• About Me
  • What I Believe…

Retired at 45

~ My thoughts… in case you wondered.

Retired at 45

Tag Archives: MEQB

…as is the Governor’s Climate Change Subcabinet

26 Monday Oct 2020

Posted by JamiG4 in Citizenship, Climate Change, Local Reporting, Saving the Earth

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Commissioner BIshop, Governor Walz, Laura Bishop, MDNR, MDOC, MEQB, MPCA, Office of Legislative Auditors


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.

Advertisement

Spread the Word!!

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • More
  • Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

MEQB Still Broken…

19 Monday Oct 2020

Posted by JamiG4 in Citizenship, Climate Change, Human Extinction, Local Reporting, Saving the Earth

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Governor Walz, Kevin Pranis, LIUNA, MEQB


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?

Spread the Word!!

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • More
  • Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

The MEQB is Broken…

14 Monday Sep 2020

Posted by JamiG4 in Citizenship, Climate Change, Human Extinction, Politics, Racism, Saving the Earth

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Laura Bishop, MDNR, MEQB, MPCA, Public Engagement, Treaty Rights, Water Rights, Winter's Doctrine


Following the 9/9/20 Minnesota Environmental Quality Board meeting, I decided I needed to speak out about the travesty I witnessed.

Here’s what I have to say.

I find the MEQB’s lack of public engagement disturbing and sickening. 

Where was the accountability of the MEQB Citizen Board Members in assuring a public voice was heard on the 2020 Water Plan?  As public appointees are they not beholden to assure the PUBLIC has a chance to share our concerns before a vote is made? Did they not see the raised hands in the WebEx? Did they feel no urgency to stop the vote so the public concerns could be addressed? In the end, only Ben Yawakie seemed to hear and heed the public outcry that day.

I have provided time stamps [h:mm:ss format] for referenced happenings in the partial MEQB recording of the meeting. 

I will grant that the MEQB allowed public comment on the 2020 Water Plan.  However, the meeting’s disabled Chat function allowed no interaction from the public.  In fact, after my Raised Hand was ignored for some time, I emailed their tech guy – who I know – to ask for help with being able to comment. The derailing of the MEQB process during the meeting gave clear evidence to how little time and consideration was truly being offered by the MEQB for public input. 

I’d like to highlight two speakers in particular from the day as they each raise issues pertinent to the way the process derailed in not allowing for true public engagement.  

In the 2020 State Water Plan, you recognize treaties with the Anishinaabe people, stating ‘the ability to exercise those treaty rights depends on clean water and healthy ecosystems.’ What is omitted is how you are going to ensure the health of ecosystems and clean water. 

As you acknowledge in the Water Plan, the Ojibwe word, ‘nibi’, means life-giving force. You follow that with, ‘This worldview contrasts with economic and political systems that value private property and often view land and water as commodities to buy, sell, and use.’ That is exactly what Enbridge is doing with Line 3–a climate change and water disaster that falls disproportionately on Indiginous people. How is it possible that this Water Plan talks about climate change but makes no mention of fossil fuel infrastructure, a major contributor to climate change and a threat to our water? 

In the wake of George Floyd’s murder, it is our time of awakening to the trifecta of race, pandemic and climate injustice. There is no denying the privilege that is represented in the, primarily white, EQB staff, appointees and agency leaders. No one gets a pass–we are all responsible for upholding treaties. 

Have white courage, use your privilege! Take this opportunity to put treaties at the forefront and create a State Water Plan that is, like our water, a life-giving force to ensure healthy ecosystems and clean water for all!”

Jaci Christenson (18:30)

Jaci was followed by Joe. 

Commend all of your work on a bold vision… yet I feel the cognitive dissonance I think we all feel in this plan where we address half of the problem, where we want to prepare MN waters for climate change but not prevent Climate Change or interrupt the fossil fuel infrastructure that is causing climate change that means the end of wild rice as we know it.” [This is critical when it comes to later concerns raised.]

Joe couldn’t help but feel “…in writing this aspirational plan that we’re running out of time to defend the waters that we claim to protect. … With decisions like Line 3, Commissioner Bishop, I’d just just ask the simple question of, “What is your plan in Fall 2020 with the 401 permit for Line 3 to stand up with these aspirations, particularly as we just held a Contested Case Hearing that refused to look at climate change or Treaty rights, which are both so important to this Water Plan?” 

Joe Meinholz (21:54)

Chair Bishop: “Thank you.” [Note:  To this point in the meeting, each speaker received a simple “thank you” from Chair Bishop after they spoke.  No dialogue and certainly no response to the questions asked.]

Nine (9) additional speakers were to follow (mind you, some of us had still not been recognized for our wish to speak at that time).  However, following the next speaker, Keegan Robinson, Commissioner Bishop noted: 

We should stick to the Water Plan and not the individual actions and projects. But I appreciate the comments from everybody here, certainly understand and hear your concerns about protection of water and certainly that is the intention with the Water Plan is to outline ways to protect our waters and how we go forwards.  So I appreciate all of you raising this but I do think that specific right now to a specific project and outlining that in the Water Report as well as the comments that we’re receiving on Line 3 seem to be a bit beyond the Water Plan itself as it is pertaining to a specific project.”

MEQB Chair Laura Bishop (25:53)

She then asked Katie how to move forward noting, “With any of the public comments, I would like to keep it on the Water Plan itself.” Katie Pratt (MEQB Executive Director) noted “several other agenda items” and that “we have a clear message” (as her phone rings in the background – someone calling to get their voice heard?) and she finishes saying, “I think we could consider moving on to our next agenda items and leaving time at the end for additional public comment.” [Remember this promise…] (27:25) Chair Bishop agreed, noting the Board would do that “unless there is a comment beyond Line 3 that we’ve missed. I appreciate this is an opportunity to talk about water protection and certainly that is the intention of any permits that are reviewed by the agency, it is with the intention to protect water as well. I’d suggest that we move on to the next agenda item.”

[At this point we still have multiple people remaining to speak. I was unable to get access to speak because the Chat in the Webex was disabled. My Raised Hand in the WebEx went ignored, as did the Raised Hands of others online.]

Nookomis joins from the phone (27:57) asking to say a few words.  Chair Bishop eventually (28:18) recognizes Nookomis for comment asking for a restatement of name for the record.  


Before I go on,  let’s be clear: Comments from the public recognized valid concerns ~ concerns that went unanswered, over and over, as Chair Bishop was asked about where the mitigation for the causes of climate change were captured, specifically with regard to fossil fuel infrastructure, in the 2020 Water Plan. 

Minnesotans care deeply about their water as evidenced by the recent Statewide Resident Survey Report from the University of Minnesota. While that report focused on agricultural concerns, the strong opposition to major infrastructure projects like mining and pipelines has been expressed at the MEQB for many, many months now. Even later in this meeting, similar concerns were raised on the Silica Sand Mine in Fillmore County.

Many Minnesotans also value wild rice. And many of those Indigenous to this land rely on it, some for their very survival. Yet by mid-2018 the MPCA had “withdrawn its proposal to change the water quality standard designed to protect wild rice from adverse impacts due to sulfate pollution. The Timberjay reported 18 months ago that the Minnesota Legislature was taking back steps on protecting wild rice.

As Willis Mattison noted during the meeting, public comment is not engagement.  Engagement entails dialogue.  As was reported in previous work, public engagement is CRITICAL to reaching to effective solutions that protect environmental and human health. 

Summary of Input from May 1, 2019 Environmental Quality Board Meeting

Our asks continue to go unheeded. Year after year. As water quality continues to deteriorate. In fact, as the recent PUC Public Engagement Report from the Office of Legislative Auditor clarified, the agencies are not following the law in their work.

July 2020 Summary of the OLA report on PUC’s Public Participation Processes, pg. S-3

As Nookomis began (28:25), she introduced herself in Ojibwemowin first and then translated to English.  Nookomis Debra Topping – an enrolled and recognized Fond du Lac Band Member ~ Fog Woman from Eagle Clan – called to hold the Board responsible for and accountable to their Treaty obligations.  She first asked about the Winter’s Doctrine and if there is any Indigenous membership on the Board.  

In Winters, the Supreme Court examined tribal rights to water associated with the Fort Belknap Reservation located in what would later become Montana. The Fort Belknap Reservation was created by an agreement in 1888 between tribal parties and the U.S. government. At the time, the government had a policy seeking to transform Native Americans from “a nomadic and uncivilized people … to become a pastoral and civilized people” by providing them lands to develop for such purposes. 

By 1905, the area experienced water shortages that ultimately resulted in the Winters lawsuit being filed to enforce tribal rights to water against non-Indian water users who had been diverting water from the region. In announcing its decision, the Court explained that the lands provided under the agreement for the purpose of developing an agrarian society “were arid and, without irrigation, were practically valueless.” The Court also noted that ambiguities in the agreement, such as the status of the water rights related to the land, are to be “resolved from the standpoint of the Indians,” as a rule of interpretation. The Court held that:

The power of the Government to reserve the waters and exempt them from appropriation under the state laws is not denied, and could not be. That the Government did reserve them we have decided, and for a use which would be necessarily continued through the years.

The Court has continued to recognize the principle derived from Winters in both Indian and nonIndian contexts. In 1976, the Court noted that it “has long held that when the Federal Government withdraws its land from the public domain and reserves it for a federal purpose, the Government, by implication, reserves appurtenant water then unappropriated to the extent needed to accomplish the purpose of the reservation.” 

The Winters Doctrine of Reserved Water Rights

(29:58) Ben Yawakie, 3rd Congressional District Citizen Board Member, noted he is an enrolled citizen of the Pueblo Zuni and also a descendant of Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa and he later clarified that he was not familiar with the Winter’s Doctrine. 

Nookomis continued, inquiring if there had been any Tribal consultation, noting both MN Statutes 103B.151 Coordinating Water Resource Planning and 103A.43 as making no specific mention of Tribal Consultation.  She asked if that meant it will not happen, even if it’s in the Plan. She said, “When you’re asking for the resolution to be approved, it does not say anywhere that you have to have Tribal consultation.”  The third statute she noted – 103A.204 Groundwater Policy – gave her hope for Tribal consultation as it included a list of those specifically responsible for Groundwater Policy.  

Maybe this is it! Maybe this is where we come in… number 4 is the Board of Water and Soil Resources, in there it says ‘local government officials’ so… maybe there’s where I come in at? … Nowhere does it say … that you have to do Tribal consultation.  I understand that you have done it… it’s in the 2020 Water Plan.  I do not see… anything in there about the Winter’s Doctrine.” 

Nookomis (31:30)

Nookomis ended asking if Mr. Yawakie knew about the Winter’s Doctrine. (33:35) Citizen Board Member Ben Yawakie, answered: “Nookomis… I personally do not.”

Commissioner Bishop mentioned Erik Cedarleaf Dahl, an Indigenous MEQB staff member, as well, though he did not respond.  Nookomis then asked if anyone on the Board knew of the Winter’s Doctrine, as knowing it would help them understand where they stand with her water on her reservation.  She spoke also of the smell and taste of gas and oil in the rice from Sandy Lake. (34:50) At this point, Commissioner Bishop talked over Nookomis for a full twenty seconds, expressing thanks as Nookomis continued speaking in the background. Then Nookomis finished with thanks.  [I was astonished at how humble Nookomis remained, after being so summarily and disrespectfully dismissed.]

There ensued a back and forth between Ms. Bishop and Ms. Pratt regarding the concerns Nookomis brought forth. Ms. Pratt mentioned both that the Water Plan is a “starting point, not ending point” and that Executive Order 19-24 directs state agencies to recognize and properly interact with the Sovereign Nations in MN. [However, this document makes no mention of the MEQB.] She also noted that the Water Plan actions are recommendations which will be implemented and that will include appropriate tribal engagement.  [Recommendations implies no requirements for action? This is not making me feel confident at all…]

(37:00) Chair Bishop then noted some necessary minor adoptions on Goals 5 & 3 to wrap up the work on adopting the plan. … Fisheries mgmt clarification and inclusion of insurance in the role of risk mitigation for climate change, with staff discretion to make these corrections. Then (37:50) she asked for a motion to adopt with these changes, which was moved by Thom Peterson and seconded by Al Forsberg.  

This is the point (38:38) at which Willis Mattison objected to the proceedings, asking to file a formal objection, pointing out the Staff and Board had obviously not allocated sufficient time for public participation during the last MEQB meeting or this meeting regarding the Plan and its deficiencies. He said he “understands expediency… nevertheless, the public is important.” He noted this appears to be a railroad job, disrespectful to the engagement policy when dialogue is not allowed.  He filed a major objection.  (40:08) Ms. Bishop allowed him to speak once he assured her his comments were not for Line 3 but the Plan.

NOTE: The fact that a formal public objection – to the Water Plan vote being taken – was simply dismissed by MEQB Chair Bishop – with NO Board discussion – was perhaps our second best indicator during the meeting that the public voice was not truly wanted.

The best indicator was when Chair Bishop entertained a motion to adjourn (2:35:47) at the end of the meeting, giving NO ALLOWANCE for those in the public who, earlier in the meeting, were promised a chance to speak at the end. [I was one of many who remained online awaiting a chance to be heard.]

The MEQB is Badly Broken

Mr. Mattison, a retired ecologist from the MPCA, made an excellent point that the 2020 Water Plan, while it “had much to compliment in its ecological wisdom”, was clearly and simply another example, similar to previously passed aspirational plans, that lack metrics for true accountability, and which have gotten us to where we are today.  Today, where we face a continued loss of quality waters and wetlands and where an insect apocalypse portends humanity’s own fragile state on the planet. These are things we citizens have discussed many times with the MEQB in recent years. Mr. Mattison notes that, without incorporation of these concerns, the Water Plan is “flawed and useless”.  A strategic plan is worthless unless there are metrics for accountability to the achievements.  He asked if the MEQB had willingness to expand plans where citizens can hold agencies accountable.

(45:40) Chair Bishop responded but allowed no dialogue, saying to Mr. Mattison, “Your three minutes is up.” 

I was stunned by this dismissal of a retiree from Commissioner Bishop’s own department, the MPCA, a department that itself is under great scrutiny, including consideration for investigation this very year by the Office for Legislative Auditor.  This was the detail on that suggested investigation:


While the Chair did allow for two additional comments (41:20) on the Water Plan after this additional urging that citizens be heard, I still awaited even recognition of my desire to speak. [I began to re-write my comments… which eventually led to this blog.]

(46:05) Lori Cox explained that the Water Plan’s words “ensure and manage mean something is going to be done. In agriculture we have a tough time saying that those things are going to be managed or ensured.”  “We continually see the words “voluntary” in agriculture. And that has been used repeatedly… the stakeholders have been loud about that, however we still… with MPCA numbers and very great coordination and statistics by state agencies, have shown that we’re not really moving the line there.”  She asked, noting these are almost promises using the words “manage and ensure about water quality”, that the Board take a look at the wording in Agriculture, and expressed concern that, if approved today, the plan would not bring change.

I’m not positive that there would be much more change, with all of the great recommendations, suggestions, programs that are already there and have been for years, that we’re really gonna move the needle.”

Lori Cox (48:16)

(49:06) Gearhardt Robinson, recent U of MN grad with a BS in sustainable systems management with an emphasis on energy systems, expressed that there was very comprehensive information in the Plan. However, for the Plan to be meaningful, it must not only mitigate the effects of climate change, but target the root causes of it… something well within our capabilities and authorities to do.  (51:28) He congratulated the work of Commissioner Kelley of the DOC in re-filing the Appeal for Line 3 and urged ALL Commissioners to do what they could to file suits, deny permits, and do all the things in their power to protect Minnesotans and our water quality.

“To me it seems this plan isn’t really much of a plan, it’s kind of just abstract goals that really don’t have tangible ways to achieve them.”

Gearhardt Robinson (50:41)

(51:40) Gearhardt also noted that the use of the word “attack” [by Margaret Anderson Kelliher] in regard to the commenters asking for MPCA Commissioner Bishop to uphold her accountability to the public, was an interesting choice of words – one that implied some sort of violence.  He noted that what the citizens speaking up today are doing is not “violent”, but simply “help you make the right decision that will prevent violence against Indigenous Peoples, against land, and against all future generations.”  

52:05/52:12) Chair Bishop then cut him off saying, “Thank you. Mr. Robinson, I appreciate that and … you talk about climate resilience and we do have another inter-agency group, the Climate Subcabinet that is working on larger plans that address climate.”  [To my knowledge, that Climate Subcabinet has yet to be populated with membership or take any actions. I’ve never been contacted on my own submission… though it looks like there are 231 applications now, so perhaps I’m on the list yet to be contacted?]

Each agenda item in the meeting – not only the 2020 Water Plan, but also the Minnesota Sands, LLC project and the 2020 State Agency Pollinator Report –  showed that the MEQB and its agencies are NOT fulfilling their missions. This brought me deja vu to the May 1st, 2019   MEQB where Chuck Dayton, co-founder of this work, remonstrated that the original intentions for the MEQB were not being upheld these many decades later.  He indicated that the MEQB needed to re-evaluate their work to figure out why they were failing. He noted a lack of effective Environmental Review, with very few EIS, and an apparent inability to connect scientific dots to make decisions to prevent water quality deterioration.

As we watch water quality deteriorate and agencies make decisions based on checksheets that do not represent the complexity of the decisions being made, we see our young people standing up more and more – screaming for those in power to heed their cries to save the planet.  They are watching as groups like the MEQB make decisions that wipe away their futures. 

So, rather than push the vote to the end of the meeting, when ALL Water Plan commenters could be heard, Chair Bishop pushed through the vote before hearing the full public voice, making no response to the questions asked, and then closing the meeting asking for a motion to adjourn before she returned to those still awaiting their chance to speak on the Water Plan. [Note: (2:36:10) Gerald Van Amberg, Board of Water and Soil Resources Chair, moved to adjourn and Kristen Eide-Tollefson seconded.]

The only Board member to speak to Nookomis’ concerns was Kristen Eide-Tollefson, 2nd Congressional District Citizen Board Member.  She asked (53:11) if an addition could be made for Tribal consultation to the necessary discrete section. Erik Cedarleaf Dahl noted the section on Page 23 of the Plan which explained how the Tribal Consultation would occur. The fact that this Board is working on Minnesota issues but IGNORING their obligations to Federal Law, as explained by Nookomis in her questions on the Winter’s Doctrine, seemed a good reason to stop the vote… though it did not.

And how disturbing was that vote?  Unanimous… save ONE LONE vote of NAY from Ben Yawakie, an Indigenous Member of the Board.  The only response from the Board was to ask him to re-state his vote. [As if in disbelief that he’d voted “nay”?] A short silence followed as no one asked for more clarity from Ben on his vote and then… business moved on to the next agenda item.  There has not been a more CLEAR example in all my MEQB experience of the Native voice being summarily ignored as I bore witness to in the 9/9/20 meeting. 

The MEQB might want to ask themselves what the ramifications are for ignoring a US Supreme Court decision.  I’ve often thought, this Line 3 fight ~ and perhaps Polymet too, could end up being quite costly for the state of Minnesota, as its agencies collude with foreign corporations to push unnecessary pipeline and mining projects throughout Northern Minnesota Indian Country, all in violation of Federal Law.  

Perhaps Commissioner Kelley could have saved Minnesota taxpayers a lot of money in winning the case in State Court that there is No Need for Line 3… before the project goes on to Federal Court? Senate Republicans may end up regretting “executing” him – to use the Republican House Leader Daudt’s word – by not confirming him to his Commission at the Department of Commerce.  I am hopeful the Department is strong enough to continue their good work, though they’ve experienced an unconscionable dismissal of their wonderfully effective and caring leader, something harder and harder to find these days. 

As I indicated in my last note to MEQB Project Coordinator Giuseppe Tumminello, on their Environmental Review Data Mgmt Program, it seems that agencies and governments move too slow to keep pace with the changing planet. Gardhardt’s testimony at the meeting – that more of California was on fire than EVER in our recorded history – was alarming.  And we’re only now at the start of the fire season.  We have almost contiguous fire along the West Coast of our country from Canada to Mexico, but the MEQB, MPCA & MDNR seemed geared to go full steam ahead on their failing programs and plans that will dramatically increase climate effects in our state and for our planet as a whole. 

If we are to have a hope to save our natural environment for continued human support, the MQEB and ALL Minnesota agencies, politicians, and citizens are gonna have to get a lot more serious about solutions. 

And, as I have assured Giuseppe in recent emails, it may well be that, in the end, we resolve this with pitchforks. It seems to be the only way in America these days.


Update 9-16-2020:

Interviewing Nookomis subsequent to the meetings about her testimony allowed me to better understand her points:

  • There were 15 speakers at MEQB and all expressed concerns about theWater Plan.  
  • At one time there were 96 attendees in the meeting.
  • The Board voted with only one vote heeding the speakers.  
  • Changes are being seen in the manoomin (wild rice), which is a product of its environment – like us all.  Rice from Sandy Lake smells of gas and oil. Rice from Fond du Lac doesn’t smell or taste oily.
  • Understanding the Winter’s Doctrine allows the MEQB to comprehend their MORAL AND LEGAL obligations to Fond du Lac reservation, its Members, and the waters that serve them. These are Federal obligations to assure water rights for the Indigenous, as upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States.
  • If Manoomin (wild rice) is not protected, it will not thrive.  Once Manoomin is gone, so is Anishinaabeg.  THAT is the genocide ~ a systematic and purposeful elimination of a Culture and and a People.

What she said while Laura spoke over her was this: 

What I wanted to say is that I’m done being invisible.  I don’t care if you try to over talk me, I’m done being invisible!  You can come here any time.  You will hear me and you will see me for as long as I live.  And you need to be able to say what I’m doing, seeing. Yes. I appreciate you listening. Thank you. Thank you very much.”

When asked of the discussion on personal “attack” during the meeting, Nookomis shared that these words resonated with her.  These agencies and boards are responsible to protect the water.  NOT protecting her WATER is a PERSONAL ATTACK!  It is also a violation of Treaty Law, the highest law of the land.   Nookomis said, “My legal rights are not dependent on your personal feelings. You are personally attacking me by poisoning my water.”

She wondered aloud how the schooling of these Commissioners had failed them as they seemed to not be able to comprehend simple concepts like water, soil, and food being connected to human health… let alone the larger connections to the climate of the planet as a whole.  

Nookomis further expressed that “Commissioner Bishop is in over her head and does not understand all she needs to know, in order to do her job to PROTECT MINNESOTA’S WATER.  THAT is her only job.  Water quality indicates she is derelict in her duties.  This is not just on the reservation but affects every single Minnesotan. 5.6 Million people. The 15 people on the call represented that concern.  300 written comments seemed acceptable to the MPCA.  “That’s how many people I have in my immediate family!”, she said.

She also noted that there was no explanation of the 1837, 1854, & 1855 ceded territories in the Plan.  She offered to walk the line (proposed route) with anyone, any time, any day. She said you might want to pack a big lunch!

She noted as well that there was no mention of Tribal Fisheries in the discussion of modifications needed.  The list of things left unsaid was long, she lamented.


We have a long way to go to solutions, indeed. But Let’s Get to BETTER!*

* “Met” Chrysta Casteneda today at a talk that could help that MEQB comprehend what major issues they are not seeing… as the landscape on oil and gas becomes very fluid.


Update 10-16-21:

Looks like Tribes and Environmentalists lose again…

The federal Environmental Protection Agency this week approved dramatic changes in Minnesota’s water quality rules. 

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency worked on the revisions for ten years and formally proposed the changes last winter. But the federal approval has left environmental activists reeling. 

Minnesota has a set of rules that apply to industries, wastewater treatment plants, anyone who discharges significant quantities of wastewater into a stream or lake. The rules are designed to protect water quality, and they typically set numeric limits on such things as salts, pH, calcium, magnesium, chloride and other elements. The new rules eliminate many of the numeric limits and instead call for a narrative description, which typically describes the general conditions desired in the water body.

Paula Maccabee, advocacy director for Water Legacy, a nonprofit watchdog that follows environmental issues, said she can’t understand the approval. The organization sent detailed comments to the MPCA as it was developing the rules and to the EPA as it was considering the rule changes. “I simply believe it is not only dangerous for Minnesota but a violation of the Clean Water Act,” she said. “And why neither of those facts were salient to the EPA, I can’t fathom.” 

MinnPost EPA signs off on major changes to Minnesota’s water quality rules 10-15-21

And Enbridge STILL hasn’t repaired the Clearbrook Terminal Aquifer Breach they created 1/21/21… though the deadline to avoid fines ended yesterday… same day as these rule changes. Hmmm. And we wonder why a child killed a government leader in the UK recently? A friends says, “Start killing politicians and they’ll figure out we’re serious.” Never have liked the idea… but feels like he’s more right every day. We’ll see what happens in the UK.

Good luck, Everbody.

Spread the Word!!

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • More
  • Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

MEQB ERIS July 15, 2020

20 Monday Jul 2020

Posted by JamiG4 in Citizenship, Climate Change, Human Extinction, Local Reporting, Saving the Earth

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Environmental Review, Line 3, MEQB, Minnesota, MN DNR, MN DOT, MPCA


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…]

Spread the Word!!

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • More
  • Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

Busy Week of Activism…

23 Monday Sep 2019

Posted by JamiG4 in Citizenship, Climate Change, Local Reporting

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Joe Meinholz, Karen Hutt, Line 3, MEQB, MIAC, Minnesota Indian Affairs Council, MNIPL, Shannon Geshick, Shodo Spring, Water Ceremony, Willis Matteson


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.

Spread the Word!!

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • More
  • Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

Blog at WordPress.com.

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Follow Following
    • Retired at 45
    • Join 109 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Retired at 45
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

    %d bloggers like this: