This is not an Action Alert from Leauge of Women Voters, rather we are providing information on a pending goverment action that our readers may decide to comment on, with information from other organizations.  Note that the comment deadline is May 18.  

A recent email from the Water Protection Network urges readers to comment on a rule being proposed by EPA.  (MRN's appeal follows this paragraph, verbatim.)  This rule would set standards for the types of scientific research that can be used in environmental decision making.  On its face, it would make sense for EPA to define the level of  research that will be used  - as we are seeing now with covid research it seems that there is often incomplete, inconclusive or even conflicting conclusions that come out regularly.  It's important that the research that is used in decision-making reflects the current scientific understanding on a particular topic.  But if the constraints work to systematically exclude certain types of research, the quality of decision making is diminished.  So, here's the call-to-action paragraph from the Mississippi River Network

"Take Action Against EPA's Secret Science Rule
At a time when the importance of sound science-based decision-making is painfully clear, the Trump administration has proposed a rule that would impose sweeping restrictions on the types of scientific studies that can inform the regulatory decision-making process. Instead of "strengthening transparency" as the proposal claims to do, it is instead designed to "keep highly respected and peer-reviewed scientific studies from informing government decisions on public health and environmental protection" (Bruce Stein, NWF).

• Read the proposed rule from the EPA: "Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science"
• Take action: Submit a comment through regulations.gov here by the May 18 comment deadline, or through one of these action pages from WPN members National Wildlife Federation and NRDC.
• Learn more from WPN member Environmental Law & Policy Center: In Public Health Crisis, Trump Administration Continues Attacks on Public Health Studies"

Following the links in this paragraph leads the reader to EPA's proposal in the Federal Register and a March 23, 2020, blog post by  Ann Mesnikoff of the Environmental Law and Policy Center.  Reading the EPA proposal it is hard to sort out what there is to be concerned about.  There is a link in Ann's blog post taking the reader to Ann's December 4, 2019 post, where she provides more background on the rule.  She says, "The rule requires all of the data underpinning EPA legislation to be publicly available or otherwise replicable. However, there are multiple reasons why some studies can’t be replicated or made fully available. Privacy rules and patient protections prevent individual health data from being released. Raw data or original conditions may no longer exist, such as lead exposure from leaded gasoline, which has been banned now for decades. Scientific research is built around long-term and health-based research, so there are long-established methods for evaluating in these situations. The new “transparency” rule would not lead to more transparent research; it would only bar EPA from using critical scientific information."

This action is just one of a myriad of ways that the rules protecting our air, land and water are being weakened.  Sigh.  Push back will be timely,.  
 
Picture below - How institutions are approaching scientific research during Covid-19 

In Minnesota, more than 75 environmental and public interest non-profits have banded together to form the Minnesota Environmental Partnership.  This organization strengthens member effectiveness and builds collective power to secure a healthy environment for all Minnesotans.  MEP achieves this mission by providing forums for collaboration and offering capacity building services that make our member groups, and our coalition, stronger. They create and organize various services, including communications and capacity building trainings, meetings for our members with policy makers, news and information gathering, networking opportunities, and more.  League of Women Voters Minnesota is a member of MEP; LWV UMRR participates in MEP activities through this link.  

This blog post and the post "Line 3 Comment Period Extended" are from a March 28 MEP "Environmental Insider" email by Matt Doll, and are reproduced here with his permission.  Line 3, an Enbridge pipeline that runs through northern Minnesota is in need of upgrade and repair.  This post focuses on the permitting of of a proposed copper-nickel mine adjoining the Boundary Waters Canoe Area along the Canadian border. ​  

The LWV US Tool Kit for Climate Action is an excellent resource for getting started.   Take some time to explore this website - the menu on the right has links to a wide array of information, advice and examples.  

The upper Upper Mississippi  is that part of the Mississippi that starts at the Headwaters and flows to the Twin Cities.  Water quality in the upper Upper Mississippi River is very good.  The river, especially in the furthest north reaches, is protected by extensive forests and wetlands.  But threats to this river are growing - threats from land conversion and development.  The river is in danger of becoming polluted, like the Minnesota, which would endanger the water supply of millions of Minnesotans as well as damage this invaluable natural resource.

Matt Gladue's talk at the Annual Meeting engaged the audience in understanding the value of the upper Upper Mississippi - in the heart and soul of Minnesotans, as the source of drinking water for millions, and as an invaluable natural resource for wildlife and recreation.  The threats to the river are many, but it is within the power of Minnesotans to make a changes that will save the river.  

The Nature Conservancy has a big idea for saving the river.  They have identified critical conservation lands, about 2% of the land in the watershed, that if protected from development or restored to forest will help to protect the river.  Matt talked about this project, and that The Nature Conservancy is working on doing grass-roots organizing to develop public support.  They are also seeking organizations to partner with them in this effort.  To learn more about TNC's big idea, click here.

The videos below are broken up in part because Matt provided discussion periods during his talk and in part due to technical difficulties that resulted in small gaps.  

Foxconn​:  LWV Wisconsin has lead LWV efforts to oppose the withdrawal of more than 7 million gallons per day of Lake Michigan water for this new industrial development near Racine.  LWV Lake Michigan is party to the Petition seeking reconsideration by WI DNR.  LWV Upper Mississippi has made a resolution in opposition, and will continue to find ways to work against this transfer.  You can read the resolution here. 

LWV UMRR will be traveling to southeastern Wisconsin for our February Board meeting.  We will seek to meet with Leagues in the area to talk about the project, get an update and see how the recent change of administration in Wisconsin may affect things.  Once the plans for this meeting are set, we will share them here on our 'Upcoming Events" page.   There are three previous blog posts on Foxconn:  

• Foxconn Update - the scale of the plant is shrinking...
• Foxconn takes Wisconsin by storm
• Update on the Racine diversion

​The Cedar Rapids Gazette has dedicated resources to reporting on the progress of the twelve states that have agreed to work toward a 45% reduction in the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus discharged to the Mississippi, with a goal of reducing the 'dead zone' in the gulf. 

This is an excellent series of articles, and is highly recommended to be read in their entirety. 

​The Gazette keeps their content behind a pay wall, however, allowing only so many 'reads' for free, and then requiring subscription at the introductory rate of $.99 for the first month.  Here's a link to the articles - well worth checking into.  



​All that said, now here on the blog we will attempt to provide a summary - or maybe a teaser - with quotes and illustrations from the Cedar Rapids Gazette.   The main article  looks at what's being done and where, and how little progress is being made despite lots of sound and fury and expense.  We also add here some information on what is happening in Minnesota, the headwaters state, where implementation is incremental at best, and positive results seen only on a small scale while the larger problem grows.  

​The article starts off with a problem statement:  "A government task force said in 2008 it would cut nitrate and phosphorus pollution 45 percent by 2015 — both to help the Gulf of Mexico, where the nutrients have created a sprawling dead zone in which wildlife cannot survive — and to protect the health and safety of Midwest waters. Now 10 years later, the dead zone is growing, the 45 percent goal has been shoved back 20 years and, although millions have been spent in nearly every state along the Mississippi River, it’s not clear any progress is being made, a four-month investigation by The Gazette found."

“The Gulf’s oxygen-deprived dead zone, called that because fish and other organisms must swim away or die, has an average size over the past five summers of 5,772 square miles. That’s three times larger than the task force’s goal of about 1,900 square miles.  The group established the 45-percent reduction in nitrate and phosphorus running into the Mississippi because that’s what scientists think is needed to shrink the dead zone.

The task force’s 2008 Action Plan, a 64-page document that doesn’t describe enforcement options, asked each of the 12 central U.S. states to develop their own plans for reducing nutrients. The states are Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, Missouri, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas and Louisiana.
The Gazette reviewed all 12 state strategies, talked with dozens of state agency leaders and found the following:

• The Gulf Hypoxia Task Force said every state should complete a strategy by 2013. But only four did. Kentucky and Tennessee still have only drafts.
• Only five states established baseline numbers for nitrate or phosphorus loads in surface water, making it impossible in the other seven to know if improvements are being accomplished.
• Five states haven’t updated their strategies after initial publication, contrary to advice from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
• Only one state — Minnesota — requires farmers to implement conservation strategies to reduce runoff.
• All 12 states now require water monitoring at some facilities, usually large municipal wastewater treatment plants.
• All the states monitor water quality at public beaches to some degree, leading to more than 1,400 closures or advisories for high levels of bacteria or toxins from algae this past summer. More than 200 fish kills were reported in the states in 2017, with many caused by contaminants washing into waterways."

The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition has an excellent blog post on this subject - check it out here:  http://sustainableagriculture.net/blog/2018-midterm-election/.   The change in leadership in the House will definitely affect the Farm Bill, both in content and timing.  

LWV UMRR thanks NSAC for their excellent reporting on this issue, and for their leadership in working for a strong conservation focus in the Farm Bill!  

Here is some added speculation on how things may turn out, from Reuters news agency:

​Stalled farm bill could move fast after House win: senior Democratic lawmaker: “Congress may swiftly resolve a drawn-out impasse on the U.S. Farm Bill now that Democrats are poised to retake control of the legislative body, the top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee said on Wednesday. Collin Peterson, ranking member and presumptive new chair of committee, said passing the crucial agricultural legislation was going to be his top priority, with a deal possible as soon as next week during the lame-duck session. “That’s going to be the number one goal,” he told reporters on a conference call. “My sense is this is going to get worked out (in the lame-duck session).” The Farm Bill provides funding for an array of programs important to farmers - a crucial constituency for Republican President Donald Trump - including crop subsidies and rural development. But the latest bill, passed in 2014, expired on Sept.30 after talks over its replacement broke down. At issue has been a provision in the new draft of the bill that would impose stricter work requirements for recipients of food stamps. The Republican-led House of Representatives passed the $867 billion bill in June with the tougher requirements, over the objections of Democrats. The Senate, meanwhile, passed its own bipartisan version that excluded the requirements. Now that the Democrats have gained control of the House in Tuesday’s elections, the deadlock could be resolved, Peterson said. “Most of the ideas are out there and drafted. It is a matter of putting them together. If that could get resolved this week, then we’d have a bill ready by next week,” he said. He added that he has held talks about the issue with other Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi, seen as a front runner to become House Speaker. “There’s no indication or idea on the Democrat side in the House that we would like to delay this thing,” he said. Food stamps are used by more than 40 million Americans, or about 12 percent of the total U.S. population, and the program’s inclusion in the Farm Bill has long been used as a way to get support from Democrats who represent urban districts.”
[Reuters, 11/8/18] https://goo.gl/wnBYRs