Movin’ from Montana soon…
August 29th, 2013
For those of you interested in filing a complaint against Judge G. Todd Baugh in Montana, here’s the Complaint form and the Judicial Standards and Judicial Ethics (those rules are important because you need to cite the ones he violated):
Complaint Form for Judicial Standards Commission
If these links don’t work, here’s the link to their JUDICIAL COMPLAINT PAGE.
This guy is so off the wall that I hope thousands file solid well written complaints that they’ll have to deal with.
Montana judge apologizes for comments in teen rape case, protesters call for his resignation
Yesterday – Mississippi River Parkway Commission
August 23rd, 2013
Yesterday was the quarterly meeting of Minnesota’s Mississippi River Parkway Commission. Attorney Bill Mavity, accompanied by several others from Wisconsin, presented on frac sand mining and impacts on the Great River Road. He authored and promoted the Pepin County ordinance:
He brought up the economic report that they’d completed in association with the Ordinance:
He noted that the Ordinance is economic regulation, and if challenged, this report essential because it provides the rational basis necessary to support the Ordinance. This points to the necessity of having an economic analysis for this type of ordinance, without it, or some other substantive support, it is much weaker and susceptible to challenge.
The Minnesota MRPC is sensitive to the impacts of frac sand mining on the Great River Road and the Mississippi, and has agreed to pull together a Resolution similar to that of the Wisconsin MRCP, which they’ll discuss at their November meeting. They also will be considering a silica sand presentation at the annual convention.
I gave a short update on the completion of permitting for CapX 2020 transmission, what with this week’s Supreme Court denial of Oronoco Township’s Petition for Review. MRPC submitted comments for a number of the CapX 2020 dockets — CapX 2020 transmission will have a significant impact on the Great River Road. Any day now they’ll start the 345kV part of the Hampton-La Crosse route which crosses the Mississippi River at Alma. Staff also got the scoop from me about agencies’ silica sand mining agenda including Standards and Criteria (which includes bluff and road impacts).
This was a very effective presentation by Mavity. It’s unfortunate that no one else from frac sand mining land showed up!
Progress in my own backyard
August 22nd, 2013
It’s taken all summer thus far, but LOOK! The male has been hanging around some for a month or so, and now the female is here! So maybe the babies will show up soon!
Most interesting Goodhue PAC meeting
August 20th, 2013
Very interesting meeting last night, a meeting of the Planning Advisory Committee of Goodhue County. It’s unfortunate there weren’t more people there. I wasn’t going to go, but I went to support Marie McNamara’s request to the PAC to send a letter to the Environmental Quality Board, Pollution Control Agency, and Dept. of Natural Resources to appoint a Rulemaking Advisory Committee. Getting the local governments and public involved in the state process is something I’ve been on for a long time, and it needs to have a better result than the composition of the PUC’s Certificate of Need and Siting/Routing rulemaking committee which has only one member of the public, one attorney who represented a township in a transmission proceeding, two attorneys (including moi) who represent citizens groups, and 18-20 representatives of utilities.
It was a quick request:
Requests for an Advisory Committee must be made because the MPCA and DNR stated in their Notice that they didn’t anticipate having an Advisory Committee:
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources_Notice of Rulemaking
So now the next step at the County is to get Board approval and get a request out in time for the EQB’s September 18 meeting, which should not be a problem.
You can send a request too! Send a short email, with Subject line “EQB, MPCA and DNR Silica Sand Rulemaking” to:
heather.arends@state.mn.us; tom.landwehr@state.mn.us; nathan.cooley@state.mn.us; John.Stine@state.mn.us; Jeff.Smyser@state.mn.us; bob.patton@state.mn.us; kate.frantz@state.mn.us; dave.frederickson@state.mn.us
Marie McNamara has done a superb job over the five years she’s been working on wind issues. We’ve been working together for a long time now, and she’s always keeping the big picture in mind. She’s worked hard to educate regulatory bodies, from Goodhue County to the PUC, DNR, USFWS, FAA, and has done so with the utmost integrity. One of her mantra’s is “how will this affect my neighbors,” and she’s felt an obligation to keep in this fight, deal with the big policy issues and assist others in similar situations in Minnesota and across the country to participate in the process. Watching her address the PAC Committee, explaining her work on the PUC’s Rulemaking Advisory Committee, how it is the place for people to have their ideas heard, relating it to their work on the County wind ordinance, I was so gratified to see her increasing ability to independently navigate the system and encourage others to step up. She’s open and transparent in her approach and has a broad range of knowledge of process and specifics. She’s been before the PAC and County Board so many times, and has worked hard to inform the record and done a good job of it. She’s been there, done that, and is just the one to ask them to support an Advisory Committee for silica sand rulemaking.
Dan Rechtzigel and Bernie Overby were agin’ it, and Bernie was convinced that people who participate do so from one point of view, and his concern was it is only opposition to projects point of view at the table, HELLO — reality is that it’s severely weighted in favor of industry. He should go to a rulemaking committee and check it out.
I appreciated Joan Volz’ explanation that rulemaking input has to happen soon, because once it’s released, it’s pretty tough to change. In my experience, and actually, as established in the rulemaking process, the public comment period after the release of the draft is not an opportunity to do much other than generate some dead trees or use some electrons and brain cells, and that the draft is pretty much set in stone because they cannot approve a rule that is “significantly” different from the draft. That’s how it is.
Bottom line: The PAC asked staff to check it out and report to the Board, which meets the first week of September, ample time to get a request to the EQB prior to their meeting on September 18, 2013 — motion passed unanimously. I’m confident they’ll get it done.
As for the Save the Bluff’s Application, they had an “alternative approach” on the agenda based on a letter dated August 12 regarding a past meeting between the Applicants and two commissioners (click for larger version):
It’s good that there was a discussion in public about this “alternative approach” as it was a result of private negotiations between Keith Fossen and Jody McIlrath, and Dan Rechtzigel and Jim Bryant, alluded to on p. 11 of the packet in the letter above. Dan went too far, who at one point discussing these negotiations said, “on behalf of the Board…” He’s the swing vote in this situation, but he can’t speak for the board, particularly on an Application where’s there’s action pending. He should know that. The good news is that at the very beginning, Lisa Hanni provided an opening where Save the Bluffs could avoid withdrawing the original Application. They said they did not want to withdraw the application, but to focus on the 4 items, see if that can resolve the issues.
Dan Rechtzigel said that the Applicants reached out to him to talk about whether there was any possible resolution and that they came up with four areas they could talk about and come to agreement, with the acceptable items of agreement being:
This is where Dan said (rough quote), “these four areas are where we could find some common ground, on behalf of the Board…” and that these points are not intended to be final wording. In discussion of the cost-benefit analysis, Dan said, “I’m not hearing an urgent request for that.”
At one point, Bernie Overby said, “I think discussions were very productive.” Was he part of this?
There were a few comments from the public, first from a contingent from Belvidere who were very upset about not getting notice that the public hearing was cancelled. Also, after they spoke, Planning Advisory Commission Brandon Schrader, who had recused himself, tried to speak, and I had to shout out an objection, because someone who recuses himself can’t be participating, not just in the decision, but also in the discussion. That’s pretty basic procedure, but Rich Bauer, the current chair, didn’t stop him at the last PAC meeting I went to and didn’t here. No choice but to do it, and thankfully Marie knows him and had a chat about that which I hope he heard, I think he really didn’t know that wasn’t permissible. Bernie Overby didn’t understand either and started on a “free speech” rant. He needs some procedural instruction.
Belle Creek’s Township Supervisor Tom Gale was there too, and he said he didn’t receive notice and wasn’t too pleased. Bernie Overby made a remark about people showing up for the first time, and apparently he didn’t know Belle Creek township is interested, is interested in water protections, and has had a representative, usually Tom, at most of the sand related county meetings. He had a copy of the packet and wanted to know more about the “alternate approach” and what it does for Goodhue County. Belle Creek was one of the townships asked to develop a supportive resolution, as Belle Creek had requested of others during their struggle about the AWA Goodhue/New Era wind project. Belle Creek township is a farming township and they are very concerned about water, the surface water and the aquifer, and assuring safe and sufficient water for the farms in the township. Belle Creek Watershed District is one of the few, three, I think, formal Watershed Districts in the state. The Watershed District is a formal local unit of government, and should be included in the “consultation” by the state about silica sand mining Standards and Criteria, but that’s another topic… Belle Creek Township would likely be very supportive of regulations that protect the water supply.
Alan Muller brought up the point that #1 of the four points is a one mile setback from R-1 Suburban Residential, and asked what percentage of R-1 Suburban Residential land was in Goodhue County, what percentage of residents/landowners. Get out your magnifying glass and look for the tan R-1 Suburban Residential areas (click for larger map):
Ultimately, Bernie Overby made the motion to table the Save the Bluff’s request, to send it to the Mining Study Committee, to add the four items to the agenda, and the Applicants were to be directed to work with the Committee. It was passed unanimously.
There will be two public hearings on both the original Application and the 4 additional points, first before the Planning Advisory Committee and then before the County Board. These public hearings will be noticed, hopefully better than this meeting and the cancellation of the public hearing!
By the way, Bernie Overby, what’s Ryan hauling in that stainless trailer behind the shiny lime green truck with “Overby Trucking” on the door?
Locals must adopt sand Standards & Criteria
August 17th, 2013
Local governments need to get involved in the development of frac sand mining Standards and Criteria, and once the state develops them, local governments must ADOPT them and incorporate them into their ordinance in order for the Standards and Criteria to apply.
The frac sand mining bill passed last year required that the Environmental Quality Board develop Standards and Criteria, in specific categories, for silica sand mining, processing and transportation by October 1 2013, that the Board SHALL develop, “in consultation with local units of government,” the standards and criteria, and then… HERE’S THE CATCH:
These standards and criteria may be used by local units of government in developing local ordinances.
“MAY” … not SHALL.
Our job: Push local governments to “consult” and to adopt standards and criteria, either the EQB’s or more stringent ones!
And there’s a job for local units of government: Work “in consultation” with the state to develop the standards and criteria for mining, processing, and transporting silica sand,” and then the local units of government need to ADOPT them. They won’t just automatically apply.
Please urge your local governments to get involved with the EQB’s process:
1) CONSULTATION — Ask local governments to join in the EQB’s process, hold public meetings in the area, weigh in with suggestions for language — quickly, before draft is done in September. This is where input has the most impact Send input to: Jeff.Smyser@state.mn.us; bob.patton@state.mn.us; kate.frantz@state.mn.us; dave.frederickson@state.mn.us
2) ADOPT STANDARDS AND CRITERIA. The EQB’s Standards and Criteria don’t apply automatically — they must be adopted into local ordinances. Adopt the Standards and Criteria developed by the EQB, and adopt stricter standards where desired.
Here are some specific suggestions filed with the state agencies on August 2 when they were in Red Wing and Winona:
You can use the CASM Comments as a guide and write your own standards on issues important to you!
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONTACT INFO – just cut & paste for your area:
Goodhue County:
ronald.clifford.allen@gmail.com; jcbryant@kmwb.net; rudy396@yahoo.com; rsamuelson@sleepyeyetel.net; ted.seifert@hiawathamedical.com; steve.betcher@co.goodhue.mn.us; scott.arneson@co.goodhue.mn.us
Red Wing’s City Council & Staff:
dan.bender@ci.red-wing.mn.us;jsebion3@gmail.com, lisa.bayley@ci.red-wing.mn.us; deanhove@charter.net ; michael.v.schultz@charter.net; peggy.rehder@ci.red-wing.mn.us; ralph.rauterkus@ci.red-wing.mn.us; marilyn.meinke@ci.red-wing.mn.us; kay.kuhlmann@ci.red-wing.mn.us
Wabasha County:
rhall@co.wabasha.mn.us; droschen@co.wabasha.mn.us; dspringer@co.wabasha.mn.us; mwobbe@co.wabasha.mn.us; dharms@co.wabasha.mn.us; jnordstrom@co.wabasha.mn.us; kkrause@co.wabasha.mn.us
Lake City:
jbeckman@ci.lake-city.mn.us; cadancinbear@yahoo.com; mspence1967@gmail.com; mattpowers55041@hotmail.com; philipgartner@embarqmail.com; marylouwaltman@embarqmail.com; gene.j.durand@gmail.com; rjohnson@ci.lake-city.mn.us; rkeehn@ci.lake-city.mn.us
Wabasha:
wabmayor@gmail.com; j.f.friedmeyer@gmail.com; stephenx@wabasha.net; b5c7ways@wabasha.net; lschoen83@gmail.com; retiredwabashachief@gmail.com; awharton@wabasha.net
Townships: Look up your township officials — there are SO many townships that you’re on your own here!
The EQB needs local governments’ input on so many things. Pick the ones you’re concerned about and let local officials know it’s important to you.
From Minnesota Session Laws 114, Sec. 91 (someday soon to be Minn. Stat. 116C.99):
The standards and criteria must include:
(1) recommendations for setbacks or buffers for mining operation and processing, including:
(i) any residence or residential zoning district boundary;
(ii) any property line or right-of-way line of any existing or proposed street or highway;
(iii) ordinary high water levels of public waters;
(iv) bluffs;
(v) designated trout streams, Class 2A water as designated in the rules of the Pollution Control Agency, or any perennially flowing tributary of a designated trout stream or Class 2A water;
(vi) calcareous fens;
(vii) wellhead protection areas as defined in section 103I.005;
(viii) critical natural habitat acquired by the commissioner of natural resources under section 84.944; and
(ix) a natural resource easement paid wholly or in part by public funds;
(2) standards for hours of operation;
(3) groundwater and surface water quality and quantity monitoring and mitigation plan requirements, including:
(i) applicable groundwater and surface water appropriation permit requirements;
(ii) well sealing requirements;
(iii) annual submission of monitoring well data; and
(iv) storm water runoff rate limits not to exceed two-, ten-, and 100-year storm events;
(4) air monitoring and data submission requirements;
(5) dust control requirements;
(6) noise testing and mitigation plan requirements;
(7) blast monitoring plan requirements;
(8) lighting requirements;
(9) inspection requirements;
(10) containment requirements for silica sand in temporary storage to protect air and water quality;
(11) containment requirements for chemicals used in processing;
(12) financial assurance requirements;
(13) road and bridge impacts and requirements; and
(14) reclamation plan requirements as required under the rules adopted by the
commissioner of natural resources.