Killing the EQB and gutting environmental law!
March 13th, 2017
Lake Pepin on a very warm blustery day last week
There’s a bill out there that will eliminate Minnesota’s Environmental Quality Board and shove that work over to the MPCA, at the same time, gutting DNR and MPCA review by linking to funding or lack thereof. Shifting preparation of environmental documents to the project applicant. This is not crying wolf, this is happening, it is going through committees in both House and Senate, and I’m at a loss to describe how awful this is. Here’s the point, in short:
Mindful that defunding is a primary means to neuter an agency, check this, for the DNR, but repeated as amendment to 116.07 for Pollution Control Agency in lines 10.3-10.15:
Look at line 3.32 “nor shall it expire without the consent of the permittee.” Gutting DNR and MPCA authority. Failure to fund agencies is such a problem that the MPCA has a backlog of expired permits. This means that permits would go on and on and on, because permit violations are not usually an “imminent threat” but instead a long term cumulative impact.
How about this — earth to Mars, environmental review is not decisional, nothing should be deemed approved because an EIS is approved:
The project applicant prepares the Draft Environmental Impact Statement? WHAT?!?!
Still picking out more specifics…
Bottom line, Minnesotans, here’s the “TO DO” of the day. Contact the House and Senate authors, and send a quick round of emails or call the House Ways & Means and Senate Environment and Natural Resources Finance. Focus on the authors and Republican members. Tell them to vote this bill DOWN! Contact info below.
Here are the House authors:
rep.dan.fabian@house.mn (651) 296-9635, rep.dale.lueck@house.mn (651) 296-2365, rep.steve.green@house.mn (651) 296-9918, rep.josh.heintzeman@house.mn (651) 296-4333
House status: TEXT. On March 8th it was re-referred to House Ways & Means Committee. No meeting scheduled yet. Contact the House Ways & Means Committee members — their emails:
rep.jim.knoblach@house.mn, rep.bob.vogel@house.mn, rep.lyndon.carlson@house.mn, rep.sarah.anderson@house.mn, rep.dave.baker@house.mn, rep.tony.cornish@house.mn, rep.greg.davids@house.mn, rep.matt.dean@house.mn, rep.bob.dettmer@house.mn, rep.steve.drazkowski@house.mn, rep.dan.fabian@house.mn, ep.pat.garofalo@house.mn, rep.bob.gunther@house.mn, rep.rod.hamilton@house.mn, rep.alice.hausman@house.mn, rep.debra.hilstrom@house.mn, rep.frank.hornstein@house.mn, rep.tina.liebling@house.mn, rep.jenifer.loon@house.mn, rep.paul.marquart@house.mn, rep.erin.murphy@house.mn, rep.bud.nornes@house.mn, rep.gene.pelowski@house.mn, rep.jeanne.poppe@house.mn, rep.paul.torkelson@house.mn, rep.dean.urdahl@house.mn, rep.jean.wagenius@house.mn
Here are the Senate authors:
sen.bill.ingebrigtsen@senate.mn (651) 297-8063, sen.carrie.ruud@senate.mn (651) 296-4913, Sen. Paul Gazelka (link to form)(651) 296-4875, Sen. David Tomassoni (link to form)(651) 296-8017.
Senate Status: TEXT – was Amended and amendment not posted. TWO Committee meetings scheduled, one TODAY, BUT status is conflicting:
Committee on State Government Finance and Policy and Elections | |
03/13/2017 | Meeting scheduled for 05:30 PM in Room 1200 Minnesota Senate Bldg. |
03/13/2017 | No Committee Action Recorded |
Committee on Environment and Natural Resources Finance | |
03/15/2017 | Meeting scheduled for 10:30 AM in Room 1150 Minnesota Senate Bldg. |
Here’s the conflict, says it’s already been through State Gov’t Finance despite above 5:30 schedule!
03/13/2017 | |
---|---|
|
So I think the best bet is to contact Environment & Natural Resources Finance:
sen.bill.ingebrigtsen@senate.mn, sen.carrie.ruud@senate.mn, sen.erik.simonson@senate.mn, sen.bill.weber@senate.mn
And links to those using web form: Sen. David Tomassoni, Sen. Thomas Bakk, Sen. Dziekic, Sen. Justin Eichorn, Sen. Foung Hawj, Sen. Mark Johnson, Sen. Andrew Lang, Sen. Andrew Mathews,
Bills to Repeal Silica Sand Rulemaking Mandate in MN
February 25th, 2017
DAILY TO DO: Quick, send emails to withdraw/vote no on HF 1666 and SF 1310
The Minnesota legislature is trying to repeal the legislative mandate to the MPCA for rulemaking on silica sand particulate emissions! Why is this a priority? How is it in the public interest? This effort to quash rulemaking is rather odd because the silica sand boom has gone bust, Bakken BOOM! has gone bust, the market has decided and there are few (no?) plans for new silica sand mines in Minnesota. Now is the best time to enact protective legislation, while there’s no pressure for new mining permits.
The legislature passed the following rulemaking mandate in CHAPTER 14–S.F.No. 1086 way back in 2013 (keep in mind this is 2017, FOUR YEARS LATER and it is STILL not done!) with the exemption from Minnesota Statutes section 14.125 “no time constraint” added by moi:
Sec. 105. RULES; SILICA SAND.
(a) The commissioner of the Pollution Control Agency shall adopt rules pertaining
to the control of particulate emissions from silica sand projects. The rulemaking is exempt from Minnesota Statutes, section 14.125 [no time deadline].
(b) The commissioner of natural resources shall adopt rules pertaining to the
reclamation of silica sand mines. The rulemaking is exempt from Minnesota Statutes, section 14.125 [no time constraint].
(c) By January 1, 2014, the Department of Health shall adopt an air quality
health-based value for silica sand.
(d) The Environmental Quality Board shall amend its rules for environmental
review, adopted under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 116D, for silica sand mining and processing to take into account the increased activity in the state and concerns over the size of specific operations. The Environmental Quality Board shall consider whether the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 116C.991, should remain part of the environmental review requirements for silica sand and whether the requirements should be different for different geographic areas of the state. The rulemaking is exempt from Minnesota Statutes, section 14.125 [no time constraint].
EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective the day following final enactment.
There are identical bills afoot, HF 1666 and SF 1310 to eliminate the LEGISLATIVE MANDATE of rules regarding silica sand particulate emissions:
WHAT? Who’s behind this? Mining industry? Given Sen. Tomassoni is one sponsor, perhaps, and given former Sen. Saxhaug’s nastiness about the enabling legislation, even more likely. MPCA? Given their foot dragging and resistance to citizen involvement, perhaps. Back when this rulemaking was just getting going, the MPCA was against having a Citizens Advisory group is authorized by Minn. Stat. 14.10:
And the MPCA’s objection:
MPCA staff’s report to the EQB stated inexplicably and incredibly that they were “confused,” claiming ignorance of how rulemaking works and the impact of comments at this stage – from their memo to the EQB:
i. Staff requests Board direction on a question that arose at the August 2nd public meetings.
So now we have this bill, headed to the House and Senate Environment Committees, contact info below.
HOUSE:
Contact the House authors and ask that they withdraw HF 1666 (be sure to put bill number in subject line):
#No DAPL – Army Corps primary documents
February 8th, 2017
UPDATE: Corps grants easement to Dakota Access LLC
You may have read tRump’s Memorandum pushing the Army Corps of Engineers to ram through the Dakota Access pipeline:
From the Stanley Gazette:
Breaking News: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ready to Grant Easement for DAPL
And from the DC District Federal Court, here are the filings:
Construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline – Memorandum – Document No. 207-02032
The Army rolled, and here are the documents stating intent to issue the DAPL easement across Lake Oahe, and the Notice of Termination of the Environmental Impact Statement:
ACoE_Notice Regarding Recently Issued Documents
How is this anything but “arbitrary and capricious” action on the part of the Army Corps of Engineers?
Send Dakota Access Scoping Comments ASAP!
January 26th, 2017
As we know, tRump signed a “Memorandum” (note, it is NOT an “Executive Order”) to ram through DAPL. Here’s the cut and paste of the Memorandum, also here at the White House Memoranda page:
One part I’m particularly concerned with is the second paragraph, where the Army Corps is ordered to consider rescinding or modifying the denial of the permit, and whether to withdraw the Notice of Intent and request for Scoping Comments for the Environmental Impact Statement:
Really. That’s tRumpspeak for “Issue the Permit, Who Needs an EIS!” So methinks it’s VERY important to get a lot of detailed scoping comments in ASAP!
What are Scoping Comments? It’s kind of a term of art, they are comments laying out what you think should be covered in the Environmental Impact Statement. It’s a “broadening” exercise, one where you bring up all the things that could be, should be, relevant and investigated, disclosed, analyzed, in the Environmental Impact Statement. Form letters and postcards won’t cut it, this requires a little time and thought, and because you can email them, it’s pretty easy. Just be specific about what issues should be considered. Because they’re looking for “alternative routes” I wouldn’t give them any, because if they put it anywhere, it’s a problem, so I’d recommend instead saying that moving the pipeline doesn’t lessen the odds of rupture, failure, corrosion, and that the pipeline is too much of a rupture waiting to happen to route anywhere!
Here’s the Notice:
Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
Scoping comments are due by February 20, 2017. By mail, and they ask that you include your name, return address, and “NOI Comments, Dakota Access Pipeline Crossing” on the first page of your written comments:
Gib Owen
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works
108 Army Pentagon
Washington, DC 20310-0108
By email to gib.a.owen.civ@mail.mil – use Subject: NOI Comments, Dakota Access Pipeline Crossing
They say they want comments about these issues:
(1) Alternative locations for the pipeline crossing the Missouri River;
(2) Potential risks and impacts of an oil spill, and potential impacts to Lake Oahe, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s water intakes, and the Tribe’s water, treaty fishing, and hunting rights; and
(3) Information on the extent and location of the Tribe’s treaty rights in Lake Oahe.
… BUT… don’t limit your input — get creative, be specific, really think about impacts, about connected actions, about the entire length of this pipeline, about each of the bodies of water, the archeological features, protected wildlife areas, homes right next to the line, aquifers with so many wells drawing their water supply, nearby transmission lines which are known to corrode pipelines if too close. In the Notice, they specifically state, “The range of issues, alternatives, and potential impacts may be expanded based on comments received in response to this notice and at public scoping meetings.” So now it’s our job to be very, very specific about the broad range of issues to be included in the Environmental Impact Statement.
tRump’s Memoranda & Executive Orders
January 24th, 2017
There’s been a flurry of activity, and finally they posted the actual documents so we can see what’s going on, or what won’t be going on. This was part of my “One a Day” plan to send off a missive to the White House every day, something of substance. When the Contact page was blank on Monday morning, I started calling, ALL DAY LONG, and got through around 7 p.m., when a human answered, and hung up. I called back, got that same human, who wouldn’t tell me who I should talk to about the Executive Orders (presumed that’s what they were as that’s what was said) and said the Comment office person was gone so I had to leave it online, and she got pissy when I said that the Comment page was blank, and hung up again. OK, whatever…
Civics Lesson from USA Today, Presidential memoranda vs. executive orders. What’s the difference?
Here are the Memoranda thus far from the White House page (these are not required to be published in the Federal Register, so ???, but they are now on the White House Memoranda page:
Presidential Memorandum on January 24, 2017Presidential Memorandum on January 24, 2017Presidential Memorandum on January 24, 2017Presidential Memorandum on January 24, 2017Presidential Memorandum on January 23, 2017Presidential Memorandum on January 23, 2017Presidential Memorandum on January 23, 2017Presidential Memorandum on January 20, 2017
And here are the Executive Orders, from the White House Executive Order page:
Executive Order on January 24, 2017Executive Order on January 20, 2017
Now maybe they’ll have the routine down and keep up with what they’re doing. Drives me crazy to be loating around in the dark — it’s hard enough to know or guess what these might mean in practice, but without an actual document to look at, it’s just blather. Well, it’s just blather anyway, but here it is. Read it and get busy!