Matt Doll, Minnesota Environmental Partnership

Minnesotans have a habit of changing history with our innovations. From open-heart surgery to supercomputers, from retractable seat belts to in-ear hearing aids, we’ve made a positive mark on the world. But it would be unfair to take all the credit for these big steps forward without recognizing that the invention of PFAS chemicals, one of the greatest environmental catastrophes of our lifetime, happened right here, too. It perhaps makes it fitting that Minnesota is now poised to lead the way to try to fix this mess.

Developed at 3M in the 1970s, the PFAS class of chemicals are useful for making products waterproof and easy to clean, among other uses. They don’t break down easily, and there’s no natural process that makes it happen – hence the use of the term “forever chemicals” to describe them.

The fact that PFAS doesn’t break down in the environment would be bad enough. But many of these chemicals contribute to a myriad of health conditions – cancer, vaccine resistance, high cholesterol – makes their rapid proliferation a worldwide tragedy. And those are just the effects we know of today.

No one on this planet chose to put PFAS in their bodies, but almost of us have it anyway. These chemicals have made their way into our bloodstream through water, fish, and consumer products. Some communities, like parts of the eastern Twin Cities Metro – home to an old 3M dumping site – have it worse than others, facing appalling rates of illnesses like childhood cancer.

Some of the worst offenders among PFAS chemicals – specifically PFOA and PFOS – have been largely phased out in most countries, leading to dramatic reductions in their prevalence in human bodies. But others continue to be used in numerous consumer products and in concentrated sources like firefighting foam. And we’re only just beginning to learn about the horrifying scope of PFAS usage in pesticides (as if one of the world’s worst environmental offenders couldn’t get worse!)

Taken together, the story of PFAS so far is a gloomy one. Humanity will be dealing with the health ramifications of these toxic substances for generations to come.

But in Minnesota, the birthplace of PFAS, we might be starting to turn things around.

The Minnesota response

The good news is that we have simple, effective tools for reducing the amount of PFAS in our bodies: halt their use, and make sure that our drinking water is protected. Those solutions are the basis for the package of PFAS legislation currently advancing at the Capitol, which MEP has identified as one of our key priorities to pass this session. Most are included in one or both of the Environment Omnibus Bills introduced in the House and Senate.

The solutions proposed in these bills have included:

• Banning PFAS from firefighting foam except where required by federal law
• Banning PFAS from childrens’ products
• Requiring labeling of products that contain PFAS
• Allowing Minnesotans exposed to toxic chemicals like PFAS to sue companies for their medical monitoring costs
• Banning all non-essential uses of PFAS, and banning intentionally added PFAS in products by the early 2030s.
• Requiring the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to set strict drinking water standards for PFAS levels. MEP and our allies sent a letter in favor of the water standards bill to Legislators last month.
• Prohibiting the use of agricultural chemicals in Minnesota that have PFAS intentionally added into them. 

The Walz Administration has also proposed spending $46 million to monitor, reduce, and clean up these chemicals throughout the state, and has expressed support for the policy solutions moving in the Legislature. At a joint press conference with Representative Jeff Brand, author of the non-essential use ban, MPCA Commissioner Katrina Kessler said, “We are grateful for the opportunity to work with the Legislature on proposals that could accelerate essential pollution prevention measures and bring additional resources to work to avoid, manage, and clean up PFAS.”

These bills certainly haven’t gone unopposed. Lobbyists representing a wide array of chemical companies flew to Minnesota earlier in the session to argue that companies will be unfairly burdened by these proposals. They made arguments about the cost of compliance, the fact that not all PFAS chemicals have yet been identified as causing harm, and the challenges of having different chemical laws in different states. That last argument should be taken with an especially large grain of salt – the chemical industries aren’t exactly thrilled by the idea of nationwide regulation, either.

The chemical lobby stood in contrast, especially in comparison to students and parents from Tartan High School in Oakdale – ground zero for PFAS exposure. These community members shared their own stories with Legislators of how their loved ones’ lives have been devastated or cut short by PFAS-related cancers.

Legislators have modified some of their provisions, but they aren’t stepping backward on the PFAS package, nor should they. If signed into law, it would represent among the strongest actions ever taken in the United States to combat this health threat.

It’s encouraging to see the signs around the world that the use of PFAS substances is waning. 3M, which faces major lawsuits for its role in this crisis, has committed to phasing out their PFAS manufacturing entirely by 2025. The European Chemicals Agency has proposed phasing out PFAS across the entire European Union. Maine has passed a law that bans all intentional inclusion of PFAS in products by 2030.

Here in Minnesota, we’re working to start fixing the PFAS problem where it began. We owe it to ourselves, our kids, and the world to get it right.

For previous columns, visit mepartnership.org/category/blog/. If you would like to reblog or republish this column, you may do so for free – simply contact the author at matthew@mepartnership.org.

Matt Doll, Minnesota Environmental Partnership

Minnesota is a place where waters begin. With a few exceptions, just about all of our rivers start here and flow somewhere else. Snowmelt and rainfall in the Northwoods flow north to Hudson Bay, south to the Gulf of Mexico, and east into Lake Superior, our nation’s greatest freshwater resource. So when it comes time to make sure lawmakers in our nation’s capital prioritize that precious resource, it’s only natural that the Minnesota Environmental Partnership shares in the work.

MEP Executive Director Steve Morse and Great Lakes Program Director Andrew Slade had the opportunity to do that work earlier this month when they attended Great Lakes Days in Washington, D.C. Joined by community advocates, they spoke with members of Congress and their staff about ways that the federal government can restore and reinvest in our Great Lakes and the communities who call it home.

Great Lakes Days (March 7-9) is a program of the Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition that brings voices from around the Great Lakes basin to share their priorities with policymakers. Like MEP on a regional scale, the Coalition (which counts Steve Morse as a member of its Board) is composed of dozens of organizations and works on a variety of issues ranging from invasive species to public health.

For our part, MEP uses Great Lakes Days as an opportunity to spotlight Minnesota voices – particularly from Duluth and the North Shore – which are not often heard in the halls of the U.S. Capitol. This year, we brought with us Kris Eilers and Breanna Ellison of the St. Louis River Alliance, LeeAnn LittleWolf of the American Indian Community Housing Organization, and Ben Penner, a farmer who grows the regenerative crop Kernza. Enjoying D.C.’s somewhat balmier weather, the team met with Senators Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith, Congresswoman Angie Craig, and congressional staff for five of Minnesota’s other U.S. Representatives.

The Issues

One of the HOW-Great Lakes Coalition’s greatest priorities – and greatest successes – is the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI), a popular federal program that invests in improving and protecting this vital watershed. Going strong since 2009, the GLRI funds projects ranging from invasive species management to toxic waste cleanup to habitat restoration.

While other environmental efforts face partisan rancor in Washington, the GLRI generally enjoys broad bipartisan support, especially from members of Congress from around the lakeshores. We don’t take that support for granted, though – after all, the Trump Administration proposed cutting the GLRI by 90% in 2019. When Morse and Slade went to Washington, they made sure to highlight the GLRI’s successes in Lake Superior communities like Duluth, making the case for continued investment of $425 million in funding for the program in the next budget. We’re happy to report that Minnesota’s members of Congress showed plenty of enthusiasm for this bipartisan effort.

MEP also brought up another key issue we’ve worked on, especially Duluth: the quest to replace Minnesotans’ aging, poisonous lead drinking water service lines. Morse and Slade thanked lawmakers for passing the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021, which has made significant funds available for replacing these pipes. They also reported on the rapidly advancing efforts at the Minnesota Legislature to replace every lead service line in the state within the next ten years, funded in part by those federal dollars.

Naturally, MEP spoke with members and staff about one of our longtime areas of expertise: improving the way we farm and the crops we grow to help protect our water. The current, dominant system of growing corn and soybeans has caused great difficulties around the Great Lakes basin.

Fertilizer pollution, along with climate change, contributes to the massive algal blooms that emerge every year in Lake Erie. Closer to home, thousands of Minnesota homes, especially in the southern part of the state, have to deal with well water contaminated by nitrates from fertilizer. These problems are in separate watersheds, but they’re closely connected – as are the solutions.

That’s why MEP has a long term commitment to support the University of Minnesota’s Forever Green Initiative in both the Legislature and Congress. Forever Green is developing continuous living cover crops, like the aforementioned Kernza, that can revolutionize the way we use farmland. Some crops can replace corn, soybeans, and other annual crops, while others can be integrated into them, growing in the offseason. In either case, these CLC crops help keep fertilizer runoff from flowing downstream, but that’s not all: they also build healthier soil, provide habitat for pollinators and other wildlife, and help prepare for climate change. Critically, they’re also becoming commercially viable, meaning that farmers will benefit economically by adding these crops to their fields.

If we can further support this research and new supply chains (with some federal support), these crops can be a viable solution for many of the problems that plague, not just our MN lakes and rivers, but also our Great Lakes. And they have countless potential uses, including food, low-carbon biofuels, and even bioplastics.

Our team, with the help of Ben Penner, made sure to impress the need for these Minnesota-grown solutions on our members of Congress, and at least one was wildly enthusiastic. Congresswoman Craig told us, “I love Kernza!” 

Just as important as our Congressional meetings, though, were the connections our team built with other Great Lakes community organizations. At one of the Coalition training sessions, MEP shared our video, Mercury in the St. Louis River, which we produced with Midstory and community partners to shine light on one of the biggest environmental justice issues on our end of the Great Lakes.

Today, the Great Lakes face an uncertain future, with climate change, agricultural pollution, PFAS, and invasive species all threatening this watery region we call home. But just as great as these challenges are the grassroots organizations from around the lakes working to protect them for generations to come.

For previous columns, visit mepartnership.org/category/blog/. If you would like to reblog or republish this column, you may do so for free – simply contact the author at matthew@mepartnership.org.

Matt Doll, Minnesota Environmental Partnership

When you look from the 30,000 feet level, Minnesota is a very healthy place to live. At last count, we have roughly the third-highest life expectancy among the 50 states. Most of us breathe freely and easily – our air quality is in the top ten, and we have one of the nation’s lowest rates of asthma. For most of us, our drinking water is safe, our homes are appropriately distant from pollution, and we can expect to live a reasonably healthy life.

But all of those excellent rankings come with a big asterisk: an obscenely high variation in those outcomes between white Minnesotans and Minnesotans of color, and between the well-off and those in poverty. As with income, homeownership, educational attainment, and many other statistics, Minnesota has some of the worst racial and environmental health gaps in the nation. We’re living in the same state, but with vastly different experiences.

Take asthma: while the state as a whole has a low rate of the disease, Black and Indigenous Minnesotans are more likely to be diagnosed with it than white Minnesotans. For Black Minnesotans, rates of death from asthma were about 1.7 times higher than among whites from 2016-2020. Minnesota children who live in counties with high rates of childhood poverty are about twice as likely to be hospitalized for an asthma attack as those in average or more affluent counties.

Lead exposure is another classic example, one that MEP has written and worked on extensively. Whether from sources like paint, water pipes, or industrial facilities like Water Gremlin or the Federal Ammunition Plant, far too many people are still exposed to lead, and it doesn’t hit equally. Kids in areas of high childhood poverty are more than twice as likely to suffer from elevated blood lead levels than the state average, largely due to the environment they live in.

The numbers are similar for heart disease, cancer, and all manner of other conditions. These disparities constitute a tragedy, but it would be a mistake to characterize them as an accident. Rather, it’s a legacy of environmental racism and decisions that intentionally placed pollution in Black and Brown communities or caused Black and Brown communities to end up in polluted places. In most cases, companies and government agencies went ahead with these decisions without seeking input from those who would be most impacted – the people who lived there – treating their neighborhoods and communities as “sacrifice zones” for pollution.

Take a look at a demographic map of the Twin Cities, for example, and you’ll see that the most heavily-used stretches of interstate highways snake through areas of low-income and populations of color. These areas by and large have a high proportion of asphalt, low levels of tree cover, and various sources of industrial and transportation pollution. 

Redlining and other forms of segregation may now be prohibited by law, but their effects are still impacting Minnesotans today. Minnesota will never be a state where everyone can thrive until we both recognize the harm these decisions have caused and take the critical steps we need to fix them.

Protecting frontline communities

Environmental justice advocates and community leaders see stopping the problem from getting worse as a good place to start. New industrial or other projects shouldn’t be allowed to further threaten people’s health in communities that have already borne the brunt of pollution. That’s the logic behind cumulative impacts legislation, which seeks to take into consideration the impact of pollution that has occurred over time and from multiple sources when environmental agencies decide whether to permit those projects. 

In Minnesota, that bill takes the form of the Frontline Communities Protection Act (FCPA), introduced by North Minneapolis legislators Rep. Fue Lee and Sen. Bobby Joe Champion. The bill would create strong new protections for environmental justice communities – areas of relatively low income, high populations of color, or tribal land.

It would give the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency a mandate to conduct greater public engagement and require health impacts research and analysis of new projects in these communities. The MPCA would have the authority – and indeed, the requirement – to reject a project or place special conditions on its permit if it is deemed to threaten residents’ health. 

MEP and our partners in both our membership and in environmental justice communities support the bill as a first step to righting the wrongs of our past and present – to stop the bleeding of pollution into frontline communities. We’re optimistic that it will pass: on Tuesday, the Senate version of the FCPA was approved by the Environment, Climate, and Legacy Committee and it now goes to the State and Local Government and Veterans Committee. The companion bill will get its first hearing in the House Environment and Natural Resources Committee this coming Tuesday, March 14. 

If it passes, the cumulative impacts bill will mark a historic moment and step forward: Minnesota not only recognizes the harms our systems have caused to frontline communities, but commits to halting and reversing them. The fact that we’ve gotten this far is a testament to the organizers from these communities who have worked tirelessly for their voices to be heard, and for environmentally just decisions to be made. Thanks to their efforts, we can look forward to a Minnesota where everyone – not just the privileged – can live in a healthy, breathable community.

How you can help: Stand in solidarity with our most overburdened communities and show decisionmakers that the FCPA is an essential bill to pass this session. You can show your support in two ways – by contacting your legislators, and/or by attending the House Environment and Natural Resources Finance and Policy Committee hearing this Tuesday, March 14 at 3:00 PM in Room 10 at the State Office Building in St. Paul. Supporters will be wearing lavender and purple to show support for this vital legislation. Thank you for taking action to advance environmental justice in Minnesota!

For previous columns, visit mepartnership.org/category/blog/. If you would like to reblog or republish this column, you may do so for free – simply contact the author at matthew@mepartnership.org.

Matt Doll, Minnesota Environmental Partnership

It may be favoritism to claim that Minnesota is one of the nations’ greatest “outdoor states,” but with respect to Colorado, Washington, and Maine, we’re definitely a contender for the top spot. From the Boundary Waters wilderness to the highly-ranked park systems in the Twin Cities, our public lands are a vital part of our culture. Just about all of us get outside in one way or another, whether it’s hiking, biking, camping, hunting, or fishing. And that means that just about all of us have benefited from the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund (ENRTF), a Minnesota idea that’s paid off many times over for our Great Outdoors.

The ENRTF was created in 1988 after a whopping 81% of Minnesotans voted for a constitutional amendment establishing the fund along with its source of income, the Minnesota Lottery. The idea behind its creation was to have a stable, long-term source of funding to invest in the air, waters, lands, and wildlife that define our state.

Since then, the ENRTF has put more than $700 million of Lottery and investment income into hundreds of environmental projects across the state. These dollars go through state agencies, local municipalities, universities, and organizations, supporting a wide variety of jobs in research, restoration, and recreation. It funds reforestation in the Northwoods and fish protection in the Driftless. It supports air pollution studies in the Twin Cities to solar panels on our western farms. The list goes on and on.

Minnesotans don’t need to play the lottery to benefit from this constitutional amendment, and it shows. In 1998, voters were asked to approve continued lottery funding for the ENRTF. In a year when Minnesotans split three ways on their choice for Governor (giving a 37% plurality to Jesse Ventura), they approved the ENRTF amendment in yet another landslide.

That amendment came with an expiration date, however. The Trust Fund is only guaranteed its share (currently 40%) of the Lottery funds by the state constitution until 2025. That means that a future Legislature could change where the lottery money goes, potentially siphoning it away to other projects and leaving our great outdoors with less than its due.

That’s why MEP and our allies hope that this year, the Legislature will put the ENRTF on the ballot once again, giving Minnesotans the chance to renew and enhance one of our best ideas.

Keeping the trust

Whenever we discuss the Trust Fund, it’s worth remembering the intent behind it: to be a special, additional source of funding for our natural resources in addition to normal government operations. Minnesotans put it in our constitution because our Great Outdoors is a priority to us. It goes above and beyond geography and political fault lines.

One story illustrates what can happen when that idea is challenged. At the tail end of the 2018 session, the Legislature passed a budget bill that would have taken around $164 million from the Trust Fund to pay off bonds for wastewater infrastructure. 

MEP isn’t opposed to water infrastructure bonding in general – we successfully lobbied for more than $300 billion of it in 2020. But that’s what ordinary, general obligation bonds are for. The ENRTF wasn’t built to fulfill government’s basic duties. These bonds were both more expensive than the bonds the state usually issues and funded from the wrong place. If they’d gone forward, those bonds would have drained the ENRTF, edged out numerous projects for our outdoor spaces, and put the long-term benefit of the Trust Fund in jeopardy.

The environmental community couldn’t let this raid stand. For the first time in our history, MEP participated in a multi-organization lawsuit against the state to halt the sale of these bonds, arguing that the raid betrayed the public trust. Fortunately, our efforts paid off, and the Legislature fixed their misguided action. The ENRTF was safe, and a harmful precedent was reversed.

Looking forward

Despite that brief conflict, the ENRTF remains largely uncontroversial, both a potent source of funding for our outdoors and a monument to bipartisan cooperation. But today, Minnesotans need to reauthorize it. In the process, we hope to make it stronger.

Senator Foung Hawj and Representative Athena Hollins have introduced a bill, SF 2404/HF 1900, that would put the constitutional amendment to voters once again on the 2024 general election ballot. This time, however, it would come with more funding – the share of lottery proceeds going to the ENRTF would rise from 40% to 50%, in addition to lottery prizes that aren’t claimed within a year that are currently deposited in the state’s general fund

The bill would also explicitly prevent the ENRTF from being used for paying for infrastructure bonds or for wastewater systems. Minnesota has plenty of financial resources to draw on for those kinds of needs without digging into money Minnesotans have set aside for our Great Outdoors.

MEP and our allies think the time is ripe for this bill to pass. This Legislature has shown willingness to pass pro-outdoors legislation, and the ENRTF is about as popular as they come. We’ll keep working at the Capitol to get this renewal on the ballot, and we look forward to getting out the vote for our land, air, water, and wildlife in 2024.

For previous columns, visit mepartnership.org/category/blog/. If you would like to reblog or republish this column, you may do so for free – simply contact the author at matthew@mepartnership.org.

Matt Doll, Minnesota Environmental Partnership

Over the years, Minnesota has been home to some great people-powered ideas on how to protect a healthy environment for all. Voters created the lottery-funded Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund and approved the Clean Water, Land and Legacy amendment. In 2007, we passed the nation-leading Next Generation Energy Act, and this year the 100% carbon free electricity standard.

One of our best ideas was the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Citizens’ Board, which was created at the same time as the agency itself in 1967. Established in a time of great public engagement in environmental issues (the first Earth Day would take place three years later), the Citizens’ Board was set up to include representation from ordinary Minnesotans in environmental decisions, such as approving permits for factory farms or overseeing projects under environmental review. It included Minnesotans from many walks of life and geographical areas to ensure different skills and values were represented.

The Board had the power to make final permitting decisions based on the work of the MPCA’s professional staff and Commissioner, who served as the Board’s chair. 

A blow to public oversight

In 2014, the Citizens’ Board ordered an environmental impact study on the massive Riverview dairy project, a proposed farm planned to hold 9,000 cattle in the western part of the state. This action went beyond the recommendations of the MPCA Commissioner and agency staff. The Board didn’t come to that decision lightly – many Minnesotans in the area expressed concerns about the dairy’s impacts.

The Board determined that the public deserved more information, though the study would likely cost Riverview time and money. In fact, the dairy company pulled out of the project rather than complete this review of how their project would affect their neighbors and the environment.

This independent decision making seemed to be too much for some businesses – and lawmakers sympathetic to their complaints. During the next legislative session, the Republican-controlled House put language to repeal the Citizens’ Board into a budget bill they sent to Governor Mark Dayton.

Minnesota Environmental Partnership and numerous allies opposed eliminating the Citizens’ Board and called on Governor Dayton to veto the bill if this provision was not removed. It wasn’t and he vetoed it. But after extensive negotiations in a special session, industry interests held strong on the repeal and Governor Dayton ultimately signed the budget bill to keep state government functioning, while vehemently objecting to the included language that caused the Board to be eliminated on July 1, 2015.

Since then, companies proposing controversial and high-profile projects have likely breathed a little easier knowing that the MPCA’s limited regulatory mandate isn’t subject to direct public oversight. 

That’s not to say that MPCA’s scientists don’t do quality, important work – their efforts are critical to protecting our public health and natural resources and ensuring that Minnesotans are informed. But the Citizens’ Board served as a pressure valve, allowing for the environmental and social impacts of a project to be more broadly examined.

The fact that the Citizens’ Board would not always fully agree with the MPCA Commissioner and staff, didn’t reflect badly on the agency, rather, it meant that Minnesotans had a public forum for taking a final, comprehensive look at controversial projects after scientific and legal questions were reviewed. 

It’s for these reasons that MEP has strongly supported restoring the original public oversight to the MPCA. Right now, we believe that goal is within reach.

A legislative fix to a legislative decision

For the past few weeks, MEP has been working with partners like the Land Stewardship Project to get a bill to reinstate the Board drafted and introduced. We’re pleased to report that this legislation is now being considered at the Capitol: Senator Foung Hawj (DFL-Saint Paul) has introduced SF 1937 and Representative Kristi Pursell (DFL-Northfield) has introduced the House companion bill HF 2076. Senator Hawj is chair of the Senate Environment, Climate, and Legacy Committee and Rep. Pursell is Vice Chair of the House Agriculture Committee.

During our work to craft this bill, our coalition of environment, good government, and environmental justice groups has also considered ways to make the new version of the Board more representative of all Minnesotans and the issues we face. The simplest change we’ve recommended is naming the new body the MPCA Community Board, reflecting the fact that many residents of our state are non-citizens but are still directly impacted by the actions of the agency.

The bill includes requirements that the eight-member Community Board – appointed by the Governor – must reflect the diversity of the state in terms of race, gender, and geography. Specifically, it must include at least one enrolled member of a Tribal Nation; at least three members who live in environmental justice communities, at least one member who operates a small farm; and at least one member must be a member of a labor union.) The bill maintains the MPCA Commissioner as chair of the Board. 

Finally, as was previously in law, the bill includes requirements that the MPCA Commissioner notify the Board of activities that may be worth its examination, whether because of their broad environmental impacts or major public interest. And the agency must inform the public of Minnesotans’ rights to request for the Board to more closely examine a project.

The way forward

Like many good environmental ideas, we anticipate that the MPCA Community Board will face controversy in the Legislature. Some businesses will be none too interested in bringing the public back into major permitting decisions. They’ll claim that Minnesota’s environmental laws are already strong enough to protect our resources and public health – though our increasingly polluted lakes and rivers and increasingly warm climate might beg to differ.

We don’t think it should be controversial to include both sound science and the public voice when our state makes big environmental decisions. If a project is good for the state and won’t harm our land, air, and waters, we expect it will be readily approved by the Community Board in an open, public process. But when Minnesotans have credible, serious concerns, they will also  have the means to weigh in to protect our greater public good. As a result, the agency may find the will to use more of its discretionary power to protect our Great Outdoors, even when not expressly told to do so by law.  

If our government is truly by, for, and of the people, ordinary people must have a seat at the table. We deserve a central role in governing the protection and restoration of our state’s natural resources.

How you can help: Use this action tool from the Land Stewardship Project to contact your legislators in support of the bill.

For previous columns, visit mepartnership.org/category/blog/. If you would like to reblog or republish this column, you may do so for free – simply contact the author at matthew@mepartnership.org.

Matt Doll, Minnesota Environmental Partnership

If you live in an older home in Minnesota, it’s not a bad idea to find out if the service line that brings drinking water into your house is made of lead. There are more than 100,000 such service lines in Minnesota, serving about one in every twenty-five homes in the state.

Having a lead service line isn’t the end of the world, but it’s a hassle and a hazard. I have one in my own home in St. Paul (where you can conveniently look up the material of your service line).  Our municipal water system also uses additives to water to help prevent pipe corrosion and form a protective film that contains the lead. I make a point to run my sink for a few minutes each morning and filter my drinking water.

Filters cost money, as does running the sink, but health problems due to lead are far more expensive: lead exposure can contribute to a wide variety of issues like infertility, pain, and dementia. Children are especially vulnerable as even low levels of lead exposure can harm a child’s mental development. Lead is much more harmful to children than adults because it can affect children’s developing nerves and brains.There are some treatments for lead poisoning, but they’re not surefire – an ounce of prevention is worth many pounds of cure.

Sadly, it’s all too common for Minnesotans to be unaware the water they drink may be at risk from these aging pipes. To help shine a spotlight on this problem, MEP worked with 52 households in Duluth to get their water tested for lead, and to get them filters if needed. We found that two-thirds had detectable levels of lead, which set off alarm bells for us – there is no safe level of lead, after all. Ten homes had lead levels above the new EPA action level, an especially dangerous level. 

Meanwhile, many homes with lead service lines haven’t been recently tested, so we don’t know how corroded their pipes may be. That begs the disturbing question: how many lives have been permanently harmed by this invisible health threat?

How we got here

For a long time, lead pipes were all too common in housing construction- after all, lead’s easy to bend into shape and is reasonably sturdy. We know now, of course, that lead is poisonous, and that eventually, lead pipes tend to degrade and release lead into the water they carry.

Still, as with lead paint and lead gasoline (among the worst human-caused health threats in history), it took a frustratingly long time to phase these pipes out, with lead pipes still being allowed in U.S. building codes until the 1980s. And while these bans have gone a long way toward protecting people from lead, the 100,000 lead service lines in Minnesota, along with countless more across the nation, are still there.

These service lines can’t be fixed or retrofitted, only removed and replaced. Because service lines often consist of both a publicly- and privately-owned segment, that replacement can be both complicated and expensive. For an individual family, it means thousands of dollars, too much for many budgets. 

These service lines are often concentrated in low-income areas and communities of color, where resources to replace the pipes are in short supply. This cost barrier prevents countless families from protecting their health and reducing their lead exposure, which in turn leads to higher health costs and ripple effects on communities. In the long run, leaving these pipes alone costs more than replacing them.

How we move forward

In the past few years, there’s been an increased awareness of this problem and heightened energy behind fixing it at multiple levels of government. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law of 2021 sent $15 billion for communities to replace these service lines. This includes approximately $200 million for Minnesota over the next 5 years. Roughly half of that amount comes in as grants or forgivable loans and the other half as low-interest loans. 

Communities are taking the federal government up on its offer. St. Paul Regional Water Services, which as mentioned makes its lead information widely available, has a ten-year plan to remove and replace all lead service lines in its area at no cost to the private property owners.

Right now, the Minnesota Legislature is working to take care of the rest, building on and accelerating on these federal and local efforts. The bill HF 24, authored by Representative Sydney Jordan, and its companion bill SF 30, authored by Senator Jen McEwen, would set up a statewide ten-year program for lead service line replacement at no cost to residents. It would start with an immediate inventory of all lead service lines in the state while moving swiftly into replacing these pipes.

MEP strongly supports this legislation  – and its previous iterations that we helped craft – because we believe all Minnesotans deserve clean, healthy water, from the lakes and rivers near their homes to the water flowing from their kitchen sink. If this bill passes, hundreds of thousands of Minnesotans will finally be able to breathe easier when they turn on their tap.

How you can help: Use our action system to contact your lawmakers in support of HF 24 and SF 30.

For previous columns, visit mepartnership.org/category/blog/. If you would like to reblog or republish this column, you may do so for free – simply contact the author

Matt Doll, Minnesota Environmental Partnership

For most Minnesotans, getting around during the past few weeks has been, to put it mildly, a mess. This winter has featured rapid swings in temperature and frequent storms around the freezing point – the ingredients for thick snow and thin, dangerous layers of ice. It’s evident that climate change has played a role, allowing cold air previously trapped in the arctic to blow southward while raising overall winter temperatures closer to 32 degrees.

These visible winter woes are, in multiple ways, symptomatic of an unfortunate choice made for decades both in Minnesota and around the country: investing the lion’s share of our resources in building routes and communities for cars, rather than people. We have multi-lane highways carving up our urban areas, parking lots larger than our football fields, and transit systems stuck in a spiral of cuts and losses in ridership.

The negative effects are everywhere you look, if you do so with an open mind. Transportation is the number one source of greenhouse gas emissions in Minnesota, mostly due to commuter cars and light trucks. Air pollution from these vehicles strikes especially hard at low-income neighborhoods and communities of color, where a high concentration of highways and major roads have been built. Exposure to air pollution is linked to many adverse health outcomes, such as heart disease, cancer, hypertension and asthma.

On the safety side, Minnesota suffers more than 300 traffic deaths each year – with 2021 being particularly deadly at 488 such deaths – and there’s no sign that we’ll reach the state goal of 225 or fewer by 2025. Many communities are remarkably difficult or unsafe to walk and bike around, especially for children. And this is compounded during this time of year when poor maintenance only makes the ice and snow more treacherous. Meanwhile, many families’ budgets take a hit whenever circumstances beyond their control cause a spike in gas prices.

Then there’s the impact on nature: water contamination from road salt, flooding exacerbated by parking lots, and destruction of habitat to build ever more highway lanes. And if you’re concerned about microplastics in air and water, it may interest you to know that car tires are a leading source, estimated to be in the top two origins for plastic particles in the ocean.

There’s got to be a better way

We’re not going to radically restructure our entire transportation economy overnight. Plenty of Minnesotans have no choice but to drive to the places they need to go, even through hellish snow and ice. Cars will be with us for some time. 

So reducing the amount of miles that Minnesotans drive (vehicle miles traveled, or VMT) should be our north star on transportation funding and policy. Electric vehicles, while an important part of the puzzle, won’t be able to to reduce traffic accidents on the scale needed or get us all the way to a net-zero economy.

We believe many Minnesotans are open to alternatives to our current single-occupant vehicle path. The question is: how can we use public policy and investments to help them get there?

Revitalizing public transit

Most of Minnesota’s population lives in metropolitan areas – the Twin Cities or regional urban centers like Duluth, Rochester, or St. Cloud – that are already served by existing transit systems. But that doesn’t mean that those systems are convenient for all or even most residents. If a bus only shows up every half hour, or doesn’t reach certain residential or commercial areas where people want to go, it’s difficult to plan a commute or a trip to the grocery store. For many, the stress of waiting for a bus may outweigh the stress of finding parking.

The most successful transit systems in the world have frequent service and convenient stops – that’s what we need to emulate. If we invested more into the operation of our transit services, we could afford to make transit competitive with driving not only on cost and environmental terms, but on convenience. One proposal this Legislative session would introduce a modest Twin Cities-area sales tax increase to fund public transit operations, which have faced shortfalls exacerbated by the pandemic.

But beyond convenience, many would-be riders – not to mention drivers – in the Twin Cities who would like to use the bus or light rail are deterred from doing so these days because of a very real fear of safety issues, such as violence or public drug use on trains and buses. Increased ridership could help reduce this problems, but we can’t naively expect to draw in new riders if they feel unsafe.

Fortunately, the Legislature seems likely to act on safety this year. On Friday, Representative Brad Tabke held an informal Zoom hearing to discuss his proposal to reduce crime and nuisances on MetroTransit, especially on the light rail. The plan would include funding for social workers, Metro Transit police, and unarmed transit ambassadors to help deter crime, with the goal being to reestablish norms of respectful ridership.

While it’s the largest Minnesota transit system and has the opportunity to reduce carbon emissions the most, Metro Transit isn’t the only service in need of investments. Other metro areas around the state, as well as rural counties, should have more reliable and accessible ways to get around without a car. And more linkages between them would help, like the proposed Northern Lights Express from St. Paul to Duluth – which may receive state funding for planning this year – the North Star commuter rail extension to St. Cloud, or the Dan Patch commuter line to Northfield. In many other countries in Europe and Asia, intercity rail is fast, affordable, and low-carbon, and there’s no reason Minnesota can’t enjoy the same benefits.

Supporting active transportation

For the vast majority of transit riders, getting around without a car doesn’t mean leaving your home, immediately stepping onto a bus or train, and arriving right at your destination – there’s going to be walking or biking involved. And many trips can be made on foot or two wheels alone. But for far too many Minnesotans, those means of getting around aren’t options – not for any lack of willingness to walk or bike, but because the infrastructure we’ve built makes it too dangerous. This especially harms children, people with disabilities, and others who can’t drive.

Too many of our roads have been constructed with the single minded purpose of moving as many cars as possible, with little regard for those who might want to bike on them or cross them, no matter their legal right to do so. That means that a large part of this issue is an engineering problem. Protected bike lanes, crosswalks with signals, separated trails, and conversions from four-lane to three-lane roads make roads safer for all who use them, not just drivers. That’s why MEP strongly supports the use of state infrastructure dollars to make it

We also need policies that make it clear that safety for bikers and pedestrians isn’t an afterthought. Our friends at the Bicycle Alliance of Minnesota are spearheading the Bill Dooley Bicycle Safety Act, which contains new bicycle safety and education policies and helps direct funds toward active transportation infrastructure in our communities.

End highway growth

Highway lanes have a lot in common with fossil fuel infrastructure. They’re the counterpart to oil pipelines, stimulating demand for oil by stimulating the growth in cars on the road. New lanes don’t cure traffic woes, but they do tend to destroy habitat or community space, even homes. The infamous construction of I-94 through Saint Paul destroyed the Rondo neighborhood and displaced a generation of mostly Black residents.

Too often, transportation agencies prioritize expanding or building new highways rather than repairing the old ones, to the detriment of our climate and our infrastructure. MEP supports a “fix-it-first” approach to road funding to help reduce highway expansions wherever possible.

Many Minnesotans are now looking at ways we can scale back or modify our existing highway network to better serve people who live around it. Proposals to reconnect Rondo using a land bridge or replacing I-94 in St. Paul with a boulevard are gaining traction. Similarly, a group of Duluth community members are working to replace the downtown stretch of I-35 into a greener, more vibrant neighorhood. They’ll need official support from the Legislature in order to make progress on studying these solutions.

The challenge ahead

It won’t be easy to reduce our reliance on cars in our wintery state, but it is possible. We have examples for how to get it done from around the world, using trains, buses, bicycles, and sidewalks. With enough political will, the dream of a Minnesota where all who choose to can live without relying solely on a car may be closer than it appears.

For previous columns, visit mepartnership.org/category/blog/. If you would like to reblog or republish this column, you may do so for free – simply contact the author at matthew@mepartnership.org.

Matt Doll, Minnesota Environmental Partnership

Last week, the State of Minnesota released a greenhouse gas emissions report that, while not an unadulterated success story, is a breath of fresh air for climate action. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has found that Minnesota’s climate emissions fell by 23% between 2005 and 2020, and we are finally on track to hit the 30% by 2025 reduction benchmark set out in the 2007 Next Generation Energy Act if we continue on this course.

While some of these emissions reductions came about because the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted travel and consumption patterns, this trend line is still a win. Even as Minnesota’s economy continues to grow, it’s gotten more efficient and more reliant on clean sources of energy. That’s good news for all of us, especially as Minnesota is one of the fastest-warming states. It’s especially good for low-income areas and communities of color, who suffer disproportionate pollution from fossil fuel infrastructure.

The big challenge now will be tackling the other three-quarters of emissions remaining in order to get us to a net-zero economy – the goal that internationally-accepted science tells us is necessary. Coal, natural gas, and petroleum still provide most of our energy, and it’s going to take a combination of smart land use, efficiency, and electrification to end our reliance on these dirty fuels. We’ll need to embrace real solutions for our future while avoiding half-measures and dead-end pathways that will delay our progress in the long term.

The electric success story

The lion’s share of the credit for this drop belongs to the electricity sector, now our third-largest source of emissions. Emissions from the sector have dropped by a whopping 54% since 2005. That’s largely thanks to wind power, which has grown astronomically in Minnesota the past decade. Solar has played an important role as well, and its continued growth is likely to make it a key component going forward.

The electricity sector is only poised to get cleaner now that Governor Walz has signed the 100% carbon-free electricity bill into law. Minnesota has now set out a path to reach carbon-free electricity economy wide by 2040, one of the most ambitious timelines in the nation.

The 100% bill isn’t the end-all be-all for clean power, but it sets up a framework for Minnesota’s electric utilities to reach zero emissions while providing reliable, affordable electricity. Thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act and the already low price of wind and solar power, our state is poised to ramp up our clean energy growth much faster than before.

Some environmental justice concerns remain – MEP has spoken out about inclusion of large hydroelectric dams, which have had harmful impacts on indigenous communities. While more work needs to be done to these issues, we are pleased overall with this bill’s passage.

Not everyone is convinced that this policy will succeed. During the debate in the Legislature, some claimed – without evidence – that the bill would result in blackouts and higher prices for consumers. Even if clean energy were less reliable, the bill contains provisions that would allow utilities flexibility if they have trouble providing power. But it should be a moot point, because wind and solar are, in fact, reliable sources, when combined with new storage technologies like the iron-air battery farm Xcel plans to build at the old Sherco Coal Plant. And it’s worth noting that the bill doesn’t remove Minnesota’s two nuclear plants from the mix. The only real losers from 100% will be out of state fossil fuel producers, who are likely to continue raising a stink about this policy to prop up their failing fuels.

In some ways, electricity emissions are the low-hanging fruit of the climate action challenge. It’s economical to switch from coal and gas and doesn’t require significant lifestyle changes from most people. But it’s also the foundation for cleaning up our other sectors, which will be far cleaner when powered by cheap, carbon-free electricity.

The transportation challenge

The MPCA has found that, unsurprisingly, transportation continues to be our number one source of emissions in Minnesota. Most of those emissions are from light-duty vehicles – the cars, trucks, and SUVs that Minnesotans use to commute. These emissions have fallen since 2005, but the MPCA says that most of that impact is due to the pandemic’s disruption to driving patterns.

In order to cut back on the carbon from our cars, we need to cut back on the number of polluting gas- and diesel-powered vehicles on the road. Part of the solution is electric vehicles, with those that make frequent stops – like school buses and mail and garbage trucks – especially helpful candidates for electrification. On the other hand, EVs alone won’t get us where we need to go, nor will false solutions like boosting ethanol, which may be as carbon-intensive as conventional gas. But it is important that we dramatically lower the carbon content of our transportation fuel. We’re doing it with electrical generation, now we need to drive our transportation fuel to a carbon free level as well. 

Another significant piece is to cut our vehicle miles traveled, especially in the Twin Cities Metro area that is the growing source of most of these miles. It’s not a mystery how this can be accomplished. We simply need to make it far easier for people to get where they need to go without relying on a car.

Minnesota needs a public transit system that is safe, reliable, and convenient for all who ride it. Bus and train service that is too slow, too infrequent, or unpleasant to ride won’t attract riders, in turn costing transit systems revenue in a vicious cycle of service downgrades. The solution isn’t to give up on transit, it’s to make it more attractive – and electric-powered – using state and federal dollars.

Fortunately, the Legislature is considering investments and new, ongoing revenue for Metro Transit that can help fill gaps in the network. There are also proposals to fund rail service between the Twin Cities and Duluth, the two largest metro areas in the state.

Beyond transit, Minnesota communities should make it easier to walk and bike safely to our destinations. Safe routes are a big part of the puzzle – many people who would like to use active transportation can’t or won’t do so because they don’t have sidewalks or safe lanes. And allowing more people to live close to jobs and amenities can make a big difference, not just for transportation, but for preserving natural spaces that would otherwise be replaced by sprawl.

Agriculture and Land Use

Minnesota’s total emissions from farms, forests, and other lands stayed at almost the same level between 2005 and 2020, making this the second-largest sector in the state. Growing row crops – mostly corn and soybeans – and raising livestock in large feedlots has a heavy greenhouse gas toll, especially when it comes to nitrous oxide and methane. On the flip side Minnesota’s forests and prairies counter some of those emissions by absorbing carbon dioxide. The challenge, then, is reducing the emissions from the former and boosting the emissions sinks so that Minnesota’s land can work for us on climate, not against us.

To get it done, we’ll need to reduce the amount of inputs like fertilizers and pesticides that we put on farmland. Emerging groups and farming practices pioneered by the Forever Green Initiative can help by replenishing our depleted soil, which can then better maintain carbon and nutrient levels. Reducing the intensity of animal agriculture would also be a big help, which is why MEP supports small farms, local foods, and grazing practices that help sequester carbon.

Meanwhile, we need to make sure that our prairies, peatlands, and forests are protected and restored. MEP is glad to see investments in these resources in Governor Walz’s proposed budget, including money to replace community forest canopies ravaged by emerald ash borers. As our summer heat waves get harsher, the cooling effect of trees will be a key environmental and climate justice issue.

Industry

Minnesota’s industrial greenhouse gas emissions bucked the positive trend of electricity, rising by 14% from 2005 to 2020. They’ve likely peaked, but we still have much to do to replace oil and natural gas with electric technologies. Minnesota’s storied iron industry, for example, is a prime candidate for more electric-powered infrastructure.

Homes and businesses

Minnesota’s buildings are still highly reliant on oil and gas for warmth, cooking, and other purposes. Housing emissions increased 14%, while commercial emissions happily fell by 22%. At this point, the big lift will be investing heavily in insulation and other efficiency measures while replacing gas furnaces across the state with electric heat pumps.

While they’ve been viewed with skepticism by some in our wintery state, heat pumps are proving to work well in cold climates. Cold countries like Finland, Norway, and Switzerland are seeing massive growth in heat pump uptake, partly to reduce reliance on unreliable natural gas from Russia. A similar strategy in Minnesota would help reduce price shocks from outside events like the 2021 winter storms in Texas.

Getting to zero

It won’t be a walk in the park to zero out Minnesota’s carbon emissions, especially as fossil fuel companies continue to fight against the clean energy transition. But it won’t be impossible, either. With rapid advances in technology, newfound political will at the Legislature, and thousands of ordinary Minnesotans working for change, we’re going to get it done.

For previous columns, visit mepartnership.org/category/blog/. If you would like to reblog or republish this column, you may do so for free – simply contact the author at matthew@mepartnership.org.