Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Here's what transpired at the House Mining & Outdoor Recreation Policy Committee meeting yesterday

Check out this website for an article about the frac sand proceedings in St. Paul yesterday.  See especially Lynn Schoen's three minutes of testimony:

http://theuptake.org/2015/01/27/mn-towns-ignored-in-frac-sand-mining-debate-says-wabasha-city-council-member/

Then read Katie Himanga's excellent summary below...Jeanne

"Here's what transpired at the House Mining & Outdoor Recreation Policy Committee meeting yesterday:

Industry representatives included CEOs, attorneys, Presidents and the like from Minnesota's largest companies. Several stated how pleased they were to be INVITED to testify at the hearing. Many, perhaps all, had prepared statements that they read into the record.

Several legislatures used time for questions to make effusive statements of support for the industries represented rather than ask a questionSome made statements (generally couched as questions) that reflect a lack of understanding of SE Minnesota geology, misinformation about the Silica Rule-Making Advisory Panel and, more than anything, bias in favor of industry.

Unimen paid Dr. John Richard, PhD, PE, QSTI Air Control Techniques of North Carolina to come to to the hearing (they had secured a slot on the agenda for him) and testify about air emissions. One legislator was informed enough to ask about the smallest particle sizes. Dr. Richard's had to shorten his presentation because other speakers had run long
Agency professionals from the EQB and PCA gave updates on the Rule-Making process. The DNR was asked to come back to another meeting due to time constraints

As a result of citizen complaints to the Committee, a few minutes were added to the meeting and citizens allowed to speak. Speakers from our area were Amy Nelson, Lynn Schoen and me. Amy and Lynn addressed the inappropriateness of a hearing on this subject with no time scheduled for citizen or local government input. I addressed reclamation.
The Chairperson made a point of mentioning that the Land Stewardship Project was invited to speak but had declined (they'd been told they could speak for 2 minutes during citizen input which is much different that equal-time-for-citizens that LSP requested)

My impression: the "informational meeting" was for the purpose of grooming legislators; preparing them to discredit the work of the Silica Rule-Making Advisory Panel, fight the adoption of Rules, continue with industry status quo and still be able to sleep at night.

Industry representatives have been respectful participants in the rule-making process, but I cannot imagine that they plan to do anything other than fight tooth-and-nail against adoption.

Katie"

No comments:

Post a Comment