All caucuses are at 7 p.m. Tuesday, Feb. 7. Find your precinct caucus on the Secretary of State’s website.

Precinct Caucuses Launch the Election Season
Major parties are required by law to hold precinct caucuses on “caucus night,” as set by the Secretary of State. Each party determines its own procedures.

Everyone who lives within a voting precinct and is a qualified voter (or will be by the next election) can participate in one party’s precinct caucus in any one year. (Precinct = local voting district)

First layer of democratic elections
The precinct caucus is the first step on the road to the final selection of candidates and platforms.  The next step is either a county or legislative district convention, followed by a congressional district convention, a state convention and finally, in presidential election years, the national convention.  At each level, issues and candidates are discussed and voted on by the delegates selected from the prior level.

Why should I attend my caucus?
Caucuses give you and your neighbors in the precinct an opportunity to discuss issues that are important to you – a chance to say how you would like to see a problem addressed.   It is also your opportunity to influence the candidate selection within your party.

You can introduce resolutions on issues you support; this is the beginning of building a party’s platform.  The caucus is also the beginning of the formal process of selecting candidates to represent your party in the general election in November.

You may take an active role by becoming a delegate to the next level of meetings and perhaps join a committee to plan the next meeting. You may choose to go only to observe the process.

How do I decide which party caucus to attend?
Find out the positions of the parties on issues that are important to you and decide if you are in general agreement with one of the parties.  When you sign in at a caucus, you will be stating that you do support the basic tenets of that party, have done so in the past or plan to in the next election.  This is not a lifetime commitment, nor even an absolute requirement to vote for only one party at the general election. You may also go to either party caucus as a non-voting observer.

When and where are the caucuses held?
In even years, caucuses for the major parties (as defined by state law) take place at 7:00 p.m. on the date established in every voting precinct of the state. Usually, they are held in early February. This year Precinct Caucuses are on Feb. 7th!

Here are some resolutions regarding environmental issues that you can download and share at your caucus:

• Prohibit toxic chemicals in children’s products
• Maintain community and township rights
• Keep Minnesota on the path to clean energy
• Increase renewable energy and energy conservation
• Protect the Legacy Amendment
• Preserve existing state budget laws in the state Constitution
• ‘Prove it first’ resolution on sulfide mining
• Protect Minnesota’s water from sulfide mining pollution
  • Fact sheet on sulfide mining
  • Sample script to introduce your resolution

If you’re planning to propose a resolution:

1. Give a brief introduction to the issue, why it is important, and generally what is says. Pass out resolution and factsheet (if you have one).
2. Read your resolution in full to fellow precinct members.
3. Answer questions to the best of your ability during discussion period (if needed).
4. Vote to pass the resolutions for which you agree.

Bonus tip — go early to pass out copies of your resolutions and answer questions before the caucus begins!

Learn more about how caucuses work and what to expect

Register online

Join us on Wednesday, Feb. 8, to network with state policy makers and volunteers and staff of MEP’s member organizations, discuss our legislative priorities, and hear from our state legislative and agency leaders about their views on current environmental issues.

The reception begins at 6 p.m. at the Summit Brewery’s Ratskeller Community Room. Enjoy an appetizer buffet and Summit beer and root beer. Bring your staff, spouse and friends – all are welcome! A brief program featuring guest speakers Rep. Denny McNamara, Sen. David Senjem, Rep. Kate Knuth and DNR Commissioner Tom Landwehr will begin at 7 p.m.

Tickets are $25. Register and pay online. Please contact Patience Caso at the MEP office, 651-290-0154, with questions.

But thanks to your help, we had a minor victory late last week!  A bill was heard to weaken township and community rights by limiting local citizen input in large scale developments in their community.  We were on alert. You contacted your legislators, community leaders testified, and legislators came to their senses.  The bill was set aside.

But urgent action is still needed!  There are over fifty bills that are on our watch list and some are moving quickly.  The policies that have been introduced do not support Minnesotans’ desire to protect our lakes, rivers and streams, our drinking water, our air quality and our Great Outdoors heritage.

Instead of maintaining the laws that protect our water and our health, the legislature wants to weaken or roll back these protections! Our elected leaders must not move our state backwards on policies that protect our water, invest in clean energy and protect our health.

Act now: Your input matters to your elected officials.

The spectators look confused. School spirit is suddenly stunningly low.

The cheerleaders plead all together, “What’s that spell?!”

Mumble-mumble-grumble, the spectators reply.

And yet TMDLs are the critical key that is unlocking the restoration of hundreds of Minnesota’s streams and lakes. Here on the North Shore, our polluted rivers are on their way to getting cleaned up, thanks to TMDLs.

Last week I tried to demystifying one acronym, BUIs. This acronym is harder because even if you know what the letters stand for, it’s still incomprehensible. TMDL stands for “Total Maximum Daily Load.”

The cheerleaders shouldn’t even bother asking “What’s that spell?,”  just “What’s that?”

Total Maximum Daily Load is a measurement, typically a weight in tons or pounds or grams. It’s the amount of any given pollutant that a river or lake can handle on its own and not get any dirtier. Agencies that work to protect our waters have said, essentially, yes there will be pollution, but it won’t be all that bad. Here’s the PCA’s official definition.

But TMDL is more than a number, it’s a process. Up here on the North Shore, we just finished the TMDL process for the Knife River, which flows into Lake Superior between Duluth and Two Harbors. The Knife is too muddy, especially when the waters are high. The sediment-laden water is hard on fish and icky for swimming. Fishing and swimming are beneficial uses of the river, and the sediment has impaired those uses. In comes the Clean Water Act and the MPCA to clean it up.

Through the TMDL process (LINK: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/water/water-types-and-programs/minnesotas-impaired-waters-and-tmdls/minnesotas-impaired-waters-and-total-maximum-daily-loads-tmdls.html), we now know how much sediment is in the river, how much should be in the river, and what we can do to reduce the amount of sediment to acceptable levels…down to the Total Maximum Daily Load.

The same process of field research, modeling and math has happened on 226 rivers and lakes across the state, for pollutants ranging from sediment to fecal coliform. Another 710 TMDL projects are underway.

I can tell you from our experience here on the North Shore, the more that common citizens on the ground get involved in the TMDL process, the better the result will be. Get involved. Then you will have something to cheer about.

You should know about Beneficial Use Impairments, or BUI’s.

Cleaning up Minnesota’s lakes and streams is a critical goal of state policy. Unfortunately, the water clean-up process has turned into a bureaucratic process that seems to stretch on forever, and has created an insider language of acronyms and code words that the public can barely understand.

Heck, I just want to go swimming. And my buddies just want to catch some fish. Turns out, swimming and fishing are “beneficial uses” of Minnesota’s waters. Cool clean water is beneficial to me on a hot day, for sure.

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (that acronym would be “PCA”) is systematically researching the water quality of streams, lakes and wetlands around the state.

They are looking for places where water quality issues have made it hard either to drink the water, swim in the water, or fish in the water. Drinking, swimming and fishing are considered “beneficial uses” of the water, and when stinky, dirty water is bad for swimming, for example, that’s an “impairment” of that beneficial use. A Beneficial Use Impairment! Acronym-wise, that’s a “BUI.”

Based on this year’s research, there are over 500 potential new BUI’s. If you like to fish or swim or even drink water, there’s probably a proposed new BUI close to you. Up here in northeastern Minnesota, dozens of new BUI’s have been identified on the St. Louis River. This year’s list spreads from the Tamarac River in far northwest to the Root River in far southeast.

The list is important, because when a lake or stream is on the BUI list, it’s eligible for clean-up planning and implementation.

Here’s where you can get into the process. The PCA is hosting public meetings across the state between January 11 and January 25. For a complete list of meetings, visit here . Agency staff will explain the whole process and the draft list of new impaired waters.

Maybe you have a favorite fishing hole where the fish have died off due to run off. Maybe your favorite stream has gotten stinky. There’s a chance the PCA didn’t catch it. You can go to this meeting and find out.

Coming next week: TMDL.

The conflict came to a head last month at a meeting of the St. Louis County board of commissioners in Ely. Commissioners were hearing testimony about a proposed resolution in support of nonferrous mining in the County. The commissioner chairing the meeting asked the people testifying to state whether they wanted clean water or jobs.

Clean water OR jobs? The commissioner’s request was doomed from the beginning. Whether it was a fourth-generation miner or a hardcore environmentalist, almost everyone who came to the podium essentially said, “Both.”

Out in the parking lot, dozens of people gathered waiting in the cold wind for a chance to get inside. Some amazing conversations developed, respectful and friendly dialogue between people on opposite sides of the issue. After some heated moments of tossing bullet points at each other, most of these conversations ended in agreement. If the mining was going to happen, it has to be done right. The environment must be protected. Jobs AND clean water, not one or the other.

The resolution that passed had new wording in it. It was now in support of strong environmental review, not just in support of mining. Even the county commissioners had come around to that same point. It’s not jobs OR clean water, it’s both.

Minnesota does have strong environmental regulations in place. These regulations have been under pressure. Water quality standards related to wild rice have been threatened in the state legislature. Minnesota’s strong clean air and energy standards were severely challenged this year in an effort to allow more dirty coal burning.

While everyone agreed on the importance of “doing it right,” the big question hanging in the air in Ely was how to ensure that it’s done right. Minnesota has strong environmental regulations, and mining supporters including corporate executives said that the mining companies would “meet or exceed” these environmental standards. Corporations do not meet environmental standards because they want to, they do so because, by law, they have to.

It was clear from this meeting that northern Minnesota wants to have jobs AND clean water. The only way to have jobs AND clean water is to keep these strong environmental standards are in place.

That Todd County farmer’s story is not the only anecdotal report of increased erosion I’ve heard in recent weeks. It’s no surprise, considering that the mild, dry fall we had provided plenty of opportunities for tillage in September, October and November—maybe even December.

And that tillage may be getting more intense — water quality expert Norm Senjem told me recently that implement dealers in places like southeast Minnesota are reporting that sales of moldboard plows are up. With high commodity prices these days, the slight — if temporary — yield boost one gets from deep tillage is even more attractive.

Intense tillage is up in other parts of the Corn Belt as well—the Illinois Department of Agriculture’s latest statistics show that since 2009 the use of no-till crop production systems in that state has fallen five percentage points to just over 24 percent of fields.

The return of intense tillage in some areas is just one of the troubling pieces of information Senjem shared during our conversation. As we reported in this blog a few months ago, in September he stepped down as the MPCA’s Mississippi River Basin coordinator. In that position, he oversaw research into the source of water quality problems in the watershed, and sought input from farmers, scientists and others on possible solutions.

Much of that research has already been published, and more results are coming in 2012. In general, the data is showing without a doubt that agriculture is playing a significant role in changing the hydrology and water quality of the Minnesota River, and thus the Mississippi downstream. The result has been accelerated sedimentation, which in turn is threatening to end prematurely Lake Pepin’s tenure as an open body of water.

In recent years, Senjem, a former agricultural journalist who has a master’s degree in agricultural economics, has been forthright about the negative role intensive row cropping plays in the Minnesota watershed’s hydrology.

In announcing his resignation from the MPCA, he sent out a letter expressing frustration with how little had been accomplished in cleaning up the basin, and how the leaders within some agricultural commodity groups were unwilling to accept the conclusions of even basic science. As we’ve written here before, the leadership of the Minnesota Soybean Growers Association in particular has a reputation for obstructionism when it comes to dealing with our water quality problems.

In fact, even when compared to its sister organization in Iowa, the MSGA stands out in its unwillingness to acknowledge that ag plays a role in polluted waterways, and thus needs to be a key player in cleaning them up. That’s too bad, since commodity groups could do a lot to promote basic conservation. The 2011 Iowa Farm and Rural Life Poll shows a striking number of farmers are unaware of government programs that reward farmers for utilizing conservation practices on working lands.

Couple that with the fact that the USDA is implementing program sign-ups within sometimes ridiculously tight timelines, and no wonder initiatives like the Conservation Stewardship Program are not living up to their potential.

In fact, the USDA just announced that Jan. 13 is the first CSP ranking sign-up deadline of 2012. This is sending NRCS offices and sustainable ag groups like LSP scrambling to get the word out over the holiday season. What if groups like MSGA put some serious energy into alerting its members of this opportunity to get paid for utilizing water- and soil-friendly practices?

But then, that would mean admitting that production agriculture is partially at fault for these problems in the first place, and, as this excerpt of an interview I recently did with Senjem shows, that’s not likely to happen anytime soon (to read the entire conversation, see the most recent issue of the Land Stewardship Letter).:

LSP: One study funded by the Minnesota Soybean Research and Promotion Council and the Minnesota Corn Research and Promotion Council concluded that higher rainfall amounts, natural erosion and dredging, not farming practices, are the major causes of Lake Pepin’s increased sedimentation.
Senjem: Increased rainfall could not account for all that extra sedimentation we are seeing. Geological scientists seem to think it’s a changed hydrology that caused this change and that it was caused by human changes to the landscape, primarily drainage of wetlands and substitution of row crops for perennial vegetation such as prairie, pasture and hay crops. Back in 1945 there were large portions of the Minnesota River that were isolated from the tributaries, and water was allowed to evaporate or soak in.

But after the war, ditch draining and the mechanization of agriculture ramped up. All of those things combined caused a change in the hydrology of the land, and now nearly 100 percent of the land drains into a receiving ditch or tributary today. You have more runoff through the ditch system and the tile system and we’ve doubled the flow at the monitoring station in Jordan [Minn.].

As a result, we’re seeing a lot of stress on the stream system, the river system. All of a sudden you pour more water through the system and there will be impacts, such as more sedimentation.

LSP: Commodity groups such as the Minnesota Soybean Growers Association argue that tile drainage actually reduces soil erosion by sending water underneath the fields rather than over the surface where it can do damage.
Senjem: There’s some truth to the argument that tiling reduces erosion in the fields themselves, since more water will be going down through the soil profile, instead of overland. But then on the other side you have more volume of water going into the river where the tile line empties its load.

In addition, oftentimes when you get high flows coming out of tile lines you get increased erosion through steep ravines. As I mentioned before, this has become a major source of sedimentation. We also have to consider that even if field erosion is dropping in some places, nitrogen concentration in the Mississippi is one thing that tends to be going up and up and up, which is a major water quality problem.

LSP: What response was there from commodity groups when these studies came out?
Senjem: The Minnesota Soybean Association especially, as well as the Minnesota Corn Growers Association, are very reluctant to admit that agriculture has a major role in diminished water quality. The science has made it clear that agriculture actually is the main source.

They’re trying to find cracks in the science and challenge us on things, which is good. But when you’re in the position like I am of solving the problem, and people won’t even acknowledge the basic science behind the issue, then it starts to look like stalling tactics.

It wasn’t like experts in the field were disagreeing. It was leaders in agriculture who were funding their own studies and then saying the science wasn’t settled. We studied this more than any lake or river has been studied in Minnesota. There’s a limit to how much the state can afford to study something. Not all of the papers have been published yet, but it’s pretty clear that agriculture has modified the hydrology and is the main source of this increased sedimentation.

LSP: This sounds similar to the debate over global climate change, where industry claims more research is needed, thus delaying any implementation of solutions.
Senjem: I think there are similarities. Who are you, Joe Citizen, to deny what 97 percent of the scientists says is fact? I’ll admit it does sound like an imposing challenge to reduce sediment by 50 percent, for example. But the state has put a priority on this, and we have money through the Clean Water Fund to put in place some solutions.

But we never got that far because every time we’d have a meeting, the leaders of the commodity groups would say, “The science isn’t settled, we need more research.”

I’d like to make a differentiation between the leaders of these commodity groups, and the rank-and-file-farmers they say they are representing. When I took this position, I felt we could energize 10 to 20 percent of the farmers to adopt innovations and bring about some real improvements in water quality. I learned from agricultural journalism that there’s a very strong component of farmers out there who are interested in innovation.

When I worked for farm magazines like Farm Industry News and The Farmer, I interviewed a lot of farmers out there who were adjusting their tillage equipment, doing innovative things to keep more residue on the ground, tinkering in their shops. Where there’s a will, there’s a way.

I grew up on a Dodge County [Minn.] farm and back in the 60s we were adjusting our tillage equipment to help us farm with more residue in the crop fields. We also had a tiling operation, and I recognize that without tiling a good portion of the state wouldn’t be suitable for farming. But like anything, it’s a question of balance. What if we allowed meanders in some of these tributaries to help slow down water and runoff? What if we increased the diversity of our crop rotations? But [commodity group leaders] are too busy arguing against the science.

When people don’t budge an inch and you’ve been working as hard as you can to come up with solutions, and these leaders are the ones the politicians listen to, it gets very frustrating.

LSP: So there are some solutions out there?
Senjem: We don’t have good crop rotations anymore in places like western Minnesota. Some modest diversification of the landscape would help balance the hydrology. Farming practices that build up more organic matter could help increase the water storage capacity of the land and recycle nutrients, thus helping with the nitrogen and phosphorus runoff problem. But the soil science professionals have focused on looking at applying inputs, and not the soil as a living system.

And there are solutions to this problem of tile line outlets causing major ravine erosion. Engineered solutions to this problem can be designed.

LSP: So how do we bring about change?
Senjem: To make it a movement, or an overall trend, you need a bit of a stick. You can see how the 1985 Farm Bill’s conservation cross-compliance provisions were a real driver in changes toward conservation tillage systems. The Farm Bill required farming highly eroded lands according to a conservation plan, and it so happened that often conservation tillage was the most practical way to achieve the erosion targets in the plan.

All of a sudden there was a real spurt of innovation because of these rules that pushed farmers to utilize conservation tillage systems in order to qualify for commodity payments.

And industry got involved as well. I was working for the Case IH implement company’s magazine at the time, and I was asked to do a special section on conservation tillage. Other farm equipment manufacturers like John Deere were doing the same thing. It probably wouldn’t have happened without the stick of cross-compliance.

On the flip side, I get to walk down to the edge of the ship canal and experience the boats up close. They are stunning to watch and hear.

Just as these ships are a mixed blessing for my walk to work, they are a mixed blessing for the harbor ecosystem.

These ships are critical to the economy of Duluth and Northeastern Minnesota. Followers of the progressive think tank Minnesota 2020 may have read their detailed report Safe, Clean and Efficient: Moving Minnesota to Market by Water, which does a great job explaining the economic benefits to Minnesota taxpayers.

These ships carry taconite, coal and grains out. That’s where the money is. They also carry ballast water in. That’s the problem. Ballast water can contain exotic species, invaders from foreign ports. Aquatic invaders such as zebra mussels and the spiny waterflea arrived in the Duluth-Superior harbor in the hulls of these same ships. These invasive species have dramatically affected the food chain in Duluth and other harbors around the Great Lakes. Annual costs of dealing with these invaders run up to $200 million per year in the Great Lakes basin.

Those concerned about Minnesota’s economy and Minnesota’s environment can and should support Great Lakes shipping. But the economic and ecologic impact of exotics species needs to be part of the discussion.  In coming months, the federal government will take major steps forward in protecting our harbors from these invaders. The Environmental Protection Agency has a draft permit for marine vessels, requiring them to treat ballast water before releasing it. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives has passed a bill with similar provisions. Another mixed blessing: many environmental groups think both proposals, though a step in the right direction,  are too weak to prevent further aquatic invasions.

Minnesota will always move to market by water; now we can ensure that water stays healthy.

(This article initially appeared in Hindsight, the Minnesota 2020 blog)

We always say our coalition works for our core Minnesota values — clean water, clean energy, and a healthy environment for our children and grandchildren — that transcend our differences. We know that despite what some state leaders claim, Minnesotans want our environment to be protected. Your support is even further evidence of this.

Thank you. We know there will be tough days ahead, with continued threats to the Great Outdoors we love, but with your contributions our partnership grows stronger and together we can better fend off these assaults.

Your continued participation is important to us all; please consider subscribing to our Action Alert network. You’ll be notified when it’s important to contact your elected officials about hot environmental issues.

Thank you again for your generous support.

We are pleased to announce that key supporters and Board Members of Minnesota Environmental Partnership have generously issued a challenge for tomorrow’s Give to the Max Day:

•  Starting at midnight, the first $6,000 in contributions to MEP on Nov. 16 will be matched dollar for dollar!

We need your help to meet this challenge. Please visit our Give to the Max page, GiveMN.org/MEPartnership, and double your dollars all day on Nov. 16.

Together, our donations will make twice as big an impact for Minnesota’s #1 high-impact environmental nonprofit.

Thanks so much for your support. We couldn't do it without you.