota principles into the final Farm Bill.”

Download the full letter (pdf).

by Shane Solga

Discussion topics included Minnesota Power’s plans for the future of electricity in Northeast Minnesota, the deadly effects of burning coal, and how renewable technologies are becoming the smart choice economically for Minnesota’s energy future.

Northeastern Minnesota is at energy crossroads. Currently, ninety-five percent of Minnesota Power’s electricity is generated by coal-fired plants. During the presentations given by each of the panelists it was recognized that coal does not represent a smart energy future for Northeastern Minnesota, neither in a public health or economic sense. In the coming decades Minnesota Power does plan to invest more in renewable options, such as solar and especially wind, to bring this total down to 51%. What they failed to do, however, is commit to developing a timeline for closing their dirtiest, oldest, and most economically unviable plants: Laskin in Hoyt Lakes, Taconite Harbor in Schroeder, and half of the Clay Boswell Plant in Cohasset. This is what Northeastern Minnesota needs – for our health and our economy.

Investing in clean energy will protect our health. Coal plants are the largest human-made cause of mercury pollution in the world. A recent study by the Minnesota Department of Health found that one in every 10 babies along Minnesota’s north shore is born with unhealthy levels of mercury in their bodies. Each of our 10,000 lakes is under a fish consumption advisory because of mercury pollution. Coupled with the air pollution produced by these dirty plants, it makes no sense to keep these power plants open any longer. Just as the American Lung Association reminded us last Wednesday evening, these plants represent a great detriment to public health.

Investing in clean energy by closing these plants also makes great economic sense. Instead of shipping in coal from another state to provide our electricity, it is possible to do it with Minnesota products and Minnesota resources. Every day, people are working to make solar panels right here in Minnesota. One company is even manufacturing them right here in the Arrowhead. Minnesota’s wind potential is estimated to be able to produce more than 25 times the state’s current electricity needs. Why should we want our utility to ship in coal from out of state when we can meet our energy needs right here? For every $1 million invested in clean energy, 16.7 jobs are created. When you compare that to only 5.3 jobs created by every $1 million invested in fossil fuels, it is clear that we can do better than coal here in the Northland.

Write to the Public Utilities Commission at PublicComments.PUC@state.mn.us or in writing to Public Utilities Commission, 121 7th Place East, Suite 350, St. Paul, MN 55101. When you are writing it is important to include your specific recommendation on the issue and the reason you care about it along with your name and address. When writing put Docket Number PUC Docket E-015/RP-09-1088/ Minnesota Power BDS in the subject of your e-mail.

A complete video of the April 11th clean energy forum, including panelist presentations and public discussion, will be posted later this week at TheUptake.org.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Timberwolves team president Chris Wright and Twolves mascot Crunch presented Merlene and Jim Stiles with an autographed team picture during their halftime recognition.

On April 9, 2012, the Minnesota Environmental Partnership was honored at the Minnesota Timberwolves game as part of their ‘Think Green Month.’ We were able to salute a few of MEP’s key volunteers during halftime as ‘Heroes in the Making.’ It was our pleasure to designate Jim and Merlene Stiles with this recognition.

Jim and Merlene have been environmental leaders in their hometown of Austin, Minn., for many years. Jim owns SuperFresh Produce and Garden Center, a local, sustainable grocery store and greenhouse. He is also the president of the Austin chapter of the Izaak Walton League.

Merlene is the conservation issues chair for the Austin Izaak Walton League as well as a member of the League of Women Voters, Audubon, and other conservation organizations.

Jim, Merlene and the entire Izaak Walton League chapter in Austin have engaged thousands of Minnesotans in protecting our water and our Great Outdoors. The couple organizes annual visits between Austin residents and legislators so that community members have the opportunity to discuss conservation issues with their elected Senator and Representative. Perhaps most impressive is their coordination of an annual bus trip to the Capitol: Each year, 35-40 constituents pay their own way to board a bus from Austin to the State Capitol in Saint Paul to hear the latest legislative news from the Minnesota Environmental Partnership and meet with legislators.

By connecting their neighbors with elected officials, as well as being green leaders in their community, Jim and Merlene are doing important work to ensure we keep the ‘great’ in Minnesota’s Great Outdoors!

Read more about Jim and Merlene’s recognition in this story by the Timberwolves.