Legalectric

Ray Cox finally figured out, or admits, that Mike Bull is NOT working again at the House and is indeed an employee still of Governor Palwenty! Honesty is the best policy! When the Governor’s boy is pinch hitting in your defense, that fact of his employment, plus Mike’s habit of never commenting on issues he works on in the Northfield paper, that makes it suspect, to Ray’s detriment. Indirect defense, like that of Tom Neuville, Doug Jones, and others makes me wonder if Ray can speak for himself. What’s a hoot is that I bet $50 that the next defense of Ray would be from the Governor — lucky for me this is way too predictable!

Ray’s initial post yesterday on his blog said (emphasis added):

Now it says (emphasis added):

Now, when will Ray start asking the questions about special interests that need to be asked? “Why didn’t the Izaak Walton League testify against Mesaba?” (I asked Bill Grant that on Wendy Wilde last week!) “Why did the Izaak Walton League, ME3, MCEA and North American Water Office do the TRANSLink deal and what does it mean?” Will Ray figure out that Wind on the Wires is a grant ($4.5 in 2001 and $8.1 million in 2003), not an “organization,” and question the impact this big chunk of change has on transmission policy? He’s got the citations to do the checking, but will he do his homework? Session’s over, it’s done, it may be too late for this session’s report card…

… and stay tuned for “Partisan Politics v. Putrid Policy,” for those who can’t tell the difference!

It’s official – Rice County has been sued for its repeated pattern of violating and ignoring environmental law related to Environmental Assessment Worksheets. This is a suit under the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act, which allows anyone to sue about a violation of environmental law, substantive or procedural. This suit is based on some of Rice County’s many procedural violations of environmental law.

Group sues over EAW

By Pauline Schreiber
Daily News Staff Writer

FARIBAULT — Rice County is being sued by a group of citizens over alleged violations of the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act.

Carol Overland, Northfield, prepared the complaint, filed Friday in Rice County District Court, on behalf of a group called Rice County Land Use Accountability Inc.

“This is really about the county board’s repeated pattern of violating environmental law,” Overland said Monday. “How else can citizens hold the county accountable for not abiding by environmental laws?”

The lengthy complaint outlines 10 incidences of alleged violations of procedures by the county involving Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) petitions and rules set down by the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act.

“We’re asking for declaratory judgment that Rice County has violated the rules regarding EAW multiple times,” Overland said. “We’re asking that the county board’s right to be responsible government unit (RGU) in regards to EAWs be taken away and given to the EQB (Environmental Quality Board). And then, we’re asking that remedial training be provided to the county board, planning commission and staff in regards to environmental rights rules.”

Rice County Administrator Gary Weiers said Monday that he received a copy of the complaint Friday, and has forwarded it to the Rice County Attorney’s office.

“I really can’t comment on it, other than to say the county has received it, and the county attorney’s office will proceed with a legal response to it,” Weiers said.

The lawsuit alleges the county:
— Improperly subtracted a restored wetland area from a residential development on Circle Lake. As a result, the project was under the 80 acre threshold needed for a mandatory EAW when farmland is converted to residential use;

— Did not comply with the times limits set forth in the rules regarding a petition submitted by citizens asking for an discretionary EAW on the Circle Lake project; and did not provide proper notice to the Circle Lake petitioners of the county’s determination regarding their EAW petition;

— Did not provide proper notice to petitioners in regards to the county board’s determination regarding their petition for an EAW on the conversion of farmland along Interstate 35, south of the Big Steer Restaurant, and around the County Road 1 and I-35 intersection, to a commercial zone; and also violated rules requiring a mandatory EAW when farmland of more than 80 acres is converted to commercial development;

— Violated environmental rules when it finalized a conditional use permit for a new Wheeling Township hog feedlot with an EAW petition pending.

— Pauline Schreiber can be reached at 333-3127 or pschreiber@faribault.com.

Here’s what Pauline Schreiber missed — the relief requested. This suit requests that:

1. Declaratory Judgment that Rice County has violated Minn. R. 4410.1000, subp. 4 by segmenting in a phased and connected action to avoid environmental review of the project that was the subject of the Circle Lake EAW Petition.

2. Declaratory Judgment that Rice County has violated Minn. R. 4410.1100, subp. 7, through non-compliance with the time limits set forth in the rule regarding the Circle Lake EAW Petition.

3. Declaratory Judgment that Rice County has violated Minn. R. 4410.1100, subp. 8, by not providing notice to the Circle Lake Petitioners of the county determination regarding their EAW Petition.

4. Declaratory Judgment that Rice County has violated Minn. R. 4410.1100, subp. 8, by not providing notice to the Interstate 35 & County Rd. 1 Intersection Petitioners of the county determination regarding their EAW Petition.

5. Declaratory Judgment that Rice County has violated Minn. R. 4410.1100, subp. 8, by not providing notice to the Wheeling Township Feedlot Permit Application Petitioners of the county determination regarding their EAW Petition.

6. Declaratory Judgment that Rice County has violated Minn. R. 4410.3100, by making a final governmental decision regarding rezoning while the Interstate 35 and County Road 1 EAW Petition was pending.

7. Declaratory Judgment that Rice County has violated Minn. R. 4410.3100, by making a final governmental decision approving a permit application while the Wheeling Township Feedlot EAW Petition was pending.

8. Declaratory Judgment that Rice County has violated Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 27, regarding the Circle Lake project, where a mandatory EAW is required for projects having an impact on wetlands.

9. Declaratory Judgment that Rice County has violated Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 36, regarding the Circle Lake project, where a Mandatory EAW is required for projects that result in conversion of more than 80 acres of agricultural land.

10. Declaratory Judgment that Rice County has violated Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 36, regarding the Interstate 35 and County Rd. 1 rezoning, where a Mandatory EAW is required for projects that result in conversion of more than 80 acres of agricultural land.

11. Order that due to Rice County?s violations of environmental law, for a reasonable term of years Rice County shall not be designated RGU for Environmental Review, and that the Environmental Quality Board shall be designated the RGU.

12. Order remedial training for Rice County staff, Commissioners, and Planning Commissioners regarding Environmental Review.

13. Award Plaintiff reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys? fees, necessary to bring this action.

14. Award such other relief as the court deems proper.

WOW! That’s a long list! I put that list here for a reason — so that you’ll get an idea the magnitude of violations on the part of the county. This long list of violations comes from a review of the county’s treatment of only three recent EAW Petitions. Unfortunately for Rice County, the cumulative impact of their pattern of violations of environmental law is something we cannot undo, but we must make sure that the violations do not continue, and that county officials learn how to conduct proper environmental review.

It’s numbers 11 and 12 that are particularly important, because that long list of violations showing the pattern of behavior demonstrates that they don’t understand environmental review or just don’t care, and that’s not an appropriate attitude for those engaged in environmental review, much less governmental officials and staff on the taxpayer payroll who are supposed to be representing the people! In this suit, we’re asking that the powers of environmental review be taken away from the county and that the Commissioners, Planning Commissioners, and county staff receive remedial training in environmental review. It’s this equitable remedy that can correct the problem.

A recent example of the Rice County Planning Commission’s lack of knowledge of environmental review — just last Thursday, when the County’s Planning Commission met to decide whether to go forward with an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR), I asked whether they’d read the Environmental Quality Board’s overview of content and form necessary in an AUAR. I showed them a copy and later entered it for the record, it’s called Recommended Content and Format — Alternative Urban Areawide Review, asked them all with good eye contact, and not a single one had read it! It’s on the EQB’s main web page, not hidden. I guess I should have also asked on the record whether they’d read the AUAR rules, but if they hadn’t read the “Cliff Notes” I’d bet they don’t even know where the rules are! I get really tired of this brazen ignorance, and it’s time they were held accountable for doing proper environmental review.

EAW’s don’t stop projects, and none of the handful, well two handfuls, of EAW’s I’ve worked on have ever advanced to an EIS stage, though some certainly should have. An EAW is designed to show that project proposers have considered the potential environmental impacts of their project and have presented that information to project reviewers, and that project reviewers have taken that information into account and that the public has been allowed to address those issues prior to a decision being made on the project.

“Some people,” Ray Cox for example, think EAW’s are “abused” and use of them should be limited or eliminated. “Some people” think that the people should not be allowed to request that this environmental information be provided on projects, and that citizens should not be allowed to comment on environmental impacts. Ray Cox acted on this belief — He was the deciding vote in the House Environment Committee that allowed HF1202, a bill eliminating, ELIMINATING, use of EAW’s for feedlots under 1,000 animal units to pass through Committee and go on to the House floor (1000 animal units is 3,000 finishing hogs). Here’s a Guest Column Ray wrote, Process for EAW, after Rick Nord reminded him that Ray had said he would not weaken environmental review yet had done exactly that with his vote on HF1202. Ray confirmed he’d said that to Rick, but goes on to try to explain that his elimination of right to Petition was not weakening of environmental review… yeah… right…

So Rice County has been sued for its pattern of violations and disregard of environmental law. I’ll keep you posted as it moves forward.

What a hoot – I was nosing around and found a google of a cached “Splendized” Ray Cox blog – I’m still snorting… and wondering who would… and why… very odd…

Here’s the link, it’s Bright Young Things and click on “Splendidizer” and plug in a site and watch what happens. Anything that calls Pawlenty “that horrid little man” can’t be all bad. Here’s a “Splendized” quote from Ray’s 2/9/05 blog post:

Plug in the Magna Carta or Mike Bull’s editorial and watch what happens. But only once, after the pattern recycles, it’s a yawn…

Oh, Mikey, I remember when you used to publicly disclose who your boss was! Don’t you think it’s important, if you write a letter in the Northfield News about energy policy as “another sucker for Ray,” that the readers know you’re Governor Pawlenty’s Boy? From the Commerce Dept., an Executive agency, you moved over to the Governor’s office and spent this legislative session as the Governor’s in-house staff energy wonk, and that since the end of last month, you’re now Pawlenty’s Assistant Commissioner of Renewable Energy and Technology!

A week or two ago, I wrote a Northfield News Guest Column:

Mike made a couple comments here on this blog, scroll down to find them, and I cut and pasted one as its own post to make sure his comment was aired. I enjoy a worthy adversary and a few rounds in the ring! Here we go again!

Here’s the Letter to the Editor that Mike Bull, Governor Pawlenty’s Assistant Commissioner of Renewable Energy and Technology, wrote in the Northfield News, published in today’s paper:

Addressing misguided criticism

Community activists provide an important voice in policy debates at the state Capitol. However, a recent letter writer is misguided in their criticism of the 2005 Omnibus Energy bill and of Rep. Ray Cox for his support for that bill, (“Transmission bill is policy disaster,” June 1, 2005).

The 2005 Omnibus Energy bill reflects the governor’s guiding energy policies of promoting reliable, low-cost energy from environmentally superior sources; supports the development of community-based wind projects; provides incentives for utilities to build needed transmission facilities (both for reliability and renewable energy development); and keeps the state on track to have 20 percent of the electric energy used in the state come from renewable energy sources by 2015.

This consensus legislation was the result of a broad and deep coalition of environmentalists, utilities, business leaders, renewable energy developers, community wind activists, the Minnesota Department of Commerce and the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office. In my 10 years at the Capitol working on energy legislation, I have never seen a coalition of this depth, breadth and commitment for such an important and far-reaching piece of legislation.

The vote on the House and Senate floors reflected that consensus — the bill passed the DFL-controlled Senate 62-0, and the Republican-controlled House 131-2.

Rep. Cox was rightly one of the 131 House members that voted for the legislation. Gov. Pawlenty proudly signed the bill with environmental and energy leaders from both parties and both legislative bodies standing with him.

Mike Bull
Northfield

——————————————–

DISCLOSE, MIKE, DISCLOSE! Is this YOUR opinion, or Timmy’s? Is it part of your job to be a hired gun to finesse Ray Cox’s PR problems?

Mike and I both know that there’s a lot more to this bill than what we’ve said publicly. And we both know that this bill has nothing to do with the Renewable Energy Standard, which is not a part of this bill. Yes, Mike, we do need to have coffee soon and have a chat — think Blue Monday has enough room for the boxing ring?

p.s. As you recall, the RES amendment did not pass and is NOT part of the Transmission Omnibus Bill From Hell. Anyway, here’s what Ray had to say about his vote against the Renewable Energy Standard:

We had a bit of a ‘dust-off’ over an amendment from Rep. Aaron Peterson regarding a Renewable Energy Standard. It proposed requiring utility companies to include 20% of their energy from renewable sources by the year 2020. While this sounds like something I could support, I did not do so because I did not want to jeoprodize the passage of SF 1368.

That’s a telling vote that the League of Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club ought to use on their legislative scorecards!

… and I’ll bet they can’t even spell it! It is so frustrating dealing with folks who have no desire to educate themselves.

Rice County Planning Commission Meeting June 9, 2005

Here’s Chair Ross Nelson, who plays the “butcher the Commentors name” game, it is so juvenile — every person who signed up to speak was subjected to this dismissive treatment of affected and exaggerated mispronounciation of names that that don’t require instruction to pronounce correctly, and these are regular testifiers, people he should be on a first name basis with by now. He tried, but couldn’t find any bizarre version of “Overland.”

One thing I don’t understand…an aside here, but an important one.. here they were talking about 1080 acres, BUT the original public hearing way back when they rezoned it was for 1047 acres. This is where they issued the two Notices for different parts of the Interstate 35 and Co. Road 1 area, one for 341 acres, the other for the balance, because, they claimed, they did not interpret Jim Brown’s motion correctly (oh, get real, I went to the County and listened to the tape and he said clearly that the area he intended to be covered by his motion was that area WEST of I-35, he was specifically asked if he meant east and west and said “WEST, ONLY WEST.” I submitted a transcript of that part of the tape for the record. Classic Rice County, make it up as you go along.)

The meeting was ostensibly to determine whether they should go forward with “Committee 1’s” recommended plan and complete an AUAR.

First, what’s an AUAR? Thanks to Kathleen Doran-Norton for spreading this around, it’s an EQB explanation of what to include in an AUAR! She’s blogged some about plans for the I-35 and Co. Rd. 1 intersection. And that’s why I’m frustrated with the Planning Commission — not one of the Planning Commission members had read this important document! I asked them on the record, and I hope the minutes reflect this fact.

Here’s who’s on Committee 1

Here’s their brilliant idea, the Master Plan:
North Section
South Section
Infrastructure

Comment time was limited to 2 minutes, and people could not speak again if an important issue was raised that requried clarification. Gordon Kelley, known for his distaste for citizen questions, remember his editorial “Rezoning is the right thing to do!” made sure that those in attendance understood that questions would not be answered. For example, it was clear that the Planning Commission didn’t know what all was entailed in an AUAR because they hadn’t read the basic EQB document, didn’t want that sort of info on the record it seemed, but approved it anyway.

Kathleen Doran-Norton spoke that night on behalf of the Northfield League of Women Voters, requesting a transparent process, citizen input and protection of the water. She noted that there are no committee members from the area, and that their process has begun and is felt already in impacts on the area. Who will be paying the estimated $17 million in infrastructure? There is no estimate of the short and long term benefits. An important point, she strongly recommended that the “no build” option be considered, and it’s my guess that analysis and consideration of the “no build” option is required under NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) and MEPA (Minnesota Environmental Policy Act).