"Becoming We the People" -- workshop with Paul Cienfuegos

Sept. 27-29:"Becoming We the People," with Paul Cienfuegos.   This workshop, a repeat of one we offered this May, is an immersion into Community Rights work, which has over the last 13 years served to protect 150 regions in 9 states from certain corporate harms. Are there any problems in your community caused by the activities enabled by the so-called personhood of corporations?  This workshop will inform you about how you can stop that as others have successfully done. Those of us from Iowa who attended the May workshop are full-speed ahead with this work and have organized this Sept. workshop for you because we feel it's so important. Here's the site where you can learn more, and a link to the registration site. If you prefer to register with a check or cash, you can send it to Liz Rog at 1591 Manawa Rd, Decorah IA 52101. Sign up soon--there are 13 spots left of 30 available.  Here's what some had to say about Paul's May 2013 workshop in Decorah:  "I came away from this workshop feeling like I know how to be a better citizen of my country. Paul opened my eyes to parts of our country's history that saddened me, and parts that really inspired me too.  I have a clearer understanding of why everyday people often feel powerless to make change for a better world.  And I now know what we can do about that.  Paul renewed my interest in participating in governance that is truly of, for, and by the people."  "I was impressed with the democratic vision of the community rights movement.  It's easy to lose faith in democracy when you only watch it operating on the very large, corporate-controlled scale of the federal and even state government--it's much easier, and much more exciting, to imagine democracy among neighbors, in local communities claiming the right to local control.  Paul's history of the United States through the lens of corporate personhood rights helped me to understand why I was skeptical about our large-scale "democracy", and I appreciated the discussion of decolonizing our minds from corporate control.  I believe it's time to put the rights of human beings and of the earth on a higher priority than the rights of corporations, and I'm grateful to Paul for showing us a path to making that happen!"  "a very enlightening weekend. I found out where my fear of large corporations comes from and how--with compassionate informed neighbors--we can move forward to demand a more just land."  "Wanting a better world for my daughters convinced me to attend Paul's training.  I moved from feeling ignorant, to oppressed, to empowered.  We can build a world that holds the interest of ourselves, our children, our whole Earth Community at the forefront.  And there are other communities leading the way!  Join me!" "I have been very sad for a very long time, seeing our personal lives, our health and our world threatened by all of the corporate harms we seem so powerless to affect. And for the first few hours in the workshop, Paul's history of our democracy-- and how it has been, from the beginning, torn asunder by a system stacked in favor of corporations-- brought back all of the sadness and helplessness. But it also made me realize this sadness is a natural response to what we and our non-human allies have been experiencing. And the workshop didn't end there; it provided us with tools to work on the local level to protect our natural environment (which is what sustains us after all is said and done). It inspires me to think of coming together with friends and neighbors (and the friends I haven't met yet in my community). And I could see potential for networks of communities coming together to weave a web of protection. Now I see what Paul was talking about happening all over the world. There are no guarantees, but there never have been. It gives us a challenge worth taking on."

JOIN US FOR THIS SEPTEMBER 12TH WEBCAST with Grant Smith

 

SOME OF YOU MIGHT LIKE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS WEBINAR.  Thursday at 10 CST.  Grant Smith was at the Standing Against the Sandstorm Conference on June 1 and visited with many of the participants. I think this should be an outstanding report.
You will need to register. PJP

http://civilsocietyinstitute.org/webcast/090413.html 

http://civilsocietyinstitute.org/webcast/090413.html 

JOIN US FOR THIS SEPTEMBER 12TH WEBCAST -  

Expanding Energy and Shrinking Water: How Does America Get Off  the Current "Collision Course"? 

Join Us for the Webcast Unveiling of a New Synapse Energy Economics Report for the Civil Society Institute Exploring the Energy/Water Nexus and What the U.S. Needs to Do Now 

REGISTER NOW:
http://www.webcaster4.com/Webcast/Page/63/2138  

THURSDAY, September 12, 2013
11 a.m.-noon EDT/8-9 a.m. PDT 

Can the U.S. really continue to produce energy in a climate-constrained world without taking into account the water consequences? 

In a new report for the Civil Society Institute, Synapse Energy Economics points out that 97 percent of the nation's electricity comes from thermoelectric or hydroelectric generators, which rely on vast quantities of water to produce electricity. 

Thermoelectric plants withdraw 41 percent of the nation's fresh water-more than any other sector. On an average day, water withdrawals across the nation amount to an estimated 85 billion gallons for coal-fired power plants, 45 billion gallons for nuclear plants, and 7 billion gallons for natural gas plants. Significant amounts of water are also required for fossil fuel extraction, refining and processing, and transportation. Coal mining consumes between 70 million and 260 million gallons of water per day, and natural gas fracking requires between 2 and 6 million gallons of water per well for injection purposes. In contrast, many renewable resources such as wind and solar photovoltaics (PV) require little to no water. 

Thermoelectric power plants are expected to continue to expand to meet the electricity needs of a U.S. population expected to grow by another 100 million by 2060. If current trends continue, water supplies will simply be unable to keep up with our growing demands. Can America afford to ignore the water implications of power generation? What steps should the U.S. take to "budget" its water use and make more deliberate choices about where it gets power? These and other important questions will be explored during the CSI Webinar.
Attendees may submit questions before and during the live event.
Join us and take advantage of this free and invaluable resource!

SPEAKERS:

Melissa Whited
Research and Analysis
Synapse Energy Economics

Frank Ackerman, Ph.D.
Environmental Economist
Synapse Energy Economics

MODERATOR:
Grant Smith
Senior Energy Analyst
Civil Society Institute

Sponsored by:

Civil Society Institute
Synapse Energy Economics

Important note: The nonprofit Civil Society Institute (CSI) commissioned the report by Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. CSI receives no direct or indirect funding of any kind from energy or energy-related companies or other entities.

We are resending this invite as a text file since many of the invitees did not receive the HTML version.  You can cut and past the registration links in your browser to RSVP to the event. 

TO BE REMOVED FROM THIS INVITE LIST, PLEASE RESPOND TO PMITCHELL@HASTINGSGROUP.COM 



This email was sent to sunnyday5@charter.net

Explanation of sampling methodology

From: David Webb <wd5doc@me.com>
To: Bonita Underbakke <nestree11402@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 8, 2013 11:28 AM
Subject: Re: Dr. Crispin Pierce Report on Initial PM2.5 Levels in New Auburn [Wisconsin] September 6, 2013

Last month, Dr. Pierce and coworkers took measurements of airborne particulate matter in New Auburn, Wisconsin, a location that might be expected to show higher levels because of the proximity of frac sand operations.  Attention was appropriately directed to PM2.5 levels, that is, particulate matter of 2.5 microns diameter or less, which are the respirable particulates that pose health risks.

Four different portable measuring devices were used - Dylos, an older model DustTrak, a newer model DustTrak, and an SKC DPS - thereby permitting a comparative look at different methodologies (perhaps the most important take-home from the study).  The Dylos and DustTrak readings were quite comparable; the SKC readings were markedly higher than the other two.  The caveats are that methodology does matter and that one should be skeptical of data that are "cherry-picked" to support a particular bias.  (The most egregious example of this would be presenting data on PM10 levels instead of the PM2.5's.)

In this study, in all cases, regardless of the methodology, the measured PM 2.5's in New Auburn were higher than Wisconsin DNR measured regional background levels.  These data basically confirm the obvious - there are increased PM2.5 levels where there are frac sand operations.

For the most part, Dylos and DustTrak sampling over these three days showed PM2.5 levels less than the EPA annual exposure standard, although a few hour-average Dylos samples did exceed the EPA standard.  (A caveat regarding EPA exposure standards is that levels below the standard do not imply that the exposure is perfectly safe, nor that levels exceeding the standard are uniformly fatal.  An EPA standard is best interpreted as implying that if the standard were exceeded, all thing considered, it would be more economical to do something about it than to ignore it.)

The PM2.5 levels measured with the SKC DPS (Deployable Particulate Sampler) far exceeded not only the DNR regional background levels but also the EPA annual exposure standard.  Dr. Pierce states that the SKC device is the most accurate of the methodologies used.  I am inclined to believe him but am not sufficiently knowledgeable to render an expert opinion.  The SKS website cites the following reference “Effectiveness, Suitability, and Performance Testing of the SKC Deployable Particulate Sampler (DPS) as Compared to the Currently Deployed Airmetrics MiniVol Portable Air Sampler,” Journal of Environmental Health, Vol. 73, No. 3, pp. 16 to 22.

Bottom line:  However, one looks at it, there is increased PM2.5 pollution where there are frac sand operations.  The magnitude of the problem might be under appreciated, depending upon the sampling technology used.

Hope this helps.

Doc

On Sep 8, 2013, at 7:47 AM, Bonita Underbakke <nestree11402@yahoo.com> wrote:

Dear David,

  Have you a suggestion to translate this to layperson talk before I forward it to the e-list of interested locals?

Wishing you well,

Bonita

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Patricia J. Popple <sunnyday5@charter.net>
To:
Sent: Friday, September 6, 2013 6:16 PM
Subject: FRAC SAND SENTINEL SPECIAL: Dr. Crispin Pierce Report on Initial PM2.5 Levels in New Auburn [Wisconsin] September 6, 2013

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

With this note, I would like to share our initial findings of PM2.5 levels in New Auburn collected August 1-3, 2013. I appreciate the help that Dr. Dale and Carol Crisler provided in setting up sampling sites and collecting data.

Several observations can be taken from these initial data:

1.       Measured PM2.5 levels with the Dylos (p and ¨) and DustTrak (X) were consistent with each other and generally below the EPA annual standard;

2.       Measurements with all instruments found PM2.5 levels higher than DNR regional background levels (Ж); and

3.       The SKC DPS gravimetric sampler (—) measured an average concentration of 51 ug/m3, much higher than levels from the direct-reading instruments and the EPA annual standard.

initial findings of PM2.5 levels in New Auburn collected August 1-3, 2013

Hi Bonita,

 

Here is a short summary of our work:

·         Particulate matter, including silica are generated and released into the air from frac sand mining, processing and transporting activities;

·         Little is known about public exposure to these small particles, which cause cardiovascular disease, lung disease and lung cancer;

·         Our limited sampling has found that these particles are higher around frac sand plants compared to background levels from the Wisconsin DNR; and

·         We believe that required monitoring of the “fine” particle size, called PM2.5, around all frac sand facilities and comparison to EPA standards is essential to protecting public health.

Best regards,

Crispin Pierce

 

From: Bonita Underbakke [mailto:nestree11402@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2013 8:07 AM
To: Pierce, Crispin H.
Subject: Fw: FRAC SAND SENTINEL SPECIAL: Dr. Crispin Pierce Report on Initial PM2.5 Levels in New Auburn [Wisconsin] September 6, 2013

 

Dear Dr. Pierce,

  Might you have a summarizing comment in layperson talk I could include before forwarding this to an e-list of interested locals in SE Minnesota (Fillmore, Houston, and Winona counties)?

Thank you for the important good work you continue to do.

Bonita Underbakke

34526 State Hwy 16

Lanesboro  MN  55949

507/467-2157

 

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Patricia J. Popple <sunnyday5@charter.net>
To:
Sent: Friday, September 6, 2013 6:16 PM
Subject: FRAC SAND SENTINEL SPECIAL: Dr. Crispin Pierce Report on Initial PM2.5 Levels in New Auburn [Wisconsin] September 6, 2013

 

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

 

With this note, I would like to share our initial findings of PM2.5 levels in New Auburn collected August 1-3, 2013. I appreciate the help that Dr. Dale and Carol Crisler provided in setting up sampling sites and collecting data.

 

Several observations can be taken from these initial data:

1.       Measured PM2.5 levels with the Dylos (p and ¨) and DustTrak (X) were consistent with each other and generally below the EPA annual standard;

2.       Measurements with all instruments found PM2.5 levels higher than DNR regional background levels (Ж); and

3.       The SKC DPS gravimetric sampler (—) measured an average concentration of 51 ug/m3, much higher than levels from the direct-reading instruments and the EPA annual standard.

 

 

As I’ve noted before, the SKC DPS gravimetric sampler likely provides the best estimate of airborne PM2.5 levels, given its simple operation and lack of being influenced by humidity. The high level measured in the six-hour time period raises some concern and we will collect a 24-hour sample to verify this value.

 

Higher levels in the New Auburn area would be expected, compared to other locations in the state, due to the Superior Silica Sand and Chippewa Sands operations in the town, in addition to two additional sand facilities within about 15 miles. Reported PM10 levels from Superior Silica Sand from 12/5/2011 to 1/28/2013 averaged 16 ug/m3, with a range of 1-38 ug/m3.

 

Results of air filter composition by the Wisconsin Occupational Health Lab and kindly provided by Brian Henning at the New Auburn School found detectable levels of quartz (crystalline silica) in four of five filters analyzed to date. Filters from 100% outside air had higher levels of quartz than those that filtered a combination of outside and recirculated air.

 

Here is a collection of short video clips documenting our procedures and citizen comments on the project (these video clips may load slowly):

 

Introduction:

https://media.uwec.edu/VEMSWeb/VEMSHost.html?VBTemplate=Templates/VideoInfoTemplate.xml&contentID=170&shared=1

 

Dennis:

https://media.uwec.edu/VEMSWeb/VEMSHost.html?VBTemplate=Templates/VideoInfoTemplate.xml&contentID=172&shared=1

 

Heather Interview:

https://media.uwec.edu/VEMSWeb/VEMSHost.html?VBTemplate=Templates/VideoInfoTemplate.xml&contentID=171&shared=1

 

Zach:

https://media.uwec.edu/VEMSWeb/VEMSHost.html?VBTemplate=Templates/VideoInfoTemplate.xml&contentID=173&shared=1

 

 

Playground and railroad:

https://media.uwec.edu/VEMSWeb/VEMSHost.html?VBTemplate=Templates/VideoInfoTemplate.xml&contentID=175&shared=1

 

Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.

 

Sincerely,

Crispin Pierce

 

Crispin H. Pierce, Ph.D.

Associate Professor / Program Director

Department of Public Health Professions

244 Nursing

University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire

Eau Claire, WI 54702-4004

(715) 836-5589

http://www.uwec.edu/piercech

http://www.uwec.edu/ph/enph/

------------------------------------------------------------------------

P  Reduce your footprint  -- Please don't print this e-mail unless necessary.

data base that would show degradation of property values for properties

This past week, I received a special request from Tim. Please help him out by reading his request below and responding if you have information to share! His email is noted below and it would be so helpful if you could share your experience. Thanks, Tim, for working on this project!!!!

I want to put together a data base that would show degradation of property values for properties sold near mine sites.  This is a big undertaking and I need the help of all the people in your readership to collect information.

If anyone knows of a sale of a property within 1-2 miles of an existing sand mine, please relay that information to me. I will need:

--name of buyer or seller, or both;

--sale date, even approximately;

--municipality where the property is located (township, village, county, etc.);

--name of the nearby mine.

I will try to track down previous assessed values and sale prices through the appropriate county records.  This could take some time, but I think that having a large body of evidence from right here in Wisconsin, and recently, would carry far more weight in the court of public opinion than all existing research, which are dated or come from remote parts of the U.S.  If this “proximity to sand mine=degraded property value” thesis is wrong, then we need to know that, too, and to stop advancing a specious argument. Please post or summarize this message as you deem appropriate.

Thanks in advance,

Tim Zeglin

tmzeglin@triwest.net

Trempealeau County passed a moratorium!

From: Patricia J. Popple sunnyday5@charter.net
Did you know that Goodhue County achieved an additional 6 mos of time on their moratorium. Kudos to SAVE THE BLUFFS! Their work has been amazing!

And another fantastic feat: Trempealeau County passed a moratorium! With 27 mines and more applications coming in up to Aug. 30, 2013, the county absolutely needed to have time to take a serious look at their obligations to the health, welfare and safety of all of their citizens. I am amazed at the citizen participation. They deserve lots of praise and more work than ever will be needed on the part of all to protect the area. After a drive through last Friday, I can't tell you about all the heartbreaking information and stories I heard along with views of unbelievable catastrophe to the small region of the county I observed. 6 mines have been cited and are under the arm of the Department of Justice for their violations? How can we continue to allow this to happen?

And there is Waupaca! Citizens were bowled over to hear that the County Board finally came to their senses when they realized that Trempealeau had decided to go for a study of frac sand mining by allowing a moratorium! They, too, took a vote and also decided a moratorium was in their best interest.

In Crawford County, the turn out of people speaking on behalf of the Lower Wisconsin River was overwhelmingly favorable. The Riverway will be protected at least partially. More work continues there. Read about their request of financial assistance. Again, thanks to all of you who helped them support the effort on the part of the beautiful Wisconsin Riverway!

And then there is Chippewa County. Changes in the Non-Metallic Mining Ordinance are long over due. Despite repeated requests for a moratorium over the past years, the administration has decided that is impossible because of the political climate. So while the ordinance is being written, few know what the rules should be and their is no effort to separate out the frac sand industry regulations from sand and gravel operations. There is still time for a moratorium and there is still time to hear from the citizens about ways to protect us all from the devastating impacts of frac sand mining in Chippewa County. The question remains: will a county board member create a resolution to ask for a moratorium so that time can be given for an in depth study? Or will we in Chippewa County continue to be the "poster child" for inadequate protections of our air and water?

This Frac Sand Sentinel can be opened in one of the versions you choose: Word or PDF .  Please read. There is unending work to do!

Pat Popple
715-723-6398
sunnyday5@charter.net        
If you do not wish to receive the Frac Sand Sentinel, please let me know (kindly) and I will ( gently) remove your name.

These points are important in framing our messages

 

From Carol A. Overland (overland@legalectric.org)

Subject: Re: Dayton's latest statements and SE Minnesota v. other silica sand mining area

During the legislative session I raised this SE Minnesota issue after seeing how it was characterized/presented, having the same objections.

Regarding "Though, of course, their charge is SE right now," well, not quite... the language of the statute is broadly applicable to the state, specifying that standards and criteria shall be different for different areas, and "unique" is to be considered "unique" and WHETHER requirements shall be different for different areas.  That's the language that passed, the only parts specifying SE are below:

Subd. 2. Standards and criteria. (a) By October 1, 2013, the Environmental Quality Board, in consultation with local units of government, shall develop model standards and criteria for mining, processing, and transporting silica sand. These standards and criteria may be used by local units of government in developing local ordinances. The standards and criteria shall be different for different geographic areas of the state. The unique karst conditions and landforms of southeastern Minnesota shall be considered unique when compared with the flat scoured river terraces and uniform hydrology of the Minnesota Valley. The standards and criteria developed shall reflect those differences in varying regions of the state. The standards and criteria must include: ...

and:

(d) The Environmental Quality Board shall amend its rules for environmental review, adopted under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 116D, for silica sand mining and processing to take into account the increased activity in the state and concerns over the size of specific operations. The
Environmental Quality Board shall consider whether the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 116C.991, should remain part of the environmental review requirements for silica sand and whether the requirements should be different for different geographic areas of the state. The rulemaking is exempt from Minnesota Statutes, section 14.125.

Meanwhile, a new permit was just issued near Mankato -- I sent this around this morning:

The horse is out of the barn... again...

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://www.startribune.com/local/221643901.html

Local commission approves silica sand mine operation in Mankato

• Article by: Associated Press
• Updated: August 29, 2013 - 10:00 AM

MANKATO, Minn. — A silica sand mining project had cleared its last local hurdle in Mankato.

The Planning Commission has approved a conditional use permit for Jordan Sands, an affiliate of Coughlan Companies, which is planning to mine 70 acres and use another 40 acres just north of the city for processing the sand.

The Free Press (http://bit.ly/1a0RI2G ) says Commissioner Mark Luepke abstained from the vote on the mine Wednesday night. Luepke says approving the project would be like "swallowing a poison pill" because any new jobs wouldn't justify environmental concerns. The commission's approval was needed under an annexation agreement with Lime Township where the mining site is located.

The project still needs state approval. The sand is sought by businesses that use a process called "fracking" to release natural gas and oil from the ground.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://mankatofreepress.com/local/x86512562/Sand-mine-approved

August 28, 2013

Sand mine approved

Opponents turned out, but knew plans would move forward

By Dan Nienaber dnienaber@mankatofreepress.com The Mankato Free Press

MANKATO — It’s not often that a Mankato Planning Commission meeting draws a full house, but that happened Wednesday evening as dozens turned out to watch a proposed silica sand mining and processing operation clear its last hurdle for local approval.

After hearing from the operation’s planners and opponents members of the commission approved a conditional use permit for Jordan Sands, an affiliate of Coughlan Companies that is planning to mine 70 acres and use another 40 acres for processing the sand. The property is just north of the city limits on Third Avenue.

No one voted against the permit, but one commissioner, Mark Luepke, abstained. He said approving the plan would be like “swallowing a poison pill” and that any new jobs didn’t justify possible environmental concerns.

Silaca sand that will be mined from the site, if the project gets final clearances from state agencies such as the Department of Natural Resources, is of the quality that is sought by businesses that use a process called “fracking” to release natural gas and oil from the ground. The process of injecting sand into the ground through hydraulic fracturing, the technical term for fracking, isn’t taking place in this region.

There was actually very little the Planning Commission could do even if a majority of its members wanted to look into the proposal more or deny it. The Lime Township Board had already approved the permit earlier this month after more than a year of public hearings that hammered out a plan that created restrictions to protect air and water quality and monitor new truck traffic on the already busy road.

Under the terms of a 1997 annexation agreement between the city and Lime Township, the commission was required to approve the permit as long as it didn’t violate the terms of that agreement or the township’s zoning ordinances. The township board found Jordan Sands’ proposal doesn’t violate mining or manufacturing ordinances. City staff told commissioners they agreed with that assessment.

The area where the mine and processing facilities would be is just north of the city’s Sakatah Industrial Park around Pilgrims Rest Cemetery. Portions of the property are adjacent to the Southern Minnesota Construction landfill that city residents use to dump yard waste. Other products have been mined from the properties for decades.

Sand will be transported from that mine and other mines in the area to a facility on the west side of Third Avenue that will be used to wash it and turn it into a slurry. An underground piping system will be used during warmer months to transfer the slurry from the wet plant to a drying facility on the east side of the road. Trucks will be used to ship the slurry when temperatures are too cold to use the pipe system.

Preliminary plans provided to Lime Township by Jordan Sands said the business expected to start construction of its wet plant in September and have it completed by March 2014. Those plans have likely been pushed back a bit, however, because the business also expected to have conditional use permits finalized by June when the plans were created. It’s estimated that both plants will have an operation life of 50 years.

Most of the people who spoke against the project told commissioners they understood they had little chance of stopping it. One speaker was Sarah Richards, co-owner of Jones Metal Products. She said her family-owned business has invested millions of dollars in its Sakatah Industrial Park facility and she hopes Coughlin Companies will address any concerns about air quality, blasting damage or traffic problems if they come up.

On 8/29/2013 6:08 PM, Kristen Eide-Tollefson wrote:

Hi Carol,

I think we have to keep in mind that a number of of us have been pitching the special concerns of the SE -- Driftless area -- to the governor for almost 2 years. So I think this is the context. Also the distinction came up in session because of the sand lobbyists trying to represent MN silica sand mining as local  "family businesses", or as Sen Rose called them "small business"! It really is a very different group of players, that are operating in MN River Valley and threatening SE (multi nationals, Tx, Canada etc).

I know I testified in the house -- responding to the sand lobbyists who had testified before me -- to the distinctions: different kind of companies;  predominance of karst geology; shallow aquifers; and the Great River road tourism and recreational economies. Many others including Trout Unlimited and Audubon lobbied heavily for the Driftless area. SE is where we had the organized political will to push for protections.

That said, if mining is not allowed in SE, that could press companies into the MN River Valley, where there are these important issues you outline -- about water especially. I guess we didn't, or I didn't realize, that there was much Karst in the MN River Valley. It is a different base though (not glacial?) Not that you can't draw important parallels. But there did seem to be some genuine differences. I think that it did help the legislative outcome that the active sand lobbyists started to make the SE/MN valley distinction too. I'm not sure we would have gotten the legislation we did if no special claims were made for the sensitivity of the Driftless area.

Once the standards are in place, maybe the questions/issues you are raising will have a better chance (politically speaking) to be heard. But the reason we are getting standards and criteria is because of the focus on SE. As we soon discovered, a whole state approach would not have been possible to pass this session. I am worried about the St. Croix Valley too. First organizing piece we did was a "Three Rivers" approach: Ms,. MN, and St. Croix. But was hard to hold together from that distance.

That's what I know about this. So I don't see it as an ethical dilemna -- but more of an incomplete set of considerations. Which your material outlines very well. Hope it gets passed  on to EQB. Though, of course, their charge is SE right now. The new OSHA ruling on silica is a new context. And maybe this will be a deciding factor once the state has some recommendations on this. Probably the easiest thing to show that there is no geographical difference to the dust and health factors.

Again, once we get that done, and that case made. Then if there are activists in MN Valley who want to follow up -- it would seem a good case could be made -- such as you are making.  These are just my reflections. I don't think we need to blame the governor for this. He is responding to the case that has been made to him by the SE activists and others. That is, US.

Thanks for the great maps and analysis!

Kristen

On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Carol A. Overland <overland@legalectric.org> wrote:

All -

I found Dayton's statements very disturbing, not encouraging.

Gov. Dayton says, "Fracking frankly  I would keep out of MN entirely." and "I would ban further silica sand mining and any processing of that in Southeastern Minnesota." He goes on to say that there are some silica mines in the Mankato area that he wouldn't ban,  because the area is not as fragile as SE MN. He goes on to say that he "couldn't get the legislature to go along with the ban in SE MN." but  "We did get some very very tight regulations." 

Dayton is the one who rejected the moratorium last session... the GEIS... and any ban!

The quote above says to me that Dayton would ban "fracking" in Minnesota, and would ban mining and processing in SE Minnesota.

Will someone please explain what it means when Dayton says:

"He goes on to say that there are some silica mines in the Mankato area that he wouldn't ban, because the area is not as fragile as SE MN"

We've got a significant ethical issue happening here, and obviously I'm directing this question directly to Dayton too.

We had extensive information in the CapX 2020 transmission hearing regarding the Minnesota River and potential sites for crossing, and there are many protected areas, USFWS sites, MCBS sites, eagles and other bird and wildlife species, DOT scenic easements, state byways.  Further west, in the Minnesota River watershed there are additional water problems due to ethanol water-sucking practices, and due to ag practices, the Minnesota River is contaminated with coliform and pesticides and in need of remedial efforts and protections.  Is silicosis any different 100+ miles away?  Is burgeoning truck traffic along Hwy. 169 different from that along Hwy. 61?

Karst is less prevalent, but it is found on the Minnesota River sites in Nicollet and Scott county where they're mining.

How is the Minnesota River area less fragile?  How can a significantly detrimental activity be prohibited in one part of the state yet deemed OK in another?  How are such statements and policies helpful to the cause and the public interest?  The people on the Minnesota River sites have valuable information about impacts of living with sand mines yet they're being ignored and shuffled aside.  One township Supervisor in Le Sueur County came all the way over to Red Wing on Aug. 2 to voice his concerns to the agency heads -- they didn't hold meetings in his area where there are active mines and processing facilities.  He said he lived 300 feet from the mine.  A high school classmate who was in Red Wing for the CD2 meeting held the day Dayton was at the park said they were mining  in her township and more was planned near her home in Scott County.  A cohort working on preservation of the St. Croix Wild & Scenic River let me know about the Wisconsin impoundment break that spilled frac sand mining waste into the St. Croix River, and the Tiller processing plant in North Branch that went forward without securing permits!  Are these not problems?  Do we want to/can we afford to ignore those experiencing silica sand mining along other rivers and toss them under the bus?  Are groups talking this through and making conscious policy decisions about this?

Carol

- 

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter."  Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. 

Carol A. Overland
Attorney at Law
Legalectric - Overland Law Office
1110 West Avenue
Red Wing, MN  55066

612-227-8638

overland@legalectric.org

http://www.legalectric.org/
http://www.nocapx2020.info