To read CM’s analysis of the Governor’s proposals, click here.

Conservation Minnesota said the Governor’s proposed use of conservation funds dedicated to specific natural resources clashes with the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment.

To a certain point, such catastrophic erosion events are inevitable when rivers like the Minnesota give the land a good hydraulic hammering. But in the big scheme of things, more troubling is the runoff that occurs on a routine basis in our agricultural watersheds. A few tons off that acre and a few tons off this acre adds up when spread across millions of those acres.

In fact, the amount of sediment the Minnesota River is dumping into Lake Pepin has increased ten-fold during the past 150 years. You get one guess as to what land use change has occurred in the river basin during the past century and a half.

In a sense, the ancient history of the Minnesota River valley makes it a prime candidate for dumping huge amounts of sediment into Lake Pepin. After all, around 12,000 years ago floods from glacial meltwater lowered the valley bottom by almost 230 feet in places. That means the tributaries feeding into the river have had to carve out sharp valleys to reach the river— producing a lot of sediment, and a lot of sediment-scouring hydraulic power, in the process. The bottom line is that today the Minnesota River is responsible for 25 percent of the flow into Lake Pepin, but 85 to 90 percent of the sediment load.

This geological accident has prompted some to argue that almost all of the sedimentation seen today in the Minnesota River is inevitable and completely natural, and has little to do with the fact that over 90 percent of the basin’s land is planted to annual row crops.

Unfortunately for the all-soil-erosion-is-natural crowd, we have Lake Pepin, which serves as a perfect collection basin for all that gets dumped into the upper reaches of the Mississippi. Eroded soil preserved in the cold muck of a lake bottom doesn’t lie. During the past several years, scientists have been taking core samples from the lake’s bed, unearthing a connection between human use of land and water quality deterioration that can’t be dismissed.

The results of this research were summarized nicely by a special “Mississippi River” package of eight papers published in the May 2009 issue of the Journal of Paleolimnology. The studies show that yes indeed, the Minnesota River’s geologic history has made the basin a “natural” source of soil erosion—something not likely to change until the next round of glaciers grind through.

But the Journal of Paleolimnology also paints a pretty incriminating picture of how even though humans’ role in erosion history is relatively brief, it’s been inordinately powerful—core samples show a dramatic increase in sediment accumulation beginning with European settlement in 1830.

Just as the Minnesota River contributes more than its share of sediment to Lake Pepin, certain tributaries of that river are overachievers in their own right. Research shows that although the Blue Earth and Le Sueur watersheds only account for one-fifth of the Minnesota’s drainage area, these heavily farmed regions contribute as much as half of the basin’s sediment erosion.

And with that sediment has come other pollutants such as phosphorus, an important crop nutrient that causes major ecological problems once it finds its way to water. Phosphorus accumulation in the lake’s sediment has increased 15-fold since 1830, increasing from 60 to 900 metric tons annually. Overall, current sediment-phosphorus concentrations are approximately twice those of pre-settlement times.

Roughly 17 percent of the lake’s volume has been replaced by sediment since 1830. At current rates, in 340 years the lake will be just one big, flat field of mud. Midwestern rice paddies, anyone?

As the Journal of Paleolimnology papers show, the increase in sedimentation and phosphorus loading correlates almost perfectly with the plowing of the prairie and the replacement of perennial plants and wetlands with row crops. Not only do these row crops leave the soil vulnerable to erosion, but they don’t hang onto rainfalls and meltwater as efficiently as deep-rooted grasses, trees and other perennials. In addition, all those high-yielding corn and soybean fields wouldn’t be possible without tile drainage, which sends water rocketing into our waterways, short-circuiting natural percolation systems.

The result? More water than ever is moving more quickly than ever through the watershed, making it difficult for soil, and whatever is attached to that soil, to stay in place. And fast moving water is a powerful scouring agent, exacerbating any “natural” erosion already taking place in the basin.

To be fair, all the fingers of blame can’t be pointed at row crop agriculture. For example, total phosphorus accumulations in Lake Pepin’s sediment also correlate pretty directly with increased discharges from wastewater treatment plants. It’s Lake Pepin’s bad luck that it sits below the mouth of the Minnesota River as well as downstream of all those flushing toilets in the Twin Cities. Now there’s a farm-city connection.

Speaking of the farm-city link and ecological destruction, one of the most vexing  Journal of Paleolimnology papers is one by Laura D. Triplett, Daniel Engstrom and Mark Edlund, which describes the history of sedimentation and phosphorus loading in the St. Croix River. It turns out that basin also has a perfect place—Lake St. Croix— to read land use history. Core samples there show that by the period between 1950 and 1960, sedimentation was eight times what it had been a century earlier.

Perhaps thanks in large part to the waterway being designated a National Scenic Riverway in 1968, sedimentation levels have dropped significantly in the past 50 years or so. That’s the good news. But phosphorus pollution in the St. Croix, which jumped sharply after 1940, is still roughly four times what it was before European settlement.

Intense logging and moldboard plowing may no longer be a threat to the St. Croix, but poorly planned development is. In fact, in 2008 both Minnesota and Wisconsin declared Lake St. Croix to be an “impaired water” under the Federal Clean Water Act because of excess phosphorus. And just a year ago, American Rivers named the Lower St. Croix one of the 10 most endangered rivers in the U.S. because of uncontrolled urbanization.

As Daniel Engstrom points out in a Journal of Paleolimnology editorial, so much for the St. Croix’s reputation as a pristine waterway.

The St. Croix example shows that severely reducing agriculture’s presence in the Minnesota River watershed is not the way to save Lake Pepin (and the Mississippi in general). For one thing, the soil in this region is much too rich to not be put to work producing food. And if we don’t farm there, it’s likely that an unsustainable land use such as urban sprawl will just move in to take the place of row crop agriculture.

No, the answer is to diversify the farming systems in the basin, to make that land once again able to retain runoff efficiently. As research conducted in the Minnesota River watershed by the Multiple Benefits of Agriculture Project has shown, farming and good water quality can go hand-in-hand. But it will require the kind of agricultural systems that rely on diverse crop rotations and perennial plant systems such as pasture.

A graphic example of that is in the latest Land Stewardship Letter, where Loretta Jaus describes a rainstorm event on the land she farms with her husband Martin in west-central Minnesota:

“There had been three inches of rain in a couple hours time. Martin charged into the house and says, ‘You gotta come see this!’ He took me to the beginning of the drainage ditch a half-mile down the road. The heavy rain flowed across the neighboring row-cropped field and carried with it its load of topsoil. The water gushing out of the tile outlet was brown and frothy. We proceeded 200 yards farther along the ditch, and found the second tile outlet that drained the adjacent field, spewing its load into the already brown water.

“There was the beginning of a river of thick chocolate-colored paste. The deterioration in water quality in just 200 yards was startling. I wondered just how many of these tiles were emptying into this ditch system between here and the Minnesota River, 25 miles away—how many more along the banks of the Minnesota as it flows into the Mississippi where how much more sediment with its load of fertilizers and toxic chemicals was pouring into the river?

“Marty and I then crossed the road to check the tile exiting our pasture. Perennial vegetation was holding the soil in place and soil organisms had built a living soil structure. That meant the pasture was slurping up the rainfall and holding it in place for the plants to use later.”

And the St. Croix? Sustainable agriculture holds the key there as well. If communities could start seeing the value of keeping acres in sustainably-managed farmland, rather than subdivisions and malls, then runoff of all kinds—including phosphorus—could be reduced. In order for people to place such a value on farms, efforts such as the St. Croix River Valley Buy Fresh Buy Local initiative must succeed.

In this age when we seem—for now—to be able to use technology to make even the dirtiest water potable, it seems that telling people they must support sustainable agriculture because it will keep Lake Pepin from filling up three centuries hence probably won’t fly. They’ve also got to see a connection to something even more immediate and close to home: good food on their supper table.

“I think the agitation that I made on the matter contributed much to the discontinuance by the government of the pernicious practice”
-General Christopher C. Andrews, 1902

Of my favorite of the many Civil War portraits that adorn the Capitol is the one just above the receptionist desk in the Governor’s Office portraying the Minnesota Third Infantry marching into Little Rock, Arkansas.The painting shows an exhausted drummer boy peaceably staggering up the road into Little Rock with the remainder of the victorious Minnesotans stretched out in the background coming up from the Arkansas River.  Riding tall in the saddle in the lead of this majestic yet exhausted column is the commander of the Minnesota Third, Christopher C. Andrews.

During the Civil War, Andrews distinguished himself as commander of the Minnesota Third.  In one of the most successful campaigns in the western theater, Andrews’ Third successfully marched on the Arkansas capitol of Little Rock.  Along with several other units under General Frederick Steele, they undertook a 100-mile march in the sweltering southern heat of August.  Despite being plagued by debilitating sickness, the Minnesota Third participated in one of the most renowned outmaneuverings of the Confederate Army to capture Little Rock against a well-entrenched opposition with only minor casualties.  Andrews and the Minnesota Third remained on as the occupying force of Little Rock, where Andrews gained renown as a fair and benevolent commander later to be mustered out as a major general.

After the war, Andrews served with distinction as a diplomat for the United States to such countries as Norway, Sweden and Brazil.  When he returned to Minnesota in the 1880s, General Andrews became one of the leading, if not prophetic, voices for reform in our forestry practices.  He preached against clear cutting and advocated for sound conservation practices he observed in Scandinavian countries.  In the wake of the 1894 great Hinckley forest fire, he pushed for a scientifically driven state forestry post.  The State Legislature, under the pressure of this great tragedy, needed to act but was still controlled by the lumber industry.  Instead of a state forestry post as advocated by Andrews, they created the post of Chief Fire Warden.  Not to be outmaneuvered, the wily General outflanked the State Legislature and successfully pushed for his appointment to the position.  Starting at age 65, he transformed this position over the next 27 years into a dominating force for forest conservation and sustainable management. 

As quoted above, it was his persistent agitation that led to the discontinuance of very destructive forest practices by the government and made Minnesota a leader in forest land management.  He never stopped pressing the concept of forestry protection until his death in 1922 at the age of 92.  He truly gave vision to sustainable forests for Minnesota. The State honored him by naming a state forest after him just outside of Willow River.

The big issue at the Capitol this week was not forest sustainability, but the future of nuclear energy in our state.  General Andrews, as a great leader for safe and sustainable forests, would have been proud of the actions by the Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities, Technology and Communications in setting a course for a safe and sustainable energy policy for the state of Minnesota.  The General would have been particularly proud of the leadership shown by Senator John Doll (DFL-Burnsville) and Chairwoman Yvonne Prettner-Solon (DFL-Duluth).  Just like the General’s clear and decisive actions in Little Rock, they refused to be outmaneuvered by the pro-nuclear forces in their pursuit of good energy policy in Minnesota.

Our recent battle over expanding nuclear power began last year with a surprise amendment that was offered to an energy bill on the Senate floor to repeal the moratorium on the construction of new nuclear reactors in Minnesota.  The moratorium was adopted in 1994 as part of the resolution over the “temporary” storage of nuclear waste in casks outside the Prairie Island plant near Red Wing.  The wise decision by the 1994 Legislature was that a moratorium made sense until permanent storage was found by the federal government for our nuclear waste.  The ‘94 Legislature understood it was a total lack of stewardship to create more of this dangerous waste for future generations to clean up until we resolved the problems of disposing of the waste produced by our state’s two existing nuclear reactors.

The nuclear issue had remained dormant for several years until recently.  There is a national effort to bring back nuclear reactors as a source of energy generation despite the fact that we still have not resolved the question of nuclear waste storage.  One of the focuses of this new “Nuclear Renaissance,” as it has become known, is to go to states that have moratoriums on the construction of new reactors and seek repeal of these moratoriums.  Last year’s floor amendment in the Senate came as a surprise to the environmental community, but fortunately the House wisely rejected this preemptive strike by the pro-nuclear forces last year.

Unfortunately, they have come back again this year with a vengeance. They argue the moratorium takes a possible viable option off the table and does not allow us to discuss the matter.  The chair of the Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities, Technology and Communications, Senator Prettner-Solon, promised to have those discussions and a vote of the moratorium repeal bill in her committee to hopefully avoid another surprise amendment on the floor.  It is through the normal committee process that the Legislature has their full and complete discussion on an issue.

The promised hearings on the nuclear moratorium occurred this week.  There was an information hearing held on Tuesday and on Thursday, as promised, the committee gave full consideration to HF355 authored by Senator Amy Koch (R-Buffalo) in preparation for a vote.  It was quite evident that the pro-nuclear forces were overconfident because a majority of the committee had voted last year for the repeal of the moratorium on the Senate floor.  After excellent presentations by our team members of Steve Morse, executive director for MEP, and Lisa Ledwidge with the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER), the committee realized a straight repeal was an unwise state policy that would leave our ratepayers exposed to excessive costs and our state with no permanent waste storage solution.

It was Senator Doll who put together an amendment allowing for the repeal to go through but with clear restrictions placed on future nuclear facilities in the state.  The major focus was to ensure safe operation, require the permanent storage of waste generated, and protect ratepayers from past practices of the nuclear industry that shifted costs of construction to consumers long before a reactor produces any power.  When Senator Doll’s amendment was overwhelmingly adopted by the committee on a 9-6 vote, the bill’s author essentially withdrew her bill from consideration.  Apparently the pro-nuclear forces really didn’t want a discussion when the subject was nuclear safety, permanent storage or ratepayer protections.

This is a major victory for the environmental community, but the battle is not over.  Even though the bill was withdrawn from consideration, there is a possibility that the pro-nuclear forces will again try to avoid the full discussion of the committee process and have the moratorium repeal amended to another bill on the floor.  Fortunately, the overwhelming passage of the Doll amendment sets a clear Senate committee position.  Therefore, if the pro-nuclear forces try to amend their provision onto a bill in the future, they will likely see an amendment to their amendment that looks very similar to the one overwhelmingly approved in the committee this week.

The senators who supported the Doll amendment in committee were: Ellen Anderson (DFL-St. Paul), Jim Carlson (DFL-Eagan), Kevin Dahle (DFL-Northfield), Scott Dibble (DFL-Minneapolis), John Doll, Rick Olseen (DFL-Harris), Chair Prettner-Solon, Sandy Rummel (DFL-White Bear Lake), and Kathy Sheran (DFL-Mankato).  Those opposing the amendment in committee were Michael Jungbauer (R-East Bethel), Koch, Julie Rosen (R-Fairmont), Dave Senjem (R-Rochester), Dan Sparks (DFL-Austin) and Ray Vandeveer (R-Forest Lake).  I think they will have a hard time explaining to their constituents why they are okay with long-term nuclear storage at temporary sites in Minnesota and the fact that they think ratepayers, rather than utility investors, should take the risk for the construction of nuclear plants.

Other states have gone down this unwise road of nuclear expansion and have regretted adopting a pro-nuclear policy.  We are very fortunate to have senators who, like General Andrews, were willing to agitate on the matter of waste storage and ratepayer protection so that Minnesota did not adopt this same “pernicious practice.”

There is plenty of activity occurring at the Capitol on other issues of concern to the environmental community, including the budget and mining.  Stay tuned next week as we cover some of those issues as they develop at the Capitol.

“There is magic in the feel of a paddle and the movement of a canoe, a magic compounded of distance, adventure, solitude, and peace.  The way of a canoe is the way of the wilderness and of a freedom almost forgotten.  It is an antidote to insecurity, the open door to waterways in ages past and a way of life with profound and abiding satisfaction.  When a man is part of his canoe, he is part of all that canoes have ever known.”

-Sigurd F. Olson, The Singing Wilderness, 1956

For those who are familiar with this blog, you know that I’m a huge fan of Sigurd Olson’s writing and his place in Minnesota’s environmental history.  His image is one of only a dozen busts that are in the halls of our State Capitol.  His bust is appropriately just outside of Room 107 of the State Capitol where the Senate environment committees traditionally meet.  If you have never read his work, begin with The Singing Wilderness.  It should be essential reading for all Minnesota environmental activists.  Be forewarned, you will want to pick up a paddle and head north after you have read this great work.

Unlike my past articles, this quote and story has absolutely nothing to do with this week in the legislative session.  I just needed 15 minutes to meditate on the peaceful glide of my Wenonah canoe through the cold clear waters of a northern lake and the rhythmic swooshing of the paddle meeting the water as my eyes scan the distant shore for the next portage.  The Green Team lobbyists have been extremely busy this last week as the Legislature rushes headlong into this very contentious session.  Taking 15 minutes to dream of a summer canoe trip helps me keep my sanity. 

Here’s a quick snapshot of the hustle and bustle this week around the Minnesota Environmental Partnership priorities for this session:

Complete Streets: Making Roads Safer for All Minnesotans.  The House of Representatives has moved first on this legislation which improves road planning in ways to reduce our dependency on costly and dirty energy sources.  HF2801, authored by Rep. Mike Obermueller (DFL-Eagan), had its second hearing in the Transportation Finance and Policy Division on Thursday afternoon.  There were objections raised by county engineers and concerns raised in earlier committees about its fiscal impact. Rep. Obermueller did a masterful job of modifying the bill to meet all objections and improve the content of the bill for the environmental advocates. 

Now the bill has to start its movement through the Senate, which will likely happen soon.  The next stop in the House will be the full Finance Committee where we expect little opposition.  Due to the hard work of the very broad coalition, it looks like this legislation is well set up to succeed this session.

Safe Mines: Protecting Our Water from Toxic Mining Pollution.  The battle to protect the lakes, rivers and streams so precious to Sigurd Olson and so many others who value the beauty of our northern woods has been challenging.  With a down economy, anyone offering just a glimmer of an outside chance of a job somewhere in the future seems to be given an extraordinary benefit of the doubt at the Legislature.  The recent endorsements by newly elected U.S. Senator Al Franken and the Star Tribune of the first sulfide mining project known as PolyMet has clouded our true objective at the Minnesota Legislature.  Fortunately, for the first time this session, a rational voice has finally spoken up in the U.S. EPA.  They indicated that the Minnesota DNR did not do a sufficient environmental review on the PolyMet proposal to construct a sulfide mine near the old LTV mining complex because they failed to identify the water treatment and financial assurance necessary for the mine’s closure.  These elements are central to the bill being supported by MEP that is authored by Rep. Alice Hausman (DFL-St. Paul) and Sen. Jim Carlson (DFL -Eagan) HF2560/SF2349.  We are still working to secure hearings on the bill this session and we’re hoping they can happen in a couple weeks. 

Defending Existing Environmental Protections.  There have been several efforts in this legislative session to undo some of our key legal protections to the environment.  Most disconcerting of these efforts has been the movement by the Chamber of Commerce to repeal the state’s moratorium on the construction of costly new nuclear reactors.  The environmental community has been busy this week meeting with legislators and explaining why it is a misplaced priority to repeal the moratorium on the construction of these facilities in Minnesota.  Nonetheless, it appears that some legislative leaders want this to move forward based on the Senate’s strong vote for repeal of the moratorium last session.  A bill (SF355) repealing the moratorium authored by Sen. Amy Koch (R- Buffalo) will be heard in the Senate Energy, Utilities, Technology and Communications Committee next Tuesday and Thursday. The committee staff is expecting a large turnout and the environment protection team is working hard to show the committee members why there’s no need at this stage to repeal the moratorium.  These will be some of the most significant environmental hearings of this session and well worth the effort to attend.

In addition to the repeal of the nuclear reactor moratorium, we are facing efforts to weaken environmental review and permitting, to repeal the prohibition on importing power from new coal plants built outside the state, and possible changes to feedlot regulations.  There is no doubt we will remain busy fending off these shortsighted efforts this session.
 
Protecting Environmental and Conservation Funding.  Late Sunday night the House and Senate conference committee reached an agreement on a billion dollar bonding bill.  Almost one quarter of the bonding bill was for environment and conservation programs.  Unfortunately, before the ink could even dry on the conference committee report, the Governor was already threatening a veto.  The Legislature held back the final approval of the conference committee report in hopes of entering into negotiations with the Governor.  Those negotiations started in earnest in the latter part of this week after the Governor returned from his travels on his not yet declared campaign for president.  Reports from legislative leaders involved in negotiations are that the initial meetings with the Governor have been productive.  They have set an informal goal of trying to wrap the bill up by Wednesday of next week.  The total amount of the bill would likely have to decrease to meet some of the Governor’s objections.

The Governor’s budget has been scrutinized by the finance committees responsible for environmental programming in both the House and Senate this week.  The Governor strove to have 3% cuts in operation budgets with 6% cuts in grant programs across all state agencies except for public safety, education and veteran services.  It appears that our agencies received cuts which are proportional to other agencies, but they were accomplished by shifting dollars from areas such as the Environment Fund and the Game and Fish Fund.  These funds were created using revenue from permit fees and license fees, and these fees were meant to be specifically dedicated to activities directly related to the items for which the fees were levied.  For example, fishing license fees should go towards fishing programs and improved fishing habitat, not to balance the state’s budget.  MEP will provide testimony regarding the budget in Tuesday hearings next week.

Also setting the tone for the rest the session will be the February budget forecast that comes out March 2.  Yes, it is odd to call it the “February” forecast when it comes out in March, but that’s the legislative process for you. This is the final budget forecast that the Legislature uses to balance the state’s budget.  The preliminary forecast which came out in November (the October forecast) showed a $1.2 billion deficit that the Constitution requires the Legislature and the Governor to balance.  Word is that the budget forecast may improve slightly.  Sen. Ellen Anderson, chair of the Senate Environment Finance Committee, indicated that if the budget forecast remains the same she has been told that her Senate target for cuts is $19 million, which is actually $3 million more than the cuts proposed by the Governor.  Hopefully the February forecast will improve and have a positive effect on the legislative budget targets for the environment finance committees.

This all means there will be another busy week, particularly as the Legislature nears its first committee deadline on Friday, March 12.  So forgive me if I fade away for a few minutes, while waiting for a bill to come up in committee, to think of vermilion sunsets fading into tree-lined hills as a campfire crackles.  Having dreams of our Great Outdoors keeps us on the Green team sharp for the next fight with the forces of pollution and environmental exploitation.

It’s easy to see why the veteran organic vegetable farmer is so excited about his first foray into farm-to-school marketing last year. After all, he didn’t start delivering produce to the district’s cafeterias until after Labor Day, which is near the end of his growing season. But in a few short weeks the district’s schools became major wholesale customers for the farmer.

And it didn’t hurt that he got some very positive feedback on the quality of the food from food service managers and, most importantly, schoolkids. That’s why Reynolds already has plans to supply the school in 2010.

Reynolds’ thumbs-up assessment is particularly interesting given his background: he already has a well-established customer base via Twin Cities restaurants, food co-ops and CSA members. He doesn’t necessarily need to seek out yet another client. But after having such a positive experience, he thinks it’s worth the trouble.

And those reasons go beyond monetary. As the farmer explained Saturday, there is increasing evidence that feeding schoolkids good food improves their performance and behavior significantly. Now there’s a nice perk to supplying a certain niche market.

Every town of any size has a school, and every one of those schools serves food. Even though the school year and the Minnesota growing season don’t overlap much, there are still lots of opportunities for selling fresh, local food to cafeterias, especially in the fall. And as Reynolds pointed out, Hopkins officials found that even after the farmer stopped delivering late last fall, many of the kids kept eating fruits and vegetables. Their brief exposure to real food had gotten them hooked on healthier eating.

Go to the national Farm to School website and you’ll soon learn that experiences likes this are becoming increasingly less rare. From California to New York, schools and farmers are proving that cafeteria food can be fresh, local and healthy. Of course, there are some huge barriers to overcome before onion rings stop qualifying as a major vegetable serving in most school lunchrooms, but some exciting models are being created. We even have good examples right in our own backyard—Willmar’s farm-to-school effort has spawned more than healthier kids, it’s resulted in a nice toolkit resource for others wanting to pursue something like this.

Reynolds’ presentation Saturday was preceded by a summary of what JoAnne Berkenkamp has learned in her discussions with all the “lunch ladies” around the state that are dipping their toes into farm-to-school efforts. As you can hear on LSP podcast episode 75, she’s come up with a nice 10-point checklist that should prove useful to any farmer considering approaching a school district.

Both Reynolds and Berkenkamp emphasized the importance of creating a relationship with school officials, teachers and, most importantly, students. That relationship goes beyond just delivering a crate of carrots once a week.

Reynolds has already been meeting with the district’s food service staff this winter and he has plans to bring students out to the farm and to help one of the school’s start a garden. The farmer is even going to visit a classroom to talk about where those delicious carrots and potatoes come from.

As Greg put it: “It’s all about building that relationship between the people that are eating that food, and the people that are selling it.”

“There is Governor Ames himself.” 

These were the words whispered in a low husky voice from one of four horse riders wearing long white cattle dusters as they rode across the bridge into Northfield, Minnesota, on what would become a fateful day in September of 1876.  Unfortunately for the would-be bank robbers, the words were overheard by Adelbert Ames as he walked past the riders on well-bred horses as he was leaving town from a meeting at the First National Bank. 

Ames had recently returned from the south to help manage the family mill in Northfield.   While in the South, he served as governor of Mississippi during Reconstruction.  Only a year earlier he was run out of Mississippi by the flames of racial prejudice and hatred for Northern carpetbaggers like Ames.  It was the beginning of an ugly era of Southern politics which was dominated by the KKK and their like.

When Ames heard these words whispered between the riders, he immediately knew something dreadful was in the wind that crisp fall day.  He said to the companions walking with him, “those men are from the south and are here for no good purpose, no one here calls me governor.”  When the riders had sufficiently passed Ames he turned to quickly head back into town; he soon heard cries explode from downtown that the bank was being robbed.  The Civil War veteran Ames sprang into action, helping lead the townspeople in their successful effort to repel the raiders.

Cole Younger later reported while a prisoner in Stillwater that one of the reasons they chose the bank in Northfield was their belief that there were ill-gotten gains from carpetbaggers like Ames who helped in the Reconstruction in the South.  Ames was astonished that the Southern anger at the Reconstruction would visit him so far north from his days in Mississippi.  Some 134 years later, those Minnesota environmental and conservation leaders who have worked hard to establish funding for environment and conservation purposes are a little worried there could be raids on their resources this legislative session.

Their concerns were not alleviated when Governor Pawlenty released his budget this Monday.  It is important to note that the Governor did not disproportionately cut the overall budgets in the major agencies responsible for protecting our lakes, rivers and wild places.  Therefore, it is probably not fair to compare it to the great Northfield bank raid by the James and Younger Gang.  Nonetheless, there are concerns of coming problems in light of the Governor’s treatment of several of our special environmental funds.

The Governor and Legislature face a daunting task this session, needing to close a $1.2 billion gap between our present revenue collections and the anticipated expenditures for the rest of this legislative biennium.  We are almost halfway through the budget that was established last legislative session with no reserves, minimal possible budget shifts and no real promise for increased revenue in the near future.  Therefore, the only place this no new tax governor has to go is deep budget cuts in state programs.  One budget balancing gimmick left is to take dedicated funding sources and redirect them to the general fund to be cut to cover the deficit.  Unfortunately, there are several of those opportunities in our major agencies like the PCA and DNR.

The Governor strove to have 3% cuts in operation budgets with 6% cuts in grant programs across all state agencies except for public safety, education and veteran services.  It appears that our agencies received cuts which are proportional to other agencies, but this was accomplished by shifting several dollars from areas such as the Environment Fund and the Game and Fish Fund.  These funds were created using revenue from permit fees and license fees and these fees were meant to be specifically dedicated to activities directly related to the items for which they were levied.  For example, fishing license fees should go towards fishing programs and improved fishing habitat, not to balance the state’s budget.  It would be hard to justify running through the streets screaming that the bank is being robbed like the citizens of Northfield back in 1876 given the fact that we have been treated proportionately when you look at the overall budgets of our agencies.  In the past, that has not been true as our main agencies had suffered disproportionate cuts.

Nonetheless, there are a couple of small things that make many in the conservation community concerned about deeper raids in the future.  The Governor proposed a $2 million appropriation from the new constitutional Clean Water Legacy Fund to sewer infiltration in the metropolitan area.  Though this is an important clean water activity, it is not supported by any regional plan and is an item that has been supported by other funds in the past.  Also, a couple of positions supported in the past by the general fund were “cut” by the DNR, but then reconstituted with creative accounting by simply designating their new funding source out of dedicated accounts. These efforts look like a clandestine way to backfill in general fund budget cuts with the constitutional Legacy Funds and our other designated accounts.  This clearly is not keeping faith with the voters’ intention to have new ongoing investments protecting our great outdoors.

Fortunately the Legislature will get to weigh in on the budget and hopefully they will react as successfully as the Northfield townsfolk did in turning back any raid.  The MEP team will continue to assess the concerns with the budget and communicate those to the policymakers.  What is obvious is the dynamic has changed since the voters sent a clear message in the last election.  In the past, when we’ve faced similar daunting budget deficits, we have experienced deeply disproportional cuts in our agencies.  I guess it’s true, elections do matter.

Other MEP priorities are also starting to see action.  We will be keeping our eyes on the final bonding bill due to come out early next week.  Hopefully we will see passage of the Complete Streets legislation out of the House committee next week.  In two weeks expect a hearing in the Senate for an immediate repeal of the state’s moratorium on nuclear power plants which is opposed by the state’s environmental groups.  Also promised – a hearing soon on financial assurance for sulfide mining in the Senate.  The legislative session is picking up momentum.

Earlier this month, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) released the findings of a report they commissioned on the job impacts of a federal renewable electricity standard (RES).  The “Jobs Impact of a National Renewable Electricity Standard” study, conducted by independent, third-party researchers at Navigant Consulting, Inc., found that a 25 percent by 2025 national RES would result in 274,000 more renewable energy jobs over business as usual.

Additionally, the report found that by passing a federal RES of 25 percent by 2025 the United States would ensure a stable market for renewable generation, avoiding near term fluxuations in the market due to the uncertain future financial security created by policy gaps.  In order to create a stable market, the report recommends short-term federal RES goals of 12 percent in 2014 and 20 percent in 2020 in addition to the overall 25 percent by 2025 goal.

Another important finding of the report was that the entire U.S. will see job gains from a federal RES. The southeastern region of the United States stands to gain from a federal RES by producing energy from biomass and hydropower in addition to the possibility of offshore wind. While the entire country would see job creation from a federal RES, the report also found that if a federal RES is not enacted, some states – mostly in the Midwest – will experience a decrease in clean energy jobs from current levels.

For more information or to read the entire study, click here.