Legalectric

4 p.m. Tuesday at Goodhue County Board Room, 3rd Floor.

This is Committee of the Whole discussion of continuation of existing Goodhue County policy to allow refugee resettlement, necessitated by tRump’s E.O. 13888 requiring prior consent of local governments.

Intent? How divisive can you get? There have been ZERO refugees resettled in Goodhue County in last 5 years.

Trump’sExecutive Order 13888 turned refugee resettlement on its head by prohibiting resettlement of refugees in an area unless both the state and local government have consented prior.

Gov. Walz to Trump Administration: “The inn is not full in Minnesota.”

Tomorrow, Tuesday 1/7,at 4:00 p.m., the Goodhue County Board, as Committee of the Whole, will address refugee resettlement:

1. Refugee Resettlement in Goodhue County

Documents:

1. Refugee Resettlement Presentation.pdf
2. Refugee Resettlement Additional Information.pdf

The meeting was announced on a facebook group here in Red Wing, and also the Red Wing Tea Party page. I cannot believe the vitriolic, hateful, and just plain ignorant comments being made.

What are people afraid of?

That’s an essay question that’ll take some thoughtful writing, an LTE perhaps, for another day. But in short, it’s about white folks seeing that the world is changing, that privilege as majority isn’t a given, and knowing how the majority has treated minorities, a fear that a reverse Golden Rule karma may be in the future. A similar issue are the cries of Sharia Law by those pushing a “Christian” theocracy, and failure to observe that U.S. is a country of agnostic laws based on the Constitution, particularly the 4th Amendment, by those coming here fleeing religious persecution.

That’s an eagle who’d been feasting on the carcass in the foreground as I drove across 110th in Freeborn County. There’s a nest off to the right (west) a bit that the Freeborn Wind developers and Dept. of Commerce don’t want to acknowledge. Wind projects are supposed to be a ways from eagle nests and foraging grounds.

A CNN article today raised this issue today, near the 2nd anniversary of a tRump administration “clarification” that stated that the Migratory Bird Treaty Act does not prohibit incidental takes.

From that CNN post:

According to emails obtained by the Times, when the Michigan Department of Natural resources emailed the U.S Fish & Wildlife Service seeking clarification if it could cut down trees, they were told “The recent M -Opinion also removes the prohibition to removing trees with active nests as long as the intent of the action is the cutting of the trees (in this case for timber harvest).” The agency did lay out potential ways to limit the damage done to the birds and nests, but noted those actions were “strictly voluntary.”

So it looks like taking down trees with nests in them would be OK for right-of-way clearing, or removing “hazard trees” by wind project?

Wind and transmission projects in this area often, if not always, have required eagle take permits (how many Decorah eagles died due to transmission lines? Four, I think!). But with the tRump administration “deconstructing the administrative state” at every turn, well, guess what was issued? Open season on migratory birds. It’s the 2 year anniversary of removal of protections:

From this memo

For the reasons explained below, this Memorandum finds that, consistent with the text, history, and purpose of the MBTA, the
statute’s prohibitions on pursuing, hunting, taking, capturing, killing, or attempting to do the same apply only to affirmative actions that have as their purpose the taking or killing of migratory birds, their nests, or their eggs.

Yes, you heard that right, as of December 22, 2017, federal policy, interpretation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, requires an take permit only for those activities that have the PURPOSE of “taking” a bird covered under the Act. So we won’t be seeing take permits required for wind and transmission projects.

And yet despite that policy turn around, he says things like this last week at “Turning Point.” He probably doesn’t even know that incidental takes are not an issue for wind projects:

So they make these things and then they put them up.  And if you own a house within vision of some of these monsters, your house is worth 50 percent of the price.  They’re noisy.  They kill the birds.  You want to see a bird graveyard?  You just go.  Take a look.  A bird graveyard.  Go under a windmill someday.  You’ll see more birds than you’ve ever seen ever in your life.  (Laughter.)

You know, in California, they were killing the bald eagle.  If you shoot a bald eagle, they want to put you in jail for 10 years.  A windmill will kill many bald eagles.  It’s true.

And you know what?  After a certain number, they make you turn the windmill off.  That’s true, by the way.  This is — they make you turn it off after you — and yet, if you killed one they put you in jail.  That’s okay.  But why is it okay for these windmills to destroy the bird population?  And that’s what they’re doing.

But FYI, bird takes have dropped dramatically in technology changes since the days of the Altamont Pass small turbine bird blenderizers. With larger, slower blades, spaced further apart fewer birds die. But some do! Particularly an issue if turbines are installed in migratory pathways, or foraging areas. Hence the need for a take permit, for siting away from bird areas, an attempt to put a limit on kills. That bird kills have been lowered doesn’t mean there’s reason to eliminate the take permits, no reason to eliminate prohibitions. WHY?

This is really important! I learned, after perusing the PPSA handout from Commerce, that none of the wind projects permitted in 2019, and none of the wind projects currently in the permitting process, are using the proper ground factor of 0.0 for noise modeling. WHAT?

So I put this comment together and filed it:

Needless to say, the PUC had something to say about that… they extended the comment period for the PPSA Annual Hearing!

Remember the huge coal ash impoundment ruptures/breeches dumping coal ash all over? THIS is why treatment and use of coal ash matters:

TVA coal ash slide – UPDATES

And even in Minnesota: TVA coal ash — we had our own ash slide here in MN

There was a rule update and comments in 2018, and it was remanded, and so here we go around again…

FEDERAL REGISTER ANNOUNCEMENT: Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities

Comments must be received on or before October 15, 2019!

From the EPA’s announcement (CLICK HERE):

Public Hearing on the Proposed Changes to the Regulations for Coal Combustion Residuals: Enhancing Public Access to Information and Reconsideration of Beneficial Use Criteria and Piles

Wed, October 2, 2019

9:00 AM – 8:00 PM EDT

DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel

300 Army Navy Drive

Arlington, VA 22202

The public hearing will consist of three sessions:

• A morning session starting at 9:00 am and ending at noon.
• An early afternoon session starting at 1:00 pm and ending at 4:00 pm.
• An evening session beginning at 5:00 pm and ending at 8:00 pm.

CLICK HERE FOR THE PROPOSED RULE!

Just do it, comment away!!! Comments must be received on or before October 15, 2019.

Here they are, the two County Attorneys bookending the three developer reps, probably congratulating themselves on the County’s granting of the “Juhl Energy Development in partnership with Agri-Energy/GEVO” Conditional Use Permits for Sections 17 and 19 in Rock County.

What’s the big deal? Well, let’s start with the application, which was “fluff” — incomplete to put it mildly, and yet it was forwarded to the Planning Commission, a hearing was held without necessary information and documentation, and then it went to the County Board. Really, no exaggeration. Here’s the full board packet:

And what’s odd about this? The “conditions” proposed in the Board packet:

These are things that are to be included with an application, and if not, the Ordinance says that the application is not complete. FYI, this Ordinance was adopted in 2018, but is NOT posted on the County’s Website with the other Ordinances — really — check the link. WTF? Here it is (the County Attorney sent me a pdf, but it was only the even pages! Another WTF! Thankfully a little birdie sent the full Ordinance.):

NOTE in the heading: “An application to the County for a permit under this section is not complete unless it contains the following…” with all those 1-19 requirements constituting “the following.”

Take another look at the “application” in the board packet, two “applications” and a total of 10 pages! What a farce.

On behalf of the Jarchows, I’d sent a letter to the County Attorney, Administrator, and Zoning/Land-Use Administrator, and the County Board, laying out the problems, particularly stressing the egregiously incomplete application, together with an Affidavit of John Jarchow explaining their concerns with the potential nuisance coming to their property, a pre-existing permitted use:

And a Data Practices Act Request:

On to yesterday’s meeting. The County Attorney admitted that the Board had only the materials of the posted pack in front of them. As to the many missing items necessary for a complete application, one Commissioner asked about the Ordinance requirement of completeness, and the County Attorney said (not exact quote, but close) at least twice:

Oh, I wouldn’t be concerned about what the Ordinance says.

Really… I’d reminded the Commissioners of their Oath of Office, and I wonder if they thought about that. What’s the point of an ordinance if it’s ignored by the Board, the Planning Commission, and the Zoning Administrator who referred that incomplete application forward?

There were unstated claims that the biofuel plant needs this project to be able to sell to a California company. There’s a deadline approaching as the developers say this will be operational by year end.

IF THIS PROJECT IS SO IMPORTANT TO THE PLANT, AND TO THE COMMUNITY, why would the developer submit such an inadequate application? It’s on them, if they want to grease the skids and make it sail through, to do it right. But they didn’t.

Why would the Zoning Administrator forward such an inadequate and non-compliant application to the Planning Commission to review? Why would the Planning Commission hold a hearing and recommend it be approved when there is no record on which to base its “Findings.” Why would the County Board approve a CUP with so little record, and make a decision that has no record to support it? Why would the County allow a developer to put it in this position?

It’s on the developer to provide a complete application. If this project is so important, why would a developer make this strategic decision not to provide what’s required in an application?

Because they could? Because they couldn’t/can’t provide the information required? Because they knew the County wouldn’t make them follow the County Ordinance?

“Oh, I wouldn’t be concerned about what the Ordinance says.” Don Klosterbuer, Rock County’s County Attorney

Follow up Data Practices Act Request #2: