Legalectric

Here in Red Wing, and throughout southeast Minnesota, and along the other side of the river in Wisconsin, sand has been a major issue. Many communities were dragged into this issue when an epidemic of silica sand mines, processing, and transloading facilities sprang up to support fracking for oil. Sand interests got Red Wing’s Mayor ejected when he was both Mayor and Executive Director of sand mining industry’s Minnesota Industrial Sand Council:

Mayor Egan Resigns

Sand was also an issue as Minnesota attempt at, though I’d say avoided, developing sand mining rules:

Someone explain rulemaking to the MPCA

As to sand as a resource, that’s not really been a part of the discussion in these parts. And on that note, the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) has released a report:

And in the STrib: UN environment agency warns of effects of rising sand use

Check it out!

I found my notes!!  On August 29, 2017, Alan and I went to the Goodhue County Courthouse for the GreenMark Solar v. Wacouta Township (Court Case No. 25-CV-17-1462) festivities — a Summary Judgment hearing.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I’m not a fan of any of the principals of GreenMark, Mark Andrew, Dennis Egan, and Julie Jorgensen.  Mark Andrew is a former Hennepin County Commissioner and a fan of burning garbage. Here’s a thread from the Mpls yak-yak list about Andrew when he was running for Mayor.  Dennis Egan, well, we had a few go rounds when he was Mayor of Red Wing AND was executive director of Minnesota Industrial Sand Council, and at the time silica sand mining issue was on agenda for City of Red Wing. Julie Jorgensen? Her Excelsior Energy Mesaba Project coal gasification plant took up 5 years of my full-time labor before it went to part-time and intermittent, and still just won’t fully go away! Minn. Stat. 216B.1694, Subd. 3(b)(1)(ii).

That said, I’m also a big fan of solar, from way, way back when my father designed the solar on the Minnesota Zoo (that was later taken down, it was hot water! Not quite what was most needed, and they didn’t know much about solar back then).

Here’s the GreenMark Complaint — couldn’t find the Wacouta Answer or the cross-motions for Summary Judgment. The Wacouta Township website is years out of date — what’s up with that?  (2014 is most current minutes, plus a notice of the May 2017 meeting about the solar project. ???)

Greenmark Solar v. Wacouta Township_Complaint 25-CV-17-1462

Here are a couple articles:

GreenMark Solar challenges Wacouta Township | Republican Eagle

Minnesota Developer Sues for Solar Garden Permit

The oral argument started with Greenmark.  Some points (not all inclusive):

Focus on Minn. Stat. 394.33, Subd. 1, that the township decision violates Town Powers Act. It’s inconsistent with their zoning. They can enact more restrictive zoning, but they didn’t, township has no solar ordinance.2

Township ordinance is ambiguous.  Frank’s Nursery case — if ambiguous, allow property owner to do what they want with the property.

“Agricultural community” — Planning Commission and Board selected different definitions.  Current use, peat mining and hay.  Pollinator scale 45, and 85 with solar.  Wetlands. Reduce carbon emissions.

Township argument:

Town Power Act does not restrict township actions. Bergen defines inconsistent, it’s not different.
Township Ordinance, Art. 3, Subd. 10, limits industrial uses that do not support agricultural. Solar is an industrial use. Twp. does allow solar in ag, BUT, it’s more restrictive, and it’s not inconsistnet.

The standard is whether down decision was rational, i.e., legally sufficient, supported by record.

Reasonable — inconsistent with agriculture, exported to the grid. CUP – exported, GreenMark takes issue with def of ag use, but see “Hubbard Broadcasting” denial of Conditional Use.  Review is deferential.  Mandamus (GreenMark’s action) review not to challenge discretionary decisions of local government.

Frank’s Nursery re: ambiguous ordinance, doesn’t require ordinance to be construed to support use. Court still needs to determine rationality.

Greenmark Rebuttal

Mandamus – this is about building permit, a ministerial act, not discretionary.

Does township even have jurisdiction/authority.

Purpose of project — Goodhue County, that’s the area.

Altenberg (?) – Town Powers Act – Twp didn’t adopt a more restrictive ordinance.

Bergum (?) – legislative intent of Town Powers Act.

Township Rebuttal

Cases of Mandamus for building permits

Goodhue – zoned agricultural, township couldn’t zone industrial, that would be inconsistent with county zoning.

__________________________

Judge Bayley said he has a lot of homework to do, and will do it and issue Order.

A quick reminder:

Many thanks to the “little birdie” who brought this decades old report to my attention:

Rulemaking – Legislative Auditor-93-04-1

Yes, this is a report from the Minnesota Legislative Auditor from 1993, and if you read it, you’ll see little has changed is so many years…  The issues raised are issues we’ve been raising in the Public Utilities Commission rulemaking for Minn. R. Ch. 7849 and 7850 (Certificate of Need and Siting/Routing).  AAAAAAAAAAAACK!

For example, from the Summary:

• Encouraging agencies to negotiate rules before formally proposing them has made the formal public notice-and-comment process mandated by the APA less meaningful; and

• Since there are no requirements or guidelines governing the negotiation process, those people selected to help an agency draft rules have an unfair advantage over those who are not asked to participate.

One unintended consequence of negotiated rulemaking is that the public participation process mandated by the APA has become less important because the content of rules is largely decided during the negotiation phase. As a result, by the time a rule is formally published in the State Register with a request for public comments, an informal agreement between an agency and parties to the negotiation may already have been reached. Those groups and individuals not consulted often are left out. Nearly 70 percent of the affected parties who responded to our survey said they hear about rules too late for their input to make a difference. People who live outside the Twin Cities area were much more likely to feel unable to influence the rulemaking process and to express dissatisfaction with agency rulemaking performance generally.

For example, in the PUC Rulemaking for 7849 and 7850 (PUC Docket 12-1246), it’s been an over two-year-long process, and few are showing up anymore.  We weigh in, some things are taken into account in the drafts, and then that disappears from the next draft.  How can it feel like anything but a colossal waste of time?  Yet if we weren’t there, the utilities would get everything they want.  And as with the utility Certificate of Need and Siting/Routing processes, rulemaking has the same notice and public participation problems.  It’s all the same, deja vu all over again.

… and also from the report …

Furthermore, the rule negotiation process is not part of the official rulemaking record nor subject to statutory controls or legal review that would guarantee equal access. Therefore, it can easily be dominated by those groups and organizations with more resources. In the absence of formal guidelines or standards, agency practices vary, and some agencies are better than others at obtaining broad-based input.

We also conclude that:

• The formal public notice mechanisms may be inadequate to ensure timely notice and meaningful participation in rulemaking; and

• The prohibition of “substantial changes” after rules are proposed is often misunderstood by agency staff and may inhibit them from incorporating public comments made through official mechanisms.

Does this sound familiar?

Once more with feeling:  … the rule negotiation process is not part of the official rulemaking record nor subject to statutory controls or legal review that would guarantee equal access. Therefore, it can easily be dominated by those groups and organizations with more resources.

So what is the bottom line of this report?

Therefore, we recommend that:

The Legislature should consider amending the Administrative Procedure Act to require that a “notice of regulatory action” be published in the State Register and mailed to all affected parties when an agency begins drafting a rule.

We also recommend that:

• The Legislature should consider amending the Administrative Procedure Act to require that agencies maintain a “rulemaking docket” that contains an up-to-date listing of the status of existing rules and impending rulemaking actions, to be submitted annually to the Legislature.

The recommendations we make are designed to revitalize the formal rulemaking process, ensure more equitable access to agencies at a time when comments can reasonably be considered, and strengthen public accountability over agency rules. We think that replacing the current “notice to solicit outside opinion,” which is published for 62 percent of all rules, with a mandatory “notice of regulatory action” will not represent an undue burden on agencies. The current notice is not widely distributed and does not contain enough information to enable interested parties to respond. Therefore, we recommend that the new notice should contain more information about the rule and the process to be used in drafting it, and that it should receive wider distribution than the current notice. A mandatory rulemaking docket, to be submitted to the Legislature and made available to the public upon request, should help the Legislature monitor rulemaking and provide better oversight.

Also, we recommend the following additional changes to the Administrative Procedure Act:

• Rules not adopted within 18 months of their authorizing legislation should require reauthorization, which would replace the current requirement that new rules be published within 180 days;

• A single definition of “substantial change” should be incorporated into the APA;

• “Regulatory analyses” should be done on rules if requested by the Governor, the Legislative Commission to Review Administrative Rules, a political subdivision, another state agency, or 300 persons; and the current special rule justification requirements relating to agricultural land, small business, and fiscal impacts on local government should be eliminated;

• Agency efforts to notify all people potentially affected by a rule should be made part of the official rulemaking record and subject to external examination during the rules review process;

• Individuals requesting a public hearing should provide their address and phone number;

• Everyone who has requested a hearing should be notified when agencies negotiate to secure withdrawal of hearing requests, and agreements made in negotiations should be made a matter of public record and included in the official rulemaking record;

• Exempt rules should be reviewed for form, statutory authority, need and reasonableness, and consistency with legislative intent; and

• All rules should be reviewed by the Office of Administrative Hearings, thereby eliminating the Attorney General’s role in rules review.

… and …

In addition to changing the APA and other statutes that govern agency rulemaking, we recommend that:

• State agencies involved in rulemaking should make more efforts to broaden public participation in rulemaking.

For example, they should make a greater effort to educate the public about how to receive direct information about rulemaking actions and make greater use of agency-held public hearings or widely publicized public meetings early in the rulemaking process. They should also include circulation of rule drafts and “statements of need and reasonableness” earlier and more widely among all parties affected by rules. Finally, agencies should terminate the negotiation process when it fails to make progress toward resolving issues and either proceed more quickly to an official public hearing, employ the services of a professional negotiator or mediator, or return to the Legislature for guidance.

Adopting these recommendations should shorten the informal process, broaden public input in the early stages of rulemaking, and make rules more responsive to the Legislature.

There was a meeting at the Red Wing library Monday night about the rumored fracking sand mine south of Re d Wing, and just north of Hay Creek.  By the time the meeting was underway, it was standing room only.

The article from the Red Wing Republican Beagle is down below.

Here’s a post with some details of this project to be:

No frackin’ way!!!

Goodhue County’s Article 14 covers mining, but so far it’s been aggregate, and not silica, and it’s a different process, whole different sort of mining, so my thought is that Article 14 needs some amendments.  A ordinance change application is just $500 and some work to draft language…

Here’s a map — the site is on the left, and the transfer station in Florence Twp. is on the right, a railroad spur west of Hwy 61 near Hanson’s Harbor:

Citizens turn out in large numbers against possible Goodhue County sand mine

By: Regan Carstensen, The Republican Eagle

Keith Fossen speaks to more than 100 citizens at the “Stop the Silica Sand Mine” meeting held Monday night at the Red Wing Public Library.

“We were so afraid. We thought, we hope we get at least 10 people,” said Kathleen Bibus, one of the organizers of Monday’s “Stop the Silica Sand Mine” meeting.

They got their 10 people – 10 times over.

More than 100 citizens filled a Red Wing Public Library meeting room to learn what they can do about preventing silica sand from being mined across 155 acres in Hay Creek Township just two miles south of Red Wing.

Windsor Permian, part of the Oklahoma-based Windsor Energy, bought the land for $2.6 million earlier this year, and although it’s unknown what the company will do with the land, many citizens fear it will be used to mine silica sand.

Silica sand, as opposed to normal sand, is worth about $1,400 per ton.

Windsor Permian has already drilled exploratory wells, which can be done without a permit, but the company has not turned in any kind of application to Goodhue County for a permit allowing the mining of silica sand.

Goodhue County Land Use Management Director Lisa Hanni said that without having received an application, the county does not know many details about Windsor Permian’s plans.

“Let’s be realistic though, nobody pays $2.6 million for topsoil,” said Goodhue County Commissioner Jim Bryant, who helped answer questions from the public at the meeting. He lives in Hay Creek Township.

Citizens have the same mindset and are anticipating the company will apply for a permit to start mining.

If an application is turned in, the county is bound by state statute to make a decision about the permit within 60 days, unless an environmental assessment worksheet is needed. An EAW will be necessary if the aggregate mining operation is expected to exceed 40 acres in size to a mean depth of 10 feet.

One of the concerns citizens at the meeting raised was whether the sand mine would impact the groundwater and affect Hay Creek.

The public also asked if a permit is allowed with certain conditions listed, who would enforce them? For example, if an aggregate tax is required, Windsor Permian would have to report exactly how much sand it is taking out, but citizens at the meeting seemed hesitant to believe the required reporting would be enforced.

If and when a completed application from Windsor Permian is turned in, the Goodhue County Planning Commission will hold a hearing for anyone to come and voice more concerns.

For more info on the other end of the process, what they use the sand for (fracking) and to learn about what they’re doing with proppants:

Damascus Citizens.org

NO FRACKING

STOP FRACKING NOW! (problem with site?)

In the New York Times (very interesting to learn that instant coffee is used!!!):

Millions of Gallons of Hazardous Chemicals Injected Into Wells

And here’s how bad it’s gotten in Pennsylvania:

PA DEP, Marcellus Shale Coalition Admit Drilling Wastewater Likely Contamination Drinking Water