Wis. Republicans Disregard Public Health and Safety in Favor of Frac Sand Mining

October 25, 2013 by Bruce Johnson [Bruce Johnson is a Supervisor on the Town of Pepin board and serves as the Pepin Plan Commission chair. -Editors] I travelled to Madison this week to present a unanimous resolution from the Town of Pepin Board opposing an attempt in the state legislature to preempt all local units of government (Counties, Towns, Villages and Cities) from regulating or monitoring air and water quality, blasting and local road use agreements. The public hearing on Senate Bill 349 lasted more than 9 hours. If you have the stomach for it you can watch all or part of it on Wisconsin Eye. continued... http://wcmcoop.com/2013/10/25/wis-republicans-disregard-public-health-and-safety-in-favor-of-frac-sand-mining/

Legislation Weakens Environment Protections

http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/legislation-weakens-environmental-protections-b99127465z1-229296151.html

Businesses, workers need regulatory certainty

Mark Hoffman

http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/businesses-workers-need-regulatory-certainty-b99127437z1-229295601.html

Wis. Republicans Disregard Public Health and Safety in Favor of Frac Sand Mining

 I traveled to Madison this week to present a unanimous resolution from the Town of Pepin Board opposing an attempt in the state legislature to preempt all local units of government (Counties, Towns, Villages and Cities) from regulating or monitoring air and water quality, blasting and local road use agreements. The public hearing on Senate Bill 349 lasted more than 9 hours. If you have the stomach for it you can watch all or part of it on Wisconsin Eye.

[ Bruce Johnson is a Supervisor on the Town of Pepin board and serves as the Pepin Plan Commission chair. -Editors] 

Continued...
http://wcmcoop.com/2013/10/25/wis-republicans-disregard-public-health-and-safety-in-favor-of-frac-sand-mining/ 

Legislators And Lobbyists First - The last thing they do is hear the public.

Friday, October 25, 2013

Legislators And Lobbyists First

Having witnessed yesterday's public hearing on the sand mining bill, I fail to see why lawmakers are allowed to get away with calling them public hearings. The last thing they do is hear the public.

Legislators talked first. And they talked and talked and talked, as if rehearsing for some future filibuster. Then it was the industry lobbyists' turn. And they droned on and on interminably, while citizens who had traveled for hours to attend the hearing were made to sit and wait.

I talked to people who woke up as early as 4 or 4:30 to drive into town to catch a bus and ride for three hours or more to arrive in time for the start of the hearing at 9:30. They had stories to tell. They wanted to share their concerns and fears about the effects of sand mining on their own health as well as its impact on the natural landscape and their property values. They wanted to have their say about traffic congestion and damage to their local roads. They are understandably unsettled by companies blasting with dynamite in their homeland. They are understandably outraged by a state power grab that strips them and their local communities of any ability to control their own fate and gives sand miners a green light to pretty much do as they please.

They waited for hours, forced to listen to the legislators and lobbyists. Some of them never heard their names called. It was never their turn to speak. They had to get back on the bus for the long ride home without testifying. They submitted written comments to the committee, something they could have done from home without getting up at 4 in the morning to make the trip to Madison.

The politicians and lobbyists who scratch backs and make deals in the Capitol most every day seemed utterly oblivious to how rudely and disrespectfully these citizens were being treated. By any measure of human decency, no one could be blamed for concluding that mining committee chairman Tom Tiffany was denied instruction in the basic social graces as a child. But this hearing was no different than any other held these days. Offensive as it was, this was standard operating procedure.

Watching such a disgraceful spectacle makes you angry enough to chew up nails and spit 'em out like bullets. One can only hope that all the people who traveled so far only to be treated so shabbily will find ways to exact proper revenge on these godforsaken politicians.

Is local control hurting Wisconsin’s economy, sand mining industry?

http://watchdog.org/112689/control-local-wisconsin/

Thursday, Oct. 24, at 12 noon, Wisconsin citizens will rally on the State Street Steps outside the State Capitol

Dozens of Groups to Rally for Local Control at State Capitol

MADISON--On Thursday, Oct. 24, at 12 noon, Wisconsin citizens will rally on the State Street Steps outside the State Capitol in response to the unprecedented attack on local democracy launched by Sen. Tom Tiffany on behalf of the frac sand mining industry. 

Last week, Tiffany made public SB 349, a draft bill that would strip local governments of the power to protect air and water quality, prevent unsafe blasting, and recoup costs to taxpayers from damage done to local roadways by heavy truck traffic from frac sand mining operations. While aimed squarely at communities experiencing the consequences of the uncontrolled boom in frac sand mining, the law impacts counties, townships, and municipalities throughout Wisconsin. It would prevent local governments anywhere from instituting environmental and public health protections beyond what the state is able or willing to enforce, such as efforts of communities threatened by the proposed G-Tac 

open pit iron mine to prevent blasting in asbestos-laden bedrock.

"This bill has the effect of regarding residents in our townships across the whole state as simply  collateral damage that is 'necessary' for industry development and profits," said UW-Eau Claire Professor Emeritus Ron Koshoshek, who lives near Chippewa Falls.

The Senate committee on Workforce Development, Forestry, Mining, and Revenue will hold a public hearing on the bill starting at 9:30 am on Thursday. A citizen lobby day against the bill is also being planned.

The noon rally is being sponsored by the following groups and individuals:

1. Madison Action for Mining Alternatives
2. Wisconsin Network for Peace and Justice
3. Wisconsin Grassroots Network
4. Save the Hills Alliance, Inc.
5. Family Farm Defenders
6. Preserve Trempealeau County
7. Save Our Town Whitehall
8. Town of Lincoln Concerned Citizens
9. Wisconsin Resources Protection Council
10. SOUL of Wisconsin
11. Midwest Environmental Advocates
12. Crawford Stewardship Project
13. Sustain Rural Wisconsin Network
14. People Empowered Protect the Land (PEPL) of Rosendale
15. Kewaunee CARES
16. Reedsburg Area Concerned Citizens
17. Southwest Wisconsin Area Progressives
18. Frac Sand Sentinel
19. Concerned Chippewa Citizens
20. Kate Rice
21. Monroe County Sand Mines
22. Houston County Protectors (Houston, MN)
23. Maiden Rock Concerned Citizens
24. Sierra Club
25. Loyalty to Our Land
26. Buffalo County Defenders
27. Hale No to Frac Sand Mining in Western WI
28. Physicians and Health Care Providers of the Chippewa Valley
29. Juneau Action Group
30. Preserve Waupaca County
31. Allamakee County Protectors Education Campaign
32. Save-The-Bluffs-Goodhue County, Minnesota
33. Frac Sand Industry Awareness in Wisconsin-Facebook
34. Concerned Citizens of Dovre
35. James J. Drost, BS, MS-Mining and Metallurgical Engineering, University of WI-Madison
36. John Drost, Ph.D, Professor Emeritus-Mathematics-University of WI-Eau Claire
37. Mississippi River Water Walk
38. Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition-West Virginia
39. Echo Valley Hope
40. Friends of Wabasha-Wabasha, Minnesota
41. Citizens Against Silica Mining (CASM)-Winona, Minnesota
42. Citizens for Responsible Land Use
43. David F. Slottje, Executive Director, Community Environmental Defense Council, Inc.. Ithaca, NY
44. Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
45. Citizens for Safe Water Around Badger (CSWAB)
46. Friends of the Lower Wisconsin River
47. Solidarity Singalong
48. Raging Grannies
49. Madison Infoshop
50. Jackson County Citizen Voices
51. Albion's 5th Generation
52. ACTNOW
53. Lookout for Buffalo County
54. Community Rights Alliance of Winneshiek County  (Iowa)
55. Coalition of Wisconsin Aging Groups
56. Rye House, Minneapolis
57. Land Stewardship Project-Minnesota
58. Wisconsin  Wave
59. Food & Water Watch
60. Midwest Coalition Against Lethal Mining

WHAT: Rally to Stop the Frac Attack Power Grab

WHEN: Thursday, Oct. 24, 12 noon

WHERE: State Street side of the Wisconsin State Capitol, Madison

CONTACT: Carl Sack, carl@wnpj.org, (608) 712-8335 or Kimberlee Wright, 608-251-5047, ext. 4, kwright@midwestadvocates.org

no county, no town, no city is immune.

It is obvious that no county, no town, no city is immune. We must all support and work on issues together. Never has there been a time in this state when the work of the citizenry is so crucial. Please be involved in someway wherever your talents lead you, to attend meetings, to speak out, to write letters to legislators, the overseeing agencies, or to local officials! Your help is urgently needed; the work can not be left up to a few! Our lives and those of future generations must be protected! It takes time and human energy to make a difference. Commit yourself to making that difference!

Take Action! Attend one of the EQB Frac Sand Input Sessions on Tuesday, Oct 29

Dear Friends and Neighbors,

  Here is an opportunity we've been waiting for to show up, stand up, and speak up for a healthy, sustainable future for our region.

  Carpooling makes sense.  I plan to drive from Lanesboro and have room for 3 (or 4 compatible) riders.

Wishing you well,

Bonita

Land Stewardship Project Action Alert:

Environmental Quality Board Public Input Sessions on Frac Sand Issues in Southeast MN Oct. 29

Be There to Demand the State Put Community Well-being Before Frac Sand Profits

The Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) is coordinating several pieces of oversight of the frac sand mining industry. One is creating “model standards and criteria for mining, processing and transporting silica sand” for local government to use if they choose. We need to ensure that these model standards make it possible for local organizing to maintain or enact strong ordinances, including bans on frac sand mining. The EQB should lay out standards and criteria that cover a spectrum of goals that local communities may want to achieve with a local ordinance. These goals should range from a frac sand ban to strong local standards to protect specifically identified areas of concern such as air quality, health, property values, roads, water quality, etc. The EQB should propose nothing that is weaker than what many counties and townships have already adopted.

The EQB is also in charge of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the multi-site Minnesota Sands frac sand proposal. The EQB needs to create a process that is inclusive of rural citizens, including having public input meetings in the impacted counties. 

Take Action! Attend one of the EQB Frac Sand Input Sessions on Tuesday, Oct 29:

• 9 a.m. – 11 a.m. at St. Charles Community Center (830 Whitewater Ave, St. Charles)
• 1 p.m. – 3 p.m. at Wabasha-Kellogg High School, Performing Arts Center (2113 Hiawatha Dr. East, Wabasha)

Be prepared to make these key points:

• The EQB should create model ordinances that include a model ban.
• The EQB should not create weak model standards that could undermine existing local ordinances or efforts to pass strong ordinances, including bans.
• The environmental review of the Minnesota Sands EIS should include public input meetings in southeast Minnesota.

If you plan to attend, please, let Bobby King at the Land Stewardship Project (LSP) know at bking@landstewardshipproject.org or 612-722-6377.

 

More information and update:

Land Stewardship Project gives new EQB director a tour of southeast Minnesota communities impacted by frac sand projects.  On his first full week at the job, Will Seuffert, the new director of the EQB, spent Friday, Oct. 4,  touring communities in southeast Minnesota impacted by frac sand mines and talking to LSP members and others. He heard firsthand about the local organizing going on at the township and county level and visited the homes of those impacted by existing and proposed frac sand mines. He listened intently and committed to working with LSP as the EQB's frac sand mining work goes forward.

Citizens pack the EQB Sept. 18 hearing to demand tough standards and more public input. The EQB was charged by the Minnesota Legislature with creating “model standards and criteria for mining, processing and transporting silica sand.” At the EQB’s Sept. 18 meeting, the Board reviewed a draft prepared by staff that was shockingly weak. For example, for frac sand operations the setback from dwellings was 500 feet and from a property line 100 feet. The meeting was packed with citizens from southeast Minnesota and 20 testifiers made an effective case for why this draft needed to be scrapped and a process created that includes citizen input. The Board agreed, scrapped the draft and directed staff to hold input meetings. The Oct. 29 meetings are a result. Details are at the Houston County Protectors website HERE.

Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy

This legislation threatens local control for our Wisconsin neighbors - we're next and could easily be adapted for us. Check out the analysis at the end.

From: Patricia J. Popple <sunnyday5@charter.net>

Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 8:07 PM
Subject: Additional Information for Your Action Regarding the Co-sponsorship of LRB-3146/1 and LRB-3408/1 Relating to: Regulatory Certainty Act

In Wisconsin we were challenged yesterday with a piece of legislation which will have vast implications for the intensive work we have been engaged in doing during the past 5 and 1/2 years: working to protect the people and their property in WI with the onslaught of non-metallic mining, processing and transport of frac sand out of WI. It is quite evident that powerful lobbying interests on the part of large corporations have been at work with legislators.

Below are some important pieces of information you can share as you begin to call legislators, as well as town, county, and other municipal leaders who will be greatly impacted upon by the legislation.

First new article on the proposed bill.

http://www.wiscnews.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_004f5640-99cb-5d1c-8dcf-37dc3294e372.html

Here's another:

http://www.wisconsinwatch.org/2013/10/17/bill-would-limit-local-control-of-frac-sand-mining/

Several of us received helpful information from Ron Koshoshek earlier today. I am sending the commentary with Ron's permission. It  will be helpful in reflecting upon the issues ahead!

It will be helpful as back-up information as you:
1. call legislators to ask them NOT to co-sponsor this bill (see attached for a copy of LRB 3146; please read it so you know what it entails)
2. inform local town board members, county board members and officials, city and other municipal governmental officials on all committees about the issues and the importance of pressuring legislators regarding their pending loss of local control regarding frac sand mining issues in their own county or town if this bill is approved. Ask them to also contact their legislators.
3. call and inform others who have not been active in the effort to get on board! immediately!!
4. ask other community and state leaders for their added support and voice!

We are counting on those we have collaborated with, created alliances, and networked with in these past years! Your work will be invaluable as we all work together on this issue.

Here is the letter from Ron:
"Hi all,

I have attached at the bottom of this analysis, a copy of the apparently innocuous  "Regulatory Certainty Act" which is really a bill abolishing local authority to regulate frac-sand mining operations through licensing under village powers and has the effect of preventing a town using zoning power from denying a conditional use permit because of the grandfathering provisions in the zoning laws and NR 135.  The bill will negate the efforts of hundreds of local citizens, throw away thousands of their personal dollars and hours of time spent to protect themselves and their neighbors from the potentially adverse impacts of this industry, and waste thousands of already spent Town taxpayer dollars that town government has spent in fulfilling their statutory duty to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the people in their towns.

The bill ( LRB-3146/1 and LRB-3408/1 ) will be brought before the Senate committee by Sen Tom Tiffany and the Assembly committee by Rep. Joan Balweg on Monday Oct 21.   In a rush job to get this passed, a hearing on the bill will be on Thursday Oct. 25th according to the latest information. Time and place is unknown to me or anyone that I know as yet.    However, if the bill cannot get enough sponsors, it will not get out of committee at all.    So between now and then call or email your local representatives and discourage them from sponsoring this bill.  Perhaps, sharing this analysis and commentary can help you with your persuasive arguments.

List serves have my permission to send this analysis out to members on their list.  Please send them all of it if you send them any of it.

---Ron Koshoshek

1. This bill will prohibit towns, villages, and cities, and even counties from regulating all land use activities of non-metallic mining operations  through licensing ordinances.   It will also invalidate all existing licensing ordinances.    The bill holds that the only way to regulate  non-metallic mining would be through zoning.  This bill would not prohibit the regulation of industrial frac sand mines, or sand and gravel pits (commonly referred to as aggregate operations), but require that the land use regulation type activities could only be done through zoning,  and its conditional use permits.  

I should point out that right now Frac-sand companies are exploiting the increasing conflict between the interests of some townships and the interests of municipalities, villages and cities and their residents.  Villages and cities and their residents receive some tax benefits, without belief that they have to suffer possible health risks, the certain loss of property values and certain town road damage with consequent property tax increases that will be unquestionably suffered by residents of unzoned towns and counties who are entirely unzoned or whose zoning is so weak that it provides no meaningful protections at all.   Municipalities such as cities and villages currently have no regulations of this industry at all.  So companies are trying to get under the jurisdiction of a city whenever a county zoning regulation is too restrictive. Currently, the industry is trying to create "balloon annexations" to municipalities that will allow them to escape regulations in town licensing or county zoning by a township or a county The annexation of the Preferred Sands site in the town of Preston in Trempeauleau County into the City of Blair is one example.  The second is Vista Sands' annexation proposal to the Glenwood City Council. That seeks to get Vista out from under the zoning regulations of St Croix County.  Bill does nothing about these conflicts.   It dumps on the residents of unzoned townships and unzoned counties.    

This bill would eliminate all regulatory oversight in Crawford County since that county has no zoning at all, and in practice do the same in counties like Chippewa and Barron whose existing and or revised zoning ordinances are not even worth spitting at.

Surely unzoned towns can become either town zoned or county zoned.  But the likelihood of any doing that is very low, and even if they do, zoning regulations involve grandfathering in of all existing land uses that fall under the type of land use to be regulated.  Some argue that a property can escape regulation even if it is only its mineral rights have been leased for non-metallic mining and the lease has been recorded with the Register for Deeds office.   That seems to me the main reason why companies are so willing to go along with zoning.  The prospecting has been virtually completed from a lease-holding standpoint.   The frac-sand boom is now in the post-prospecting phase.  Most of the potential land has been identified and leased.   Now small leases are consolidated into very large holdings of 1000+ acres plus so that escapement of all county or town regulations through grandfathering is virtually final and complete.

2. It is not yet clear whether this bill may in fact limit the use of licensing ordinances for other types of operations (other than non-metallic mining)?  After all, every activities is a land use.   My Town has licensing ordinances for operating a dog kennel and ATV use on public roadways.     If a town is unzoned are these ordinances also invalidated?

3.  The bill also states that only the State can regulate for air quality, water quality and quantity, and related air and water issues.  It prohibits  local governments  from enacting any regulations over these matters (see page 10 of the bill for this language).   

In the opinion of the many legal experts that I have worked with over the past 5 years, including lawyers within DNR,  Towns do currently have the right through the exercise of their police powers to protect public health and general welfare through their licensing or zoning ordinances and that includes protecting the private well water supply and quality, taking measures to require air quality monitoring and remediation thru the exercise of their village powers.   Indeed, this view was confirmed by the Zweifelhoffer vs. Cooks Valley  by the Wis Supreme Court decision in Feb. 2012.

Currently,  DNR's authority is NOT being used to protect off site impacts at all, and never will.   Even if it did so indirectly, there is nothing in the enforcement provisions of state regulations that requires a company who has violated state standards to replace a household's or business's contaminated private well or to provide a potable water supply if the water quality goes bad; or to drill a private well deeper if it goes dry; or to restore sediment deposits on private lands when a holding pond blows out, or to require remediation of bad indoor air quality by improved ventilation systems in a home or school or business.  Remediation of all these injuries requires a civil law suit against the company by the injured party.  However,  remedying the problem may cost less that the $30,000 minimum cost of a civil law suit.   Still though the private parties may save a few bucks,  they may also still be out $10,000 to $25,000 to remediate the damage. Currently, by using their police power or town zoning powers to protect public health, safety and general welfare, towns are requiring remediation of adverse impacts on off site private properties and private well water within ½ mile of the mining operation.

This bill has the effect of regarding residents in our townships across the whole state as simply "collateral damage" that is "necessary" for industry development and profits.

4.  The bill limits the local governments regarding agreements they make with companies for reimbursement of damages by highway users under these contracts. (see pages 12-14 of the bill draft for this language).  

This is a disaster for local taxpayers to start with.   But financial assurance for local road repair and reconstruction is also an especially sticky issue.   Currently most towns get no significant tax benefits.   My personal tax on a modest home pays 3 times more than a 153 acre EOG mine pays to the Town of Howard last year.   The only time there may be some tax benefit is if a town contains a "full operation" in the town.  Under tax law, anything that is categorized as manufacturing machinery is not taxable.  Only personal property is taxable.  Until a legitimate economic study is done by an independent qualified economist of the tax impacts both positive and negative not much is known about the economic benefits and costs on towns, other than what we know from the economic lessons of mining history.   It may take one or two years of development of the industry to get enough real economic data to make an assessment.    

Currently, we know that use of a town road (or even a county road) for 3 days nearly destroys the road for safe use by the citizenry.  These roads lack the width, depth of asphalt, and underlayment that can handle the effect of 100-500 trips per day of loaded 80.000 lb sand trucks.  The costs of road repair and reconstruction is prohibitive, given current tax revenues available to towns.  Towns do not have the power to tax machinery or equipment nor to create a severance tax under current law.   So, because of their duty to protect general welfare,  towns have been using the leverage they have, based on the tonnage limits on roads, to refuse a license to operate, unless companies assume the costs of road repair and reconstruction.

Complicating this issue is the fact that the emergence of industrial agriculture involves the driving of enormously large equipment and trucks on town road.  Some may match or exceed the weight of loaded frac sand trucks.   So far, since towns have historically created this road infrastructure for the ag industry, and since these were used only during planting and harvesting seasons or during manure tank cleaning time, towns have borne  the full costs of repair and/or reconstruction.   

When state law defines non-metallikc mining as an agricultural activity, it is understandable that the frac industry is piqued to say the least at the "unfairness" of being singled out and required to pay the full costs of reconstruction and repair.   Moreover, the very tonnage limit that is being used for leverage on the frac sand industry is not similarly used as leverage to bring the large scale Ag Industry to the table for similar financial assurances.

Some towns have been sensitive to this fairness issue and have tried to find a special method to determine the amount of financial assurance required.   This approach may lead to apportioning the costs to all heavyweight bearing road users in according with some formula.   However, the frac-sand industry folks are upset that some highway contracts provided set payments based on a per ton basis of operation.  These agreements use the per ton of production as a proxy for the effect of 100 trucks at 80,000 pounds per day running on the roads as a way to require the amount of financial assurance to be set aside.  It is not known how many towns were using the per ton payment, but when some begin using these payments for the town's other general operation, that is not authorized by the law.    

 The industry wants the highway contracts to be solely based upon reimbursement for damage done by the user based upon an engineering study and they will pay half of the costs.   Pay for the damage they do, but no more.   That is a simple ethical idea, but it is impossible to directly measure the damage except perhaps by the expected tonnage over the road by all heavy traffickers.  But shame on the industry here.  Paying for half the cost under represents by a huge amount their actual contribution to road damage and reconstructive needs.

    Besides, the studies of the engineering of the roads for this weight bearing amount of traffic and the estimates of the actual costs have already been done by the State for Minnesota DOT.  Industry should not be ignorant of that but surely wants to exploit the ignorance of the legislature regarding that information.

5. The Wisconsin Transportation Builders have inserted a provision that relates to "borrow sites" use for state highway projects, which also limits state highway projects.  The key here is that even zoning could not regulate "borrow sites" for state highway projects.

6.  Those towns that have existing licensing ordinances regulating non-metallic mining ordinances would be invalid.  The town would have to have town zoning or be under county zoning to regulate non-metallic mining (both industrial frac sand and sand/gravel pits).  

The fact is that, even if a town is zoned, most existing zoning ordinances have not addressed the industrial frac sand mine issues and would need to be dramatically updated to include what the invalidated licensing ordinances had already included.  Moreover, because of grandfathering of registered lease holders and well as of owners registering their own land for future metallic mining, towns with their own zoning and counties would not have any right to rewrite their comprehensive plans and modify their own town zoning ordinances so as to provide reasons for denying a permit.   They would simply have to grant a permit no matter where it was located.   That makes nonsense out of zoning's basic purpose.

Ron Koshoshek

PS:  In case you may not know me and think I may be unqualified to make the above commentary, I also include a brief bio."

Thanks Ron, for your wise counsel.
Pat Popple

From: Sen.Tiffany: relating to Local Regulation of Nonmetallic Mining

From: Sen.Tiffany
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 3:55 PM
To: *Legislative All Senate; *Legislative All Assembly
Subject: Co-sponsorship of LRB-3146/1 and LRB-3408/1 Relating to: Regulatory Certainty Act

TO:                 Legislative Colleagues

FROM:           Senator Tom Tiffany and Representative Joan Ballweg

DATE:           October 16, 2013

RE:                 Co-sponsorship of LRB 3146/1 & LRB 3408/1 relating to Local Regulation of Nonmetallic Mining

SHORT DEADLINE:  Monday, October 21^st at Noon.

In February of 2012, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued a decision that substantially expanded the authority of local governments to regulate land use under the guise of its police powers, rather than through the zoning process.  This expanded use of police powers enables local governments to duplicate, ignore or otherwise evade long-standing zoning requirements and procedures associated with the siting and operation of non-metallic mining sites.  As a result, the industry is increasingly becoming subjected to a patchwork of local zoning and police power ordinances that may involve multiple layers of local government.  The court’s decision undermines local zoning and creates regulatory and operational uncertainty for the non-metallic mining industry in Wisconsin.

This legislation does three things:

1. Legislatively reaffirms that local land use restrictions on non-metallic mining, as defined by Wis. Stat. §295.11 (3), may only be accomplished through the zoning authority of the county, town, village, or city.  Granting local governments the power to discriminatorily restrict or prevent non-metallic mining under its police power rather than through zoning creates an arbitrary and uncertain regulatory climate for the non-metallic mining industry.  It discourages future investment and threatens existing operations.

2. Legislatively reaffirms the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) as the state’s sole environmental regulator by specifically preempting local governments from enacting or enforcing standards related to air or water quality.  The DNR has historically served as the state’s environmental regulator, and the Legislature has charged the agency with the responsibility of establishing air and water quality standards to protect public health.  Having a patchwork quilt of environmental standards scattered across the state will create confusion and inconsistency for the regulated community, which in turn will result in a barrier to investment.  The environmental “rules of the game” should not change from community to community.

3. Establishes state standards that provide for reasonable parameters under which financial assurance to protect against local road damage may be imposed by local government.  Such parameters would make clear that local government may not impose front end taxes for the privilege of operating on public roads, but may require that financial assurance be posted to cover actual road damages caused by any particular road user.  The non-metallic mining industry will continue to pay its fair share for road use.  Like any other bulk material enterprise, this industry relies on good roads and transportation infrastructure to move product to processing and market.

This legislation does not:

• Prevent a zoning jurisdiction from prohibiting non-metallic mining.
• Lessen the stringent regulatory standards on siting and operating a non-metallic mine.

If you would like to be added as a co-sponsor of this legislation, please contact Senator Tiffany’s Office at 6-2509 or Representative Ballweg’s Office at 6-8077 by Monday, October 21^stat Noon.  You will automatically be added onto the companion legislation unless otherwise noted. 

We all need to start writing letters to editors, and contact our legislators via phone calls and letters.

Dear Friends and Neighbors,

  Wisconsin is ahead of us in experiencing industry maneuvering.  We can learn to keep our heads up and share info on which to act.

Wishing you well

======================

From: "Admin@SaveTheHillsAlliance" <AllianceSaveTheHills.register@gmail.com>Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 7:47 PM
Subject: Proposed bill to take away local control re: non-metallic mining

We all need to start writing letters to editors, and contact our legislators via phone calls and letters.
We cannot stand idle on this, and we will be addressing this at our annual meeting on Sat., Oct. 19th.
Please pass around.
Thanks.

Cheryl

--

Please donate to our cause - send donations to STHA, Inc., c/o Ken Lestrud, Treasurer, N7225 690th Street, Menomonie,WI 54751

STHA, Inc., 12568 44th Ave., Chippewa Falls, WI 54729 - (877) 353-4976

501(c)(3) tax deductible status pending - wisair.wordpress.com 

GasLand on Letterman

  This is  late to see on TV, but available on your computers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share with others:

How do you answer the question, "If we don't frack, then what's our energy solution?"  Check this out. If you miss this show, you can likely stream it later from Letterman's website-archives. 

		Tonight Professor Mark Jacobson, renewable energy scientist featured in Gasland Part II, will be on the Late Show with David Letterman! After seeing the film, at almost every Q&A, someone asks, “So if we’re not going to frack what’s the solution?” Tonight Professor Jacobson will answer that question and make some exciting announcements about how you can be a part of the solution.  So get your TVs set, your environment friendly snacks ready and tune in tonight at 11:30. Trust us you won’t want to miss this. It’s only the future of the whole word that’s on the line. Thanks, Lee Ziesche, Grassroots Coordinator  P.S. If you're not going to be able to catch Professor Jacobson on Letterman tonight you can learn about how our country will get off fossil fuels at the http://org2.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=9zEqYfgkC%2BSpFvyLKwoShEPkJ7NRFsMo

Morality & Frac Sand Mining Talk(Poster-) Oct22, 7:00 pm, La Crescent

  Sharing rides can make this an even better experience.

 

I hope you can come to this event. Feel free to pass this on.

http://www.sandpointtimes.com/pdf/Event-Poster-Oct22.pdf

Here is the latest edition of the FRAC SAND SENTINEL
http://wisair.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/frac-sand-sentinel-26.pdf


Listen to some songs which correspond with the issues related to frac sand mining..............
Read an opinion letter crafted by Jim Drost............
Read about the expansion of the Chieftain mines and processing plant in Barron Co. near the Village of New Auburn..............
Take a look at the great signs produced by creative sign developers.................
Read stories from throughout the region and nation and learn more about up coming events.............
And more..........
If you have comments, issues, concerns, or items you would like added, please send them on to me or call.
Pat Popple
715-723-6398
sunnyday5@charter.netTHE FRAC SAND SENTINEL

FRAC SAND SENTINEL # 24, SEPT 30, 2013 THE RAILROAD TROUBLES

http://wisair.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/frac-sand-sentinel-24-sept-13-2013.pdf

From: Patricia J. Popple <sunnyday5@charter.net>Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 11:14 AM
Subject: FRAC SAND SENTINEL ISSUE # 24 SEPTEMBER 30, 2013 THE RAIL

Numerous complaints have been heard regarding the rail traffic and blockages through Chippewa County.  The County and the City of Chippewa Falls have become a hub for heavy industrial rail traffic and there is hardly a person who has not been abruptly disturbed during the night by shrill whistles and vibrations as the rail cars carry out millions of tons of frac sand from throughout the County and Counties to the north on a relatively regular and frequent basis.

This issue of the Frac Sand Sentinel deals at least partially with some of the issues. Citizens have been told that nothing can be done about rail operations. Phone numbers of federal and state officials have been provided to governmental officials to determine what can be done particularly when there are emergency routes and people are caught waiting for a train to pass to access medical or emergency assistance.

Have any formal systems been set up? Several citizens caught up in "waiting for the train to pass" events in the City have called locally only to be referred to County officials for resolution. And yet there appears to be no resolution!

Chippewa County is not the exception. Other counties are dealing with similar problems. Is this something we just "live with", or can Counties, Towns, or Cities create ordinances or regulations that can be enforced? If anyone reading the Sentinel has the same or similar issues related to the transport of frac sand through your area, please feel free to share them. As more trans load facilities are fully developed and as more mines and processing plants appear, the problems with the heavy industrial methods used to obtain fossil fuels for world use will not be going away soon even though it appears that the old industrial model only serves to create even more issues than ever expected as officials hastily issued permits without much public input.

If you have questions, concerns, remarks or comments, please be certain to share them.
sunnyday5@charter.net
715-723-6398
http://www.ccc-wis.com/  Concerned Chippewa Citizen

Executive Order: Identification of Critical Water Resources and Mitigation of Water Use Competition in Vulnerable Watersheds

Executive Order

Identification of Critical Water Resources and Mitigation of Water Use Competition in Vulnerable Watersheds

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to reduce the competition for water resources from electricity production in vulnerable watersheds, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. – Policy.    The U. S. Geological Survey reported this year that “the Nation faces an increasingly large set of water-resource challenges as water shortages and water-use conflicts become more commonplace.”  The agency also found that “national water availability and use have not been comprehensively assessed since 1978.” Since this assessment more than 30 years ago and earlier analyses, the U.S. Geological Survey found that “competition for water resources has increased greatly and considerably more importance is attached to the availability of water for environmental and ecosystem needs, in addition to human use.”

The United States can ill-afford to continue to withdraw and consume water at current rates.  Increasing population, energy and agricultural demands as well as climate change’s contribution to drought are driving the rising competition for water resources. Key regions of the United States are faced with declining water supplies and attendant intra- and interstate conflicts over its use.  Over the next 20 years, the U.S. Geological Survey and Department of Defense project that water scarcity and competition will spread to most regions of the country. We must act to avoid, eliminate or mitigate these regional water budget issues beginning now before we are faced with a true crisis.

Therefore, it is critical that the federal government ascertain the water budget in the United States for management purposes by completing the National Water Census ordered by Congress in the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-11, also known as the SECURE Water Act) as quickly as practicable and take steps to reduce water consumption, especially in vulnerable watersheds.  

In its most recent report to Congress, the U.S. Geological Survey identified three critical watersheds as the subjects of their initial studies.  These include the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River Basin, the Delaware River Basin, and the Colorado River Basin that encompass many smaller, impaired bodies of water.   USGS chose these watersheds due to their importance to the country and because they represent “watersheds with potential water-use conflicts.”   USGS also found in its report to Congress that thermoelectric power and irrigation are the largest users of water in the Nation.

Section 2.  U.S. Water Budget.  (a) The Department of Interior is directed to make the completion of the National Water Census prior to 2020 its highest priority.  All available discretionary funds shall be directed toward implementation of this program.

(b) The Water Security Campaign (the Campaign) is established.  The Campaign shall consist of a public education component and a recommendation component for the electric generation mix, with the goal of reducing the water-intensity of the power sector. 

(1) Water Security Campaign Public Education Initiative.  Within four months of adoption of this Order, the Office of the Water Budget Planning Commission established under subsection (2) (the Commission) shall implement a public information campaign to educate the public as to the current view held by the U.S. Geological Survey, Department of Defense, and Sandia Laboratory with respect to the country’s water budget, the ultimate difficulties we face as a nation due to current withdrawal and use rates, and the importance of completing the National Water Assessment.  This effort shall be designated as the Water Security Campaign.  The main focus of the campaign shall be to highlight the two largest water users in the country, thermoelectric power plants and agriculture, identify the withdrawal and use rates by region of the country, identify increasing uses associated with energy generation in the foreseeable future, discuss the impacts of climate change on water availability, and identify approaches to prevent a water budget crisis.  For thermoelectric power plants, proposed recommendations shall be consistent with the sustainability criteria established by this order.

The Commission shall conduct 12 regional meetings within 18 months beginning on implementation of the Campaign to educate the public and receive input from the public as to the water budget issues local residents are facing.  

(2) The Water Budget Planning Commission (the Commission) is established.  The Commission consists of the Departments of Agriculture, Energy, Defense, Interior, EPA and the Council on Environmental Quality and shall make recommendations for water use mitigation approaches consistent with the sustainability criteria established in this Order. The Commission shall establish recommendations to address the growing competition for water by thermoelectric power plant use (including fuel extraction to operate thermoelectric power plants such as mining and fracking) and farming  through mitigation efforts that reduce the burden on water resources without threatening the food supply.

The following sustainability criteria are established to address power sector water withdrawal and consumption rates.  Technologies and the ultimate mix of electric generation technologies should be those that:

1) are affordable or have the ability to decline in cost and are less prone to cost overruns;
2) use and consume the least volume of water resources (including a technology’s fuel cycle from resource extraction through operation and combustion);
3) generate the least amount of pollution in terms of air emissions, water discharges, deforestation, stormwater runoff and waste generation (including a technology’s fuel cycle);
4) generate the least amount of greenhouse gases (including a technology’s fuel cycle); and,
5) maintain grid reliability.

With respect to residential and industrial uses, the Commission shall emphasize actionable water conservation practices.

Section 3.  Mitigation of thermoelectric water use in critical basins. In order to mitigate or avoid water use competition in the United States and in keeping with Executive Order 13514 (October 5, 2009), the federal government, in cooperation with regional, state and local government entities, NGOs, and business organizations, shall reduce or eliminate, to the extent practicable, by 2030 water-intensive, steam-cycle coal-fired, nuclear and natural-gas fired power plants that derive water from or impact the three river basins cited above (Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River Basin, the Delaware River Basin, and the Colorado River Basin) with the less water-intensive optimal electric generation mix of:
1) End Use Energy Efficiency;
2) Solar PV and Wind Power (non-combustion renewables);
3) Distributed Power Technologies;
4) Demand Response;
5) Storage Technologies;
6) Simple cycle and combined cycle natural gas-fired power plants, with the goal of limiting deployment of these resources as much as practicable.

This electric generation mix comports with the sustainability criteria established by this Order. 

(a) The charter of the Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality (Subcommittee) of the National Science and Technology Council’s Committee on Environment and Natural Resources is hereby renewed.  

(b) The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is added to the membership of the Subcommittee.  

(c) The Subcommittee shall conduct a study to: (1) recommend the optimal electric generation mix cited above to reduce or eliminate the water-intensive, electric generation resources cited above to be completed within 12 months of adoption of this order. In recommending the optimal electric generation mix, the subcommittee shall select technologies that are affordable or have the greatest potential to come down in cost, use and consume the least amount of water, generate the least pollution, effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions and maintain grid reliability.

(2) assess the cost, water impacts (including atmospheric deposition of pollutants), and feasibility of 50 percent, 80 percent and 100 percent phase-out of water-intensive, steam-cycle coal-fired, nuclear, utility-scale biomass-fired, oil-fired and natural-gas fired power plants by 2030.   Externality costs shall be assigned where feasible.

(3) assess the technological requirements, if any, of achieving these percentage reductions for federal RD&D purposes.

(4) assess the policies required to achieve these reductions. 

(d) Upon completion of the study, the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources shall take the necessary steps to coordinate with regional, state and local government entities, NGOs, and the business community to implement the stated federal policy in this Order to the extent feasible and utilize all federal authority to support this policy.

Section 4. General Provisions.  (a) This order shall be implemented in a manner consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. 

(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect the functions of the OMB Director relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.