Tag Archives: MEQB

…as is the Governor’s Climate Change Subcabinet

26 Monday Oct 2020

Posted by in Citizenship, Climate Change, Local Reporting, Saving the Earth

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,


The MEQB attempted to introduce Minnesotans to the newly appointed Governor’s Climate Change Subcabinet. And failed. Miserably. [@7:50 Laura Bishop (LB) really tells us how it is in MN government… with the “political, er public!” appointees.]

How badly did they fail? Well, they never even introduced the new Subcabinet appointees… AND they failed to get many answers for the questions posed by the public. Not a good showing, any way you slice it. And we will.

First, we should say where everyone was from:

n = 180

[Wait, maybe first we should start with the lack of any land acknowledgement being shared? This is something I’ve grown to love hearing from the various groups with which I interact, a reminder of the Tribes’ long history with corrupt government.]

Do we give the MEQB a point for adding Western Minnesota quickly? [after a participant question] Or not? [because afterthought “Eastern” got no add] What exactly are the divisions about – to the MEQB. How is it ONE Minnesota if even the Metro suburbs are segregated out from urban proper? We all get the Metro/Rural divide [which I’ve written about before and which is ridiculous in this forum – I mean don’t we all drink water to live?], but what are these further divisions?

Northern, Central, Southern… Where are the boundaries? Is “Central” the I-94 corridor folks? Are “Southern” those poor folks whose water is already contaminated? “Northern” those pesky folks working to prevent Enbridge from destroying their clean watersheds? If we think these groups have some coalesced voice that requires grouping, what is it? [But, hey, gives you an idea of where people are paying attention to this rollout.]

The session opened, after this “ice-breaker” poll, with a welcome from Laura Bishop, Commissioner of the MPCA and Chair of the MEQB. She thanked Minnesotans for attending to learn more about what Minnesota government is doing to address climate change.

The size and scope of the climate crisis requires our swift action at every level to help protect our communities and ensure a sustainable future for all Minnesotans.

And we need and value your participation in these efforts.”

Laura Bishop intro… We’ll see what they show us today in this vein. Note she also said, “Governor Walz has said, if Washington won’t lead on Climate Change, Minnesota will.” You tell me how confident you feel at the end of this blog about that.

Laura noted that we must work together… “This is the First One Minnesota Climate Forum!” [And she notes coordinating being done with the Tribes.]

Then we had a bit of Reflection guided by Mariah Levinson from the MN Department of Admin’s Office of Collaboration and Dispute Resolution – how apropos! 😀 [Using the Slido tool for dialogue – because why use a CHAT in the meeting when that would be easier? Either way, if you don’t have a computer, you’re shit outta luck for participation.] The Subcabinet and Board were encouraged to use their video to create the idea that we’re all in the same room together! This is the question for reflection (and my answer – one of MANY comments concerning Line 3):

Keeping good company with J Drake Hamilton – reminding of our time together at the Environmental Congress in Mankato last fall, which seems a decade ago now.

At one point, three NoLine3 Comments were up top! [But we’re not gonna talk about Line 3 today!! Oh, yes we are, Laura Bishop.]

The Line 3 related question chosen was SURE to NOT mention Line 3. [Seriously, listen at 1:19:19]

We next moved on to introductions of the state agency reps where each spoke on “a potential climate solution” they are excited about. Lots about Clean Cars, EVs, and EV Infrastructure for BIG BENEFITS TO MN!

Grace Arnold, new Commissioner of Commerce reported after Commissioner Bishop, following on her lead, noting that getting pollution out of the air brings good health impacts. We spent about 20 minutes on these introductions for the MEQB. [And I have to say I CONTINUE to LOVE Jennifer Ho of Housing.] Nick Martin – newest MEQB member repping CD 4 – with background in electric, natural gas, transportation, ag, forestry sectors, spoke near the end. While I was a bit put off by his buzzword bingo, he made some interesting comments.

Ben Yawakie impressed with his comment:

… Loved what I’m hearing from everyone so I’ll just add something different and new. With respect to transitioning away from the use of fossil fuels, and also respecting tribal sovereignty and protecting water quality, by discontinuing any new projects such as Line 3. Thank you.

Benjamin Yawakie, Citizen Board Member CD 3 No, Ben. Thank YOU!!!! ❤

Gerald Van Amberg reiterated getting “everyone on board” to address climate change. At about 45 minutes in, I was wondering how we were going to get to all the introductions for the 15 new Climate Change Subcabinet appointees. Well, no worry. We weren’t! Instead, we got some brief talks about ideas to see what MN is looking to do with the Subcabinet. About 50 minutes in you can see the additional structure of our government workers who will be solving the climate crisis here in Minnesota.

Circles of people, who can all point at each other as the ones “doing something”?
FFS, took us a year to get the fucking subcabinet appointed! And look who’s on it! [Ann Mulholland is highlighted only because that’s who I was checking when I took the screen shot. No special emphasis for her, unless someone else has something?]
My personal notes on looking into these folks…

Faith Krogstad, Engagement Coordinator for the MEQB, talked about Climate Change Public Engagement Framework. [So we’ll continue to know our place?] She extended an invitation for us all to get involved and presented some slides from places where engagement IS HAPPENING, like Create – The Community Meal [Seitu Jones’ 2014 project – which is cool as shit so watch this video]. Lots of word salad about how they need to think about new ways to engage but sounds like it’s still a thing they aren’t sure how to do… She mentions a “different table” to get Minnesotans engaged, which includes an interesting approach but not one that seems very “new”. Same old system where individual inputs get buried by “Multilevel” players… Does this mean corporations and partnerships with monied interests?

Engaging the Public… Minimizing Individual Input?
How is this different from what we have now?
Again, individual scientists are gonna be a small voice… no different than now?
Good thing Faith has no time to discuss this in depth!! [FFS]

Then she tells us to take the survey… I covered this last week so please read there on how to get your input heard!

Of the presentations, the only one I really appreciated (as it was not simply word salad of imagined future worlds with no real indication on HOW to get there, as were most of the other presentations) was given by Mary Otto, Tribal Liaison from the Department of Commerce, on Government to Government interactions. Mary gives historical perspective and detailed information on the reciprocity expressed in Tribal Culture. She shows how the MN Tribal Environmental Committee (previously the MN Tribal Executive Committee?) and State Tribal Liaison Coordination Team (MDA, MDT, MPCA, MDOC) overlap in their work with MOTHER EARTH and FUTURE GENERATIONS. What a concept.

Beautiful depictions of government and people projects.

Next Mary Robinson, Info Officer from the MPCA leading Comms and Outreach, discussed the online tools (so not available for all Minnesotans?) and Willis must have been SO HAPPY to see them using the language of “framing”, even if not totally seeming to quite get it yet. While there was some recognition that climate change is already happening – and last month all 15 agencies in the subcabinet got a new toolkit!! – it still feels very much that these folks are truly clueless about the real needs for redressing our situation. You can take action on Local Impacts, State of MN Actions or Community Solutions! Plans are pending for further development! This problem is NOT TOO BIG OR TOO COMPLEX TO TACKLE! [You can also find the new appointments to the advisory council here… I think they believe that simply APPOINTING THE CABINET was a SOLUTION???] Mariah assured us that FUTURE MEETINGS would have opportunities for more engagement. [Promises, promises?]

Then we entered the Q&A section of the meeting! With reflections and responses from our Subcabinet and MEQB Board members? Um… Not so much.

You can see in the above photo of Mary Otto’s presentation, how I was questioning in the chat why MY question was not being approved… [Wondering now if I hadn’t asked, if it EVER would have been approved!]

I added a question at the same time as MEQB Citizen Board member Kristin Eide-Tollefson (1:50 PM), yet you can see that both Matt Doll – Minnesota Environmental Partnership and J Drake Hamilton – Executive Director of Fresh Energy were BOTH approved before mine. What does this say about the algorithm for approval? Who is making those decisions?

While members were encouraged to respond, I saw VERY LITTLE of that during the meeting. Our first question? About urban and community forests… and Shannon Lotthammer responded, noting the Emerald Ash Borer work from 2019… and other projects in progress but that there is more space for things to happen and they are looking for input.

When it came to the second question, Faith Krogstad noted:

Just want to acknowledge that we have a large number of Line 3 questions and that’s obviously a very important topic to a lot of people within the state here so what I would like to do is find (pause) I’m selecting one, um, that actually doesn’t specifically mention Line 3 but I would just ask that anyone responding to it keep Line 3 in mind, um, this one I’m highlighting now:
What effective steps can Minnesotans and policy makers take to turn back future natural gas power plants and oil pipelines that will bring more oil through our state. All of these will build in more fossil use and hence climate change? Without effective action now we are derelict in our duties.”

Faith Krogstad 1:19:20 WTF!?!? Why they so scared of Line 3?

Laura Bishop, currently holding power to approve or deny needed permits for the project at the MPCA, responded.

I think, you know, our getting together as a Climate Subcabinet as well as um doing this outreach to our communities is that first step in really understanding across um our agencies a place that we can reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. So that is what our intent is with lowering our GHG emissions in the state and the goals that we have in place and the intent to you know come together as a Climate Subcabinet is really getting at that.

With regard to specific to Line 3, what I will say is you know there are all different agencies that have different aspects and the Governor has really asked us to look at the process that is in place as well as follow the science and each agency has, you know, that uh those authorities to look at so, as you know, we have Commerce who has oversight, the Public Utilities Commission that has oversight, DNR has um some oversight for as it relates to different uh wetlands and water crossings, uh as does MPCA with the uh water permits and construction stormwater permits AND we have the Army Corps of Engineers as well that plays a role. So there are many different pieces that have to come together and um certainly a pipeline that does not have a um stated or demonstrated need for supply um is one that um is being looked at right now um so that it’s something the Department of Commerce is has asked for the company to really designate and state the need um for that supply that would be going through the state. Otherwise, what happens is really our duties, um are to look at uh the construction and uh how that comes through the state. So doesn’t really answer the full question, but um, I think it does get at uh what our intent is as a Subcabinet, which is to look at ways (to) mitigate and to decrease the use of these uh fossil fuels that are coming through our state and um certainly uh something that we intend to look at is ways to um bring down our greenhouse gasses through reducing that uh need.

Laura Bishop 1:20:11 – 1:22:50 is of interest as the MPCA has a “duty” to determine Need as well, but they ignored that duty, relying on the “Need” determined by the PUC.

She asked for others on the Subcabinet to speak to this… but no one bit. She moved to a question asking “what can we do”, noting:

… the agencies are really looking at and what we can do and do we have any authority to stop the project. I think what the question here is is really for our agencies to raise those questions so with is there the need, is it protective of our waters with this construction, if the state doesn’t act what happens with the federal government and their role in taking this on and their protections uh with regard to the water uh protections and as well as um really looking at uh those pieces I know there’s been questions about tribal sovereignty and tribal lands and certainly that is something that the tribes have looked at as well um in areas of tribal crossings but we know that hunting, gathering areas are also places that um our tribes have those concerns so those type of dialogues have been happening consistently um with regard to uh interactions by the administration and I know also um the within the communities.

Laura Bishop continues…ending 1:24:50

Which took us to the last question where Faith notes (after unmuting):

as I was saying, we’ve had a lot of questions on Line 3, um, and we really thank the audience members for submitting these important questions and for Commissioner Bishop responding to that. I’m gonna transition to another topic that’s popular here: ‘We often focus on mitigation and consider adaptation as an afterthought. Why aren’t adaptation efforts from and center, along with resilience.’

Faith Krogstad

And I’ll leave you to listen to LB’s word salad at 1:25 and her toss to Frank for his work. All this lead me to add a final comment from the initial survey question:

Luckily we had many allies in attendance (among the 180 – the largest ever MEQB attendance?) as Dorie Reisenweber of Duluth asked to whom we could direct further questions and when comments would be closed. LB noted: This is not a formal comment period for the climate subcabinet but asked her folks if there is something on the climate change website. Or she said you can forward them to her as the Chair of the Subcommittee and that they will look at where we can gather comments. [Uh, if you’re presenting about engagement, think you’d know if there was a way for folks to leave input at the website? Maybe I’m too critical. They’re new, right? FFS.] Mary notes that there is a comment email on the website.

The last question was also pretty great – asking about capitalism and monetary incentives and how we drive policy to incentivize carbon-neutral practices. [Laura seriously mentioned permitting and how we can look at environmental justice committees in permitting work. Wow, like salt in the wound for all the Tribal members opposing Line 3 in the state? Pretty fucking harsh, LB… pretty fucking harsh.]

Meanwhile, Greta issued a response to the UK and their obtuse leaders who seem to ALSO not get the climate catastrophe we’re in and the urgent need for redress. The ask for no more fossil fuel infrastructure – especially for a tar sands pipeline of all fucking things – seems an easy place to start with a mitigation and adaptation decision.

Watch the blog for upcoming posts on Sasha Baron Cohen’s new film, Borat Subsequent Moviefilm: Delivery of Prodigious Bribe to American Regime for Make Benefit Once Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, which is generating lots of excitement as we see the underbelly of power in America exposed. I absolutely LOVE Maria Bakalova!!! She deserves an Oscar. Here’s the trailer.

Oh, and if you haven’t yet read Hank Green‘s new book (and the first one), you need to? Blogs on that too… as Water Protector work allows. As you can see, with an MEQB, MPCA, MDNR like the ones we have, it’s an uphill battle. Every day.

MEQB Still Broken…

19 Monday Oct 2020

Posted by in Citizenship, Climate Change, Human Extinction, Local Reporting, Saving the Earth

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,


So, the latest addition to the Minnesota plan for how to protect our citizens and our natural environment will be examined this Wednesday, the 21st. The Minnesota Environmental Quality Board will be presenting the newly appointed Governor’s CLIMATE CHANGE SUBCABINET!!!

I encourage you to join in from 1-2:30 pm as the MEQB will offer a reflection period for citizens to “reflect on a question related to climate change and, if they choose, share their reflections on the online platform”. [If it’s anything like previous allowances for public input, my guess is they will be limited and managed to assure nothing objectionable to the MPCA Commissioner’s agenda – as we witnessed at the LAST MEQB meeting. Though, perhaps I will be surprised?]

After an introduction of the cabinet and structure, it appears we will have time to ask questions too! So… let’s think about what we might want to ask…

Perhaps we could ask Kevin Pranis, LIUNA rep and constant advocate for the Line 3 project at the PUC, how he sees a tar sands pipeline project alleviating climate change in Minnesota and globally? [He thinks pipelines are “beneficial or sort of neutral in terms of … environmental impact” and praised the Dakota Access Pipeline which is STILL facing legal challenges.]

As a part of this work, the MEQB is asking Minnesotans to complete a survey stating their concerns. I’d suggest that you complete it. Feel free to review the questions I’ve provided below in case you would like to consider some of my inputs as you offer your own.

The survey begins with a long list of climate concerns on which you can pick your top three… and you can respond as I did, if you like, asking what the intentions were behind this question when all these things are so interconnected that to pick only three seems like not solving the whole complex problem. Then the survey asks about how you want to be involved – as if they will ever REALLY let us be involved in any meaningful way. I referenced the recent OLA report on PUC Public Engagement which literally explained that the PUC failed to FOLLOW THE LAW. Come on, man!

I made a point of my concern that the Governor’s Subcabinet on Climate Change is full of appointees whose voices that have long been heard in Minnesota. Where are the citizens like me being heard? [I didn’t even get a call on my application to the council. It’s like they didn’t even begin looking at names until the list skyrocketed, from about 34 when I applied, to over 200 or more in the end, as I recall.] Will be interesting to see WHO they introduce and how I feel once I learn more about their appointees.

I went into a bit more of my concerns on their final page of the survey, refusing to offer any MORE ideas to them until they actually acknowledge the inputs I’ve already provided. [FFS]

I’m hopeful that many Minnesotans will come into the MEQB at 1PM this Thursday to ask good questions about how this Climate Change Subcabinet plans to make effective change for our citizens. I think we topped out about 100 last meeting. Not sure they’ve allocated enough time to hear citizens… but that’s been an ongoing issue for some time now. [Did I mention they seem loathe to actually HEAR citizen inputs?]

See you there?

MEQB ERIS July 15, 2020

20 Monday Jul 2020

Posted by in Citizenship, Climate Change, Human Extinction, Local Reporting, Saving the Earth

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,


Got a last minute notice of the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board’s Environmental Review Improvement Subcommittee meeting, so decided to attend. Here’s my take.

ERIS Members:

  • Sarah Strommen DNR (Chair today)
  • Laura Bishop MPCA
  • DOT (Arrived later) Margaret Anderson Kelliher
  • Alice Roberts-Davis Administration
  • Dan Huff MDH – for Malcolm
  • BOWSER Gerry Van Amberg (Not a Member; listening)
  • And… Citizen Members:
  • Alan Forsberg
  • Kristin Eide-Tollefson
  • Ben Yawakie
  • Bryan Murdoch

Katie Pratt – Still have OPEN CD4 & CD5 positions for Citizen Board membership.

Giuseppe Tumminello presented the ER Data Mgmt Plan & 2019 Performance Report with Thanks to the Tech Reps and MEQB staff.

His Questions: Framework and Metrics – are they meaningful info to make ER better? What would you like to see?

MN Rule 4410.0400 Subpart 1 says MEQB role is monitoring effectiveness  of parts 4410.0200 (definitions) to 4410.6500 (paying EIS costs) and taking appropriate measures to modify and improve their effectiveness.  (Water Quality is in pretty shit shape so… kinda failing.)

My ideas: Citizens have a BUNCH of usable information that your agencies are ignoring… systematic access to decision makers is not really a thing, nor is accountability… Delegating authority needs to be pulled back when RGUs demonstrate regulatory capture… There is no need to reduce delay if it means we will ignore the need to be thorough. And we need to start to reduce uncertainty with the use of REAL SCIENTISTS to review the projects!

My questions: What evaluation was made of WHAT IS WORKING?  HOW ARE YOU understanding the effectiveness? 

Guiseppe’s Data Management Plan Framework and Metrics were reviewed… looking at frequency checks (for ER types, processes by category and RGU, and completeness of citizen petitions), efficiency checks (cost and time for ER and EQB Staff performance) and Transparency (for usable info and citizen participation). [Makes one want to throat punch someone… this last point is just laughable.] But he went on to present some highlights:

  • ER in 2019 was WAY DOWN…far below the number done in any of the previous 4 years… and Almost NO EIS in the last 5 years… [what effect has that had? Did I mention shitty water quality yet?] In fact ALL 2019 environmental reviews were barely more than only the EAWs in 2015 and 2016 and their number was below the EAWs alone for both 2017 & 2018.
  • Reduce delay and uncertainty and duplication was covered with a review of citizen petition completeness and how many needed EAW (not many… never more than 3 in any year and often, only 1).
  • Efficiency over effectiveness seems the rule of the day. The ER Technical Assistance efficiency review showed: 175 calls in 2019.  [Almost NONE!! But we’re looking at how well we did on the calls!!!]  We’re GREAT! 84% of the public says EQB staff was responsive and punctual, 100% agreed that they were courteous and professional, but only 50% strongly agreed they were knowledgeable on the topic. So… nice, on time, but not really full of answers? [Maybe some scientists would help?]
  • Now to Transparency… first Giuseppe quotes MR4410.0300: “A first step in achieving a more harmonious relationship between human activity in the environment is understanding the impact which a proposed project will have on the environment” and he claims “The ER Process led to the public participation that would not have otherwise occurred…” ER Interactive Map shows locations of data received… but docs are Not readily available [uh… so much for transparency??? Seems they are saying, “Public Participation is important!!!  Speak Up!!!”  No promise they will listen though…]
  • New Map NOW in the works!!  Current map to be live in next week or so.

Data Mgmt Plan – adaptable each year!!  We’ll keep doing nothing… and making sure we talk about how we can keep doing nothing… [Yeah. Great.]

Questions: [I got what I could. You can listen to the whole presentation and such here.]

Bryan – what info is available in the map – project info?  G: Monitor info included.  B: Some include links, some don’t.  G: RGU prerogative to share that.  We share if provided. No link?  Pop-up will have responsible RGU name and contact for more info. B: RGUs should have capability to provide that.  Denise: Further explanation… Rule is current – would like more discussion on ERIS to see how we look at expanding how notification requirements are included.

Bryan: EAW world – citizen members want to understand…  Along with current, could there be an available cell with a running record of EAWs that can be sorted/searched based on categories – for reference.  [GOOD SUGGESTION!] G: Exploring ways to do that.

Alan Forsberg Q…   G: Accountability section performance report – pie chart on RGUs doing ER – maybe a majority – are from local govts.  MEQB staff should be reaching out to staff at local RGUs for their experience.

Alan: MEQB measures its performance – what about MPCA, DNR, etc?  Measuring effectiveness of their permits?  Denise: Don’t engage with other agencies on their effectiveness but some monitor their programs.  A: Drawing on many DNR – times when process is counter-productive to what environment is trying to achieve.  SS: ER vs. permitting – often related and intersecting.  Specific to Permitting? Not ER?  Alan: Unrelated question… I apologize.  They relate… overlap – info for ER and permits – there is a relationship.

Ben: Maps and access.  Getting info from EQB monitor – notice methodology between 2015 and 2020… evidence based to improve it? As much info to public as possible? G: Since 2015, a pilot process (CI) to improve data collected and shared.  DMP will be adaptive… will change as this is the first we’re proposing.  Frequency of ER… objective data – won’t change much.  Recommendation in current performance report not yet incorporated.  These are just proposed.  2022 data will be available to share on this…Denise: Data sets gathering… data from subcommittee… 

Kristin: Note the language – I appreciate the language – Public Members – ALL of us as practitioners.  Better framing of inclusive language.  Earlier Q on survey for RGUs … did ER make a difference for environmental quality?  Are we still asking this question?  G: Don’t recall where… one question we are proposing to ask is tied specifically to… going back to objectives – providing usable information.  Not covered today but ID’d in report.  Asking if the process gave usable info not otherwise being collected.  Is value provided?  K: Found it interesting we included it in previous surveys – applies to effectiveness of system.  Consideration I’d appreciate is keeping in mind integrity of the information.  Been in several ER that were delayed, created uncertainty, issues of transparency/accountability as the info was so inaccurate.  Getting accurate info to public is key.  Looking fwd to next steps. G: Consideration is noted.  Did the ER process make a difference for outcome for Env Quality? is the question to include.

My question: How is the data mgmt plan looking at the actual results in the field?  Like how poor our water quality is now in MN?  I’m seeing a check of how the system works as designed, but NOT how the system accurately determines effectiveness in the field. How are you determining how the ER is actually affecting the environment on the ground here in MN?  Denise: When ER doc is prepared, a lot of potential ER are ID’d and how to mitigate.  Fwd looking at projects as proposed and into permitting and other approvals.  Where do you see opportunities for field experience as most of where we touch a project is before construction or implementation?  ME: It really speaks to the question that Kristin was just asking. How are we evaluating how our ER process is working?  Your mission is to determine if the ER process is actually DOING SOMETHING, rather than just filling out paperwork and checking off boxes.  Specifically I look at – and she spoke to the inaccuracy of data –  and we can look at the Line 3 project – huge and very controversial.  We’ve asked over and over to be involved in agency meetings – we know that meetings are happening with Enbridge – we have scientists and retired MEQB (I meant MPCA)/DNR people, health professionals, and citizens like me, abutters to the line, who’d really like to have our voices heard.  I’d really like you to come up to the LaSalle Valley and look at where they want to install this pipeline.  Look at the land and the water levels on the ground.  Trying to understand how the MEQB is finding that THAT SYSTEM is actually working to protect the environment. Especially when we’re seeing many many people living with tainted water quality in MN now.  D: Thinking about opps I’m aware of to make connections.  Think about it further given that perspective.  Come back to the Guiding principles. What is the Purpose and objective and tying it back to the relationship to procedures in 4410 – meant to implement mandates from MEPA… I’d love to talk more on ideas for metrics and where you think that might provide us with meaningful information. 

ME: I’m very interested to hear how you plan to engage the public because I do think that has been a real fall down. We’ve tried going to the MEQB, speaking to the concerns we have about the fact that these decisions are being made potentially by RGUs who don’t have the scientific comprehension to understand the environmental review process and how it affects the environment outside of the project they want to implement and rather than what those real affects are to the environment.  I’d be very interested, esp as the OLA was looking at the MPCA for engagement this year. That project didn’t get selected but there’s definitely a breakdown between people feeling like they are being heard, who live here, and agencies who are making decisions about things they don’t seem to truly understand. That’s my biggest concern. We need some scientific accountability to what’s happening, rather than agencies just meeting ONLY with applicants, who are VERY gung ho about their projects and aren’t going to tell you anything about not wanting to implement them… versus listening to people in the field who are SEEING these changes happening in our state, seeing our water quality degrade, seeing this tremendous ignoring of citizens, including our Indigenous citizens who have spoken very loudly about this project and that gets into federal law.  It’s great that MN has these laws and rules and these ideas but if they are not effective, we need to look at why and how to make them effective.  And this isn’t truly doing that.  It’s looking at the projects we have and looking at the ER we have and it seems another kicking down the road of we’re going to look at how well we’re doing and see how well we’re doing…  instead of looking at WHAT ARE WE DOING, PEOPLE?  WHAT ARE WE TRULY DOING? I’d encourage you to start talking with health professionals and scientists in this state… retired agency officials who absolutely understand some of the problems that we’ve seen with regulatory capture, that create a system where applicants continue to get their projects, our water quality and environmental quality continue to degrade, and the people continue to be ignored.  D: Thank you for those observations, will take this back to the team.  SS: Thanks for the question!

Willis: Ecologist, retired MPCA.  Previous commenter made an excellent point by using Line 3 as an example. Not to get into the weeds with that project but let me point out how ER failed miserably. And MEQB can do significant things to change this.  EIS was 1000s of pages, revised several times… but… only when MPCA received a permit for 401 was it revealed – for the first time – that the company admitted they could not comply with MN Water Quality standards.  If that simple fact was not exposed in the ER documents, of 7000 pages, something was seriously wrong.  The public did not know… and (with No F/U in 401 cert process) still does not know, that this project will violate water quality standards all across this state! And now mitigation is being offered as permits are being approved by other agencies. The horse is out of the barn. Hard to correct now…  AFTER ER SHOULD HAVE EXPOSED THIS issue and then SERIOUS alternatives could have been considered. 

Now to the issue that Kristin raised… over years of participating on MEQB… I’ve consistently suggested that metrics are available that will answer her question.  IS ER MAKING A DIFFERENCE ON THE GROUND?  Curious and frustrated as no data points here drove to that question.  If you don’t, it allows Govt process to proceed bean counting – metaphor of bucket brigade putting out a fire.  Counting buckets, polishing them, storing them properly, but buckets are empty (of ER docs themselves)!  Let’s look at content and that this is Not measuring what proposers want to measure – reducing delay (serves the project proposer) and duplication (no one wants that). People want process to be effective! 

As an ecologist, I can tell you… we’re losing all our birds.  Have an avian apocalypse.  Losing insects.  Apocalyptic outcome – it’s measureable, it’s reportable, and someone is responsible.  We’re losing reptiles, amphibians, wild rice.  I could go on and on… listing on the ground, in the water criteria that tell us the story of how well humans are NOT LIVING in harmony with their environment as MEPA says.  I have offered and I will offer again to sit down with staff and look at meaningful metrics the DNR?MPCA/MDH/MDA accumulates. Metrics that in sum total tell us we have a miserable failure in ER due to no linkage to the ER and our Env losses (plants, insects, wild rice) and losses in human health.  5 connectors in how we: use land, extract resources, distribute invasive species, change the environment, & destroying habitat. If ER CANNOT measure these 5 parameters, why do it??? Those are repeatedly id’d as causes of our apocalyptic conditions in plants, wild life, insects, and human health. We have a Cognitive disconnect between causes of Env deterioration and what we examine in ER.  Please accept our offer of a year ago December – in our listening session with SS & LB attending – by group there. Many of these same points were made, OFFERS were MADE AND NONE have been ACCEPTED..  Not called in back to say WHY these methods work.  Please stop counting buckets you have in the fire brigade and assure that they are full of water and fire is being put out by some meaningful metric.  WILL YOU ACCEPT THE OFFER OF THOSE KINDS OF ASSISTANCE OFFERED by ME AND MY COLLEAGUES REPEATEDLY OVER LAST SEVERAL YEARS? If not, why not? [No REAL Answer… again.  Sorry, Willis.] SS: 2 other comments…  let’s go to that. WRT Last comment – we’ll respond to that…  Kristin have another comment… keep them succinct!  Who else do we have?

Lori Cox: Sustainable U-pick fruit farmer (Hubbard?) would love a confirm/deny – handoff for MEQB to allow agencies to monitor or agency’s role to decide?  Might bring foresight.  DW: Trying to better understand connection for ER doc and how info is used to inform other approval decisions… and the method for other approval decisions… LC: clarified… DW: MEQB role in the rule – responsibility and authority to pass rules and oversight. Delegate implementation to other govt agencies – who interpret how they are applied and how they affect the project decisions.  ER gives more look at what Env Impacts are and that informs permitting from other project agencies.  Rules require that those approval decisions consider ER docs.  No mechanism to give MEQB authority to vette the decisions made by other govt agencies.  [So no accountablity for regulatory capture?]

Tim Ahrens: In terms of metric to understand if process is working – rates of permit compliance and non-compliance available? DDW: Regulatory compliance done in framework of agency that oversees permits.  MEQB has no authority or oversight of those authorities. [That might be part of the problem…] T: Might be one part of the disconnect.  ER informs permit but if permit is not carried out with integrity…  SS: Monitoring is agency responsibility.

Kristin: Question on survey was asked retrospectively to parties that participated in ER.  Looking for their feeling of if it made a difference.  Wanted to clarify that is more process than outcome oriented – different mix.  Very valuable convo – wanted to clarify on that being procedural. DW: Asked for perception – data was qualitative and not aimed at whether project resulted in change in the ER but whether they were engaged in the process and the process was better than it would have been without ER.  [So they could just think it’s a PITA and respond accordingly…] K: And public input.  DW: And public input.

SS: Move to next agenda item… GHG Quantification and Assessment… presented by Denise Wilson. “No inclusion of recommendations today… want to discuss today how to overcome barriers.”

Team consists of Steve Roos (MDA), Louise Miltich [Yep, Anthony’s niece!] (Commerce), David Bell (MDH), Kate Fairman & Cynthia Novak-Krebs (DNR), Melissa Kuskie, Peter Ciborowski & Laura Millberg (PCA), Deb Moynihan, Peter Wasko, Jeff Meeks & Katherine Lind (DOT) and Eric Wojchik (Met Council).

Some of these agencies are project proposers… determine what info is needed and how it will be used. Before implementation of recommendations – we want input to help facilitate convos on this…  Not final – tech team will continue to refine. Nothing about adaptation or resiliency or category changes, etc. Much more to be done in the future… Elements we considered:

  • GHG Emissions (construction/operation)
  • GHG sources (& % from each)
  • Types of GHG
  • Alt Mitigation measures & justifications
  • Purchase of any renewable energy credits [Credits… push the problem to another part of the globe?]
  • Net lifetime GHG emissions (meeting state/local GHG reduction goals)
  • Contributions from other GHG emission sources

How Info will be used was reviewed: giving info to proposers/consultants to understand design decisions, RGUs to prepare GHG assessments for all, public can meaningfully participate in approval decisions – knowing climate effects! – and govt decision makers can use info for approval decisions. [Do they ever deny??? All this will only be possible if REAL data is provided…]

Barriers include: different calculations methods/references, broad range of project types, Not all RGUs have expertise, existing calculators/tools don’t meet ER Program needs, and financial and staff resources for GHG calculator tools. [#3 is my favorite!!!  What about BS checker from applicant?]

MEQB fix?  2 phases. Phase 1 involves a Qualitative discussion in the EAW form. They’ll even allow voluntary inclusion of QUANTITATIVE GHG emissions! [Voluntary inclusion???]

THEN… once tool is available, a GHG Calculator will expand assessment requirements in the EAW form for projects over 25,000 MT CO2e. [Over what timeframe?  Annual?] 

Alignment with regulatory requirements reviewed (from EPA website…)  [So why do we have to develop our own??? And wait until you see the cost data…]

OMG the cost data!!!  $3000 (Excel SS) to $500,000 (App development)!! And, hey, we don’t have 1-3 years for you you figure this thing out! [Noticing that there is no CHAT to all participants…  VERY CONTROLLED…] Then Denise asks everyone:

Made hummingbird food… sorry – missed some stuff here… came back to questions from Alan Forsberg.

Alan: reducing transport…  Around state different…. Metro – easy but Greater means things are far apart.  Commute 70 miles to Redwood Falls…  Moving freight…  DW: Asking folks to ID alternative mitigation methods considered and why…  Maybe those methods make sense in that location but another site would be different.  About info sharing.  A: Things getting to MN… ethanol plant… lot of moving required for our economy to function. 

Margaret Kelliher (DOT): Do believe starting with a calculator could be very beneficial.  MNDOT has been working with building up to use a GHG calculator for future projects.  Little concern… also have been a Comm very involved in council on technology…  when I hear about an App or program development.  SS is low risk.  Easy way to move fwd quick but benefit for a more complex set of anlysis going with it… 1) Worry about development costs and assuring having resources to do it.  2) are there opps to partner with other orgs across country?  Unique with MEQB but not in looking at climate issues  Strength in numbers working together or building off existing calculator. 3) Any tech – sustainability and updating going fwd – not only up front costs of scoping and such but also plans for truly utilizing a quanitization of GHG – also a legal element to consider – assure we are accounting for ongoing update and support. DW: Limit scope of what we’re asking folks to review, ID calculators that capture reliable data – Climate Registry… Enterprise has used.  How they track and report… Enterprise Sustainability just went through a process to develop a tool for that enterprise.  We did consider updating and maintenance – as science is developing quickly.  Once downloaded, how do we assure latest tool is in use?  Another barrier and challenge.  Not sure of answer.  Looking for your feedback on where to focus convo.  Maybe asses what elements we require at this point.  MAK: Happy to help as we look at expertise… to think through how we want to move forward and beyond.  Appreciate thought put into this.

Dan Huff: Thanks for comments MAK. Lot to look at and sustainability and funding are key.  Timing of Phase 1 & Phase 2.  1 immediately?  What is the timeline?  DW: Implementing this approach would bring a December subcommittee and Board January for Phase 1 implementation.  Challenge is once more detailed assessment is done is that RELIABLE info and good guidance is provided to implement correctly.  Phase 1 could be done early next year – Phase 2 longer – also resource dependent for 1-3 year development of tool.  DH: Need to move and begin to incorporate GHG ASAP.

Aditya Ranade from Commerce: Support Phase 1.  When tool launched, how long is Phase 1?  Potential assessment of operating expenses for calculator to individual projects.  DW: P1 continues for projects under 25mTCO2.  Phase 2 would start when we have a good tool…  (so years down the line… Not soon enough.  They’re still not getting it…)  Chair can amend – we can quicky add requirements and come to chair or board for implementation right away.  Ongoing support/maintenance – good question…  Depends on how we come up with our package for what needs might be – may need a budget item…

Bryan Murdock: Already regulate GHG on some mandatory categories… like phased approach.  Start with those requiring GHG first?  Threshold values – # of animal units? Under X size doesn’t require it?  Not all need to be burdened.  Thresholds would be a great thing.  Mega-emitters first, then roll to smaller makes sense.  LB: At MPCA working through GHG calcs as related to feedlot proposals – ruling with Daley farms – starting to put this in place in our EAW process to evaluate GHG… Start on some of this.  Can look at county… not all sources but some sources… and looks at mitigations applicants are making.  Tools to learn from… 5 different ones… since Daley where we’ve looked at GHG emissions wrt animal feedlot process.

Kristin: really excited about ability to start on Phase 1 – encouraging – can start shifting culture around how GHG fits in ER.  Concerned for Larger projects awaiting Phase 2. From data, how many projects might P2 apply to?  And, if not a large number, possible for tech team to begin working and support evaluation of these larger projects, if not too many.  Dula purpose of not letting things go too far or too long and getting concrete exp with these kinds of assessments.  [GREAT IDEA!] DW: GHG considered under EAW 100mtCO2 leads to ER…  Also for stationary sources that fall under air permitting requirements.  Data on projects including this info… since we don’t prepare docs, we don’t track how they are evaluated…  Don’t have that now.  K: How many MIGHT apply to 25KmTCO2?  DW: Haven’t gone through that – looking through mandatory catagories… will evaluate threshold.  [Dan’s right, they don’t have this answer…]  What gets you to mandatory reporting sector… TBD and how many that exceed that threshold…  Will probably do that.  KE: bears upon all cost issues.  You stated in beginning that you need broader stakeholder convos – who else are you planning to engage? [OOOHHHH!!!] DW: Going to be targeting specific groups – Ag community – many proposers going through.  League of MN Cities and Counties and local Muni govt acting as RGUs,  State RGUs framing and then, more broadly (framework TB developed) doing outreach with Community groups and perhaps focused groups.  [So mainly APPLICANT stakeholders, not AFFECTED PUBLIC… until MAYBE LATER???]  [Back to core values implies you’re not adhering to them now???]

Alan: splitting out… moving oil by rail, counting cost of constructing rail line?  Or eventually when oil will be burned?  DW: Some details ironed out in guidance.  Id’d important threshold and will develop questions for specific factors and guidance for how they are implemented.  RGU decides what info is needed and how it is assessed.  [WHERE IS MEQB OVERSIGHT?]  Alan: Many are complex – how do you not double-count?  DW: Understand. Thank you.

SS: Lots of energy to get moving on this project!  [Kinda late… 646 days since the IPCC report.]  Next time, with guidance – will want to devote adequate time to that discussion of these details.  Will assure we give that.  Like to do… 4 folks seeking public input.  Then F/U later.  3 minutes from scheduled adjourned time – “important to hear from public.”

Public Comments:

Amelia Vohs: Staff atty at MCEA – Allen Anderson – new Climate Program Director.  Thank DW and tech team for hard look and this presentation. Hard work, challenging questions.  Three reactions to presentation today. 1) From advocacy comm, want an QUANTITATIVE analysis ASAP in EAW – even if using existing calculators, even if not as robust as our own developed.  Clear about this analysis.  Since Daley Farms case- working to comment on EAWs to assure GHG analysis is done for projects with significant emissions even though not CURRENTLY ON EAW.  THAT analysis is HAPPENING!  MPCA did it for Daley and others.  Stillwater did a mixed use development GHG analysis.  RGUs are NOT considering GHG – waiting for analysis.  Many respects P1 requires less than what RGUs are ALREADY DOING.  Already seeing quantitative analysis – better than a qualitative – which would be moving backwards.  Guidance for RGUs need to be MORE ROBUST. 2) Recognize existing calculators cannot compute full scope of emissions MN deems relevant.  OK for now.  Emissions that can’t be included – scope 3 emissions – could be included in qualitative discussion while using existing tools.  3) Touch on question of RGUs being able to use these tools.  Stillwater JUST DID A GHG quantification even though no ER for a number of years. Used existing tools.  Even RGUs NOT using regularly are able.  IMPLEMENT NOW.  RGUs START with a quantitative analysis NOW to build knowledge about how to do a GHG analysis and allow community to suggest how analysis can be monitored or improved.  Collective process can help us get better and guide tech team on how to construct for and guidance.  LOVE the idea of our own tool that fits what we want to do in MN but cannot wait for this tool to exist before quantitative analysis starts.  TOO MUCH uncertainty in staffing, funding and time to develop  Cannot condition start on quantitative analysis on THIS uncertainty while other states are performing comparable analyses.  Understand variability of RGUs using different tools.  WE ARE EXPECTING THAT and it’s OK.  REALITY in Env Review variability exists!  By RGU and by modeling – ALL best estimates.  Public understands and accepts this.  Not expecting an objective truth.  May comment and disagree with assumptions made in model but that is true whether we have a specific of MN or existing tool use.  Two shorter points.  From public perspective – investment of resources, quantification is important but using staff tools on robust guidance is more effective.  Assembling reports – that is the type of public info the public needs, that doesn’t exist, and where we’d like to see staff resources devoted.  Support what Denise was mentioning about stakeholder process.  System for public to comment – requires a 2-way convo.  I’m talking AT you but had a productive convo earlier – asking and getting feedback.  Recommendations are better with 2-way with tech team – understanding their barriers – and creating better response based on why they recommend WHAT they recommend.  Monthly stakeholder team to discuss?  Tech and legal staff devoted to researching this – would like a back and forth convo.  SS: Thanks.

Lori Cox: Support of qualitative and quantitative program, particularly with land use and changing ag land uses.  If land were previously tilled but NOW wants to be a feed lot – want to see (Ag member of MDA WQ)  what is AS-IS state and what would GHG be after…  not only for land use – changes – but what else are you mitigating. If tilled 60 years prior – know that GHG – want to know change brought with a feed lot.  When project comes, not just changing GHG from Land/animals but also PRACTICES.  All affects water, soil, well quality.  Water Quality certified farm – always asking how we can do better.  Agri-business needs to ask themselves the same.  Agree with WIDER stakeholder view.  Would not be giving in to any lobby pressure that says “we have to”.  MN, Country and Globally – finding BEST PRACTICES that DO WORK, upheld by SCIENTIFIC DATA.  Recommend this rigorous process.

Willis: Support previous comments.  My primary concern is usable information…  UN climate panel said we had 12 years for siginicant change in course on GHG and carbon capture – now 2 years down range and calculator takes 3 years… 7 years for making a difference.  Focus on precision rather than moving immediately in a new direction to change trajectory on climate impacts.  Emphasis on WRONG PLACE.  Doing best we can with what we have and then making better choices.  Relevancy of Time and  Unless public can put these numbers in context, they are just numbers.  25K, millions over lifetime.  Want to reduce. HOW MUCH is ENOUGH? HOW much is enough SOON ENOUGH in a particular sector.  Need these frames of reference else public input is crippled.  Can’t know if project is begin held accountable for absorption needed.  Incorporate recognizable frames of reference to make them meaningful.  Is reduction fitting with pace of time scientists say we need.  We have statutes but all of us know that statute was best legislature could create but not consistent with science.  Need to know what panels of scientists say on pace and quality of reduction in each economic sector.  Suggest this is down the line… but if you don’t have these numbers in next 3 years, we will have wasted another 3 years!  5 years seems unacceptable to show public if we’re on track for each project.  TIME AND QUANTITY.  Feed lots… know world cannot sustain ag animal units around the world.  When a feedlot comes fwd – in MN, we have this many animals, increasing over time – consistent with number of animals the planet can support over time? If this is NOT in the frame of reference, we are deceiving the public.  They need this frame of reference to be able to effectively participate in the discussion.

Rob Bouta (bowtay): Env consultant – prepped ~100 EAWs over 30 years, City of ? sustainability commission.  Agree with MCEA.  Costs of developing tool – submit also costs of not developing the tool that are much greater over time as they affect the viability of life on earth.  In developing programs, anything the state can do to develop off-the-shelf implementation of mitigation measures would be really helpful to show project performance.  How they can do this, working with their projects – necessary.  Demo projects may be outside the scope of MEQB but Overland College – generates more energy than it uses.  Netherlands developing residential development.  Projects waiting for this… no time to wait.  Sooner the better in getting this done.  Carbon footprint – reference in some materials.  EPA calculator – looked at those as I had to respond… EAWs written by consultants, not RGUs generally.  I selected one by Conservation Int’l – thought it included all types of C generation (solid waste and air travel) not included in MPCA calculator.  MEQB staff can look at this to get in touch with ppl developing calculators to figure HOW to develop for MN.  Lots in CA… not readily adaptable to MN as CA uses energy different with their climate.

Chat discussion was also interesting… just me and the host… as it was for every participant?

[So much for engagement…]

Busy Week of Activism…

23 Monday Sep 2019

Posted by in Citizenship, Climate Change, Local Reporting

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,


This past week has been so full!! And this coming week is too! But I’m hopeful to get some good information out to you all as I get this quickly posted.

On the 17th, I joined Nancy Beaulieu and Gaagigeyashiik Dawn Goodwin as we attended the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council meeting. Their newly selected Executive Director, Shannon Geshick, did a fine job leading the meeting as various Boards, Committees, and State Agencies presented information and ideas for consideration by the Executive Board. As I understand it, this Board is made up of the Chairperson for each Nation (or their representative) and this meeting included, as a result of an Executive Order by the Walz administration, representatives from all State Agencies meeting as “ambassadors” from the State seeking counsel.

Executive Order 19-24:

  • Affirms that the State of Minnesota recognizes and supports the unique status of the Minnesota Tribal Nations and their right to existence, self-govern, and possess self-determination.
  • Directs state agencies to recognize the unique legal relationship between the State of Minnesota and the Minnesota Tribal Nations and respect the fundamental principles that establish and maintain this relationship.     
  • Requires all state agencies to designate Tribal Liaisons that will be able to directly and regularly meet and communicate with the Agency’s Commissioner and Deputy and Assistant Commissioners in order to appropriately conduct government-to-government conversations. 
  • Mandates tribal-relations training for all state leaders and other employees whose work may impact Tribes.

I was impressed by the level of humility expressed by many of the state agency representatives. It seems this group understands that this is a meeting between the State Agencies and the Tribal Nations living within the borders of what the US has designated to be the State of Minnesota. While some may question the “extra attention” being given to Minnesota’s Indigenous leaders, Peggy Flanagan made clear that this administration is simply doing what is legally required. It seems to me that a great turning is coming where Tribal Rights, as set forth in the Treaties signed by the U.S. Government, are finally being honored in the way they were intended, with Nation to Nation consultation and communication.

Image may contain: 3 people, including Dawn Goodwin and Jami Gaither, people smiling, people standing
Gaagigeyashiik photobombs me as I groupie Peggy Flanagan!

I was especially impressed with Mary Cathryn Ricker, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Education. Education and Health Care were two of the most critical issues addressed at this meeting and, along with the work of the Commissioner of Human Rights Rebecca Lucero, I feel much needed attention was given to the Tribal concerns. To give a taste of what the Tribes are facing: One shocking point discussed was that data for the Cass Lake school system went from showing 1100 Native students to 1 – Yes, only ONE! – revealing systematic issues that will require redress by this administration. [And yes, it was assured that all educational funding was correctly applied as the erroneous data was discovered.] There are many initiatives being carried out between the Tribes and the State and it felt like this work, while massive in scope, will be getting some much needed attention.

I next attended the 9-18-19 Minnesota Environmental Quality Board with Willis Matteson, Mike Tauber, Jim Williams, Kathy and Rod Hollander, Jim Doyle and some other fine concerned citizens. [And I can’t say enough about how excited I am to get to know Mike and Jim better in the future – what a couple of great guys! And thanks to Willis for a ride to the Cities!! Look for an upcoming blog on my bus adventures while being car-less there… ] We were happy to run into Winona LaDuke in the lobby as she finished up several days of work in the Cities. And soon after we also met Laura Bishop, Commissioner of the MN Pollution Control Agency, as she headed through the lobby. Gave her one of my handmade cards I’d brought for the meeting!!

On the MEQB agenda were their plans for Fiscal Year 2020-2021, adoption of the MEQB Rule changes (as recommended by the Administrative Law Judge who oversaw this year’s public comment hearings regarding said changes, and which I blogged about in June), authorizing an EQB Environmental Review Implementation Subcommittee, a decision on the Fillmore Solar Project, and an update on their 2020 Water Plan, They also announced their MN Environmental Congress on December 3rd this year. I made comments during the FY20-21 Plan as they have offered an “Emerging issues placeholder” and spoke to the need to deny Line 3 and asking them to do all they can to #StopLine3. I’m hopeful there is something the MEQB can do to ensure Minnesota considers the climate impacts of Line 3… as the MN Public Utilities Commission has failed to do so.

Next I supported the MN Strikes Back Youth Climate Strike and you can see some good photos from the event in case you didn’t make it. I livestreamed and you can go to my FB to see the footage. I was amazed at the organizing skills of these young people but even more impressed by their words, which MPR covered. With speakers covering many topics from climate justice to fears and frustrations to hopes, I was especially struck by the comments regarding what we call this Generation… Generation Z. As if they are the final generation for humanity, which they may well be if we do not act with more urgency, we have called them Gen Z. But they declared they will be “GEN GND”, the Generation for a Green New Deal. I am hopeful they will succeed in their mission.

Image may contain: one or more people, cloud, bicycle, sky, crowd and outdoor
Midway through the Climate March… headed toward the Capitol.

My final stop this week was a multi-day event hosted by Minnesota Interfaith Power and Light. I am so grateful for this 2nd annual event which I was able to attend in full this year.

Saturday I headed down about noontime and met with Alina and enjoyed some quiet talk as we awaited the return of the group that toured Winona’s Hemp and Heritage Farm that morning. [Having gotten home from the Climate Strike about 3:45 AM, I decided to skip that part of the adventure but I look forward to seeing it one day soon!] We had lunch as we listened to Winona LaDuke encourage these faith leaders to do all they can to Stop Line 3 and encourage climate justice that includes recognition of the Treaty Rights of the Anishinaabeg. We then headed out for the Lake George pipe yard visit so that people are aware of the pipe yard location. If Enbridge continues to get approvals from state agencies to build their Tar Sands pipeline, we will want to have people ready to stop this work.

Next I followed to the Wild Rice Tour given by Gaagigeyashiik Dawn Goodwin. She honored me by asking that I assist with her presentation at Upper Rice Lake, just around the corner from the Harn, and it was a joy to hear her speak again. She shared stories of her life and the life of the Anishinaabeg. I was most impressed by the birds that seemingly echoed and enhanced her words with their actions. We were able to observe several ricing parties as she spoke of the Manoomin. She took us also to Lower Rice Lake and the spring where she gathers water.

We headed back in time for dinner and a talk on Treaties by Bob Shimek. I was enlightened by his words and thrilled with his gracious sharing of all the time we needed for questions, even though we lost power as his talk began. It was quite eerie how the storm dramatized the time, though I’m sure Bob would have rather had his talking points more readily available!

Sunday’s Headwaters Vigil brought the event to a close as faith leaders spoke to the importance of protecting our sacred water. After gathering at the Mary Gibbs Visitor Center at Itasca State Park, we proceeded to the Headwaters as a group where we began with Indigenous ceremony. Gaagigeyashiik led us as we prayed together for our water. I watched as the MMIW Staff (seen in the photo above, carried by Lorna Hanes) moved to each leader, seeming to give honor to them. Other faith leaders spoke, sang, and prayed: Ruhel, a Bangladeshi Environmental Activist, (check out Ghandi Mahal in Minneapolis for great food!) called us to prayer sharing a Muslim path; Hassed (sorry if this spelling is incorrect!) led us in singing a Jewish chant, Karen Hutt of the First Universalist Church of Minneapolis shared a short but moving sermon on the intersectionality of environment and race; Shodo Spring, a Soto Zen Priest, shared of us being both the created and the creators, as she too chanted for us in the Buddist tradition. But for me, the most moving piece was Joe Meinholz sharing from the Christian tradition.

As someone who carries religious baggage from multiple bad experiences in the Christian church, I was hesitant to trust the message. I was pleased as Lorna and the MMIW Staff, moved between me and the minister as I felt a protection with this positioning. [It was a deja vu experience from the previous day where she’d walked between me and a crazy-acting dude reading from the bible on the steps of the Capitol after the Youth Climate Strike participants has dispersed.] But I was graced by Joe’s words. I am hopeful to see them published somewhere so that all can be healed by them. His humble acknowledgement of the good-intentioned harms caused by Christians, specifically mentioning the boarding schools, in their interactions with the Indigenous, brought me to tears. His blessing continued as he spoke and went a good way to helping me feel as if we may me able to heal all the rifts in this world. It was beautiful to watch as he closed and Lorna spoke some words into his ear, pointing up at the Eagle flying high above us, that came as he spoke. Many were in tears.

Joe was the first person I hugged and thanked following the ceremony’s close with an Indigenous Water Prayer. It was a long, warm, healing hug for us both. I am so grateful to this human for his kind and healing words.

I cannot put into words the healing, hope, encouragement, and blessing I gained from this entire week of activism. The memories and stories of this week will carry me a long way forward as I continue my work and as I continue to learn where I can best be of help in the movement.

I wish for you all an understanding and peace that helps us as we work to save our home planet for our continued existence.