It's time to debunk the myth of EAW's (Environmental Action Worksheets) and their big brothers, EIS's (Environmental Impact Statements). It remains only the depth of impact that determines which report is required. But both of them are not, as regulators would have you believe, statements of impact that decide whether or not to proceed with a project. They are written to justify the advancement of all projects. The information has never been used by the MPCA to deny a permit because - and this is fact - in all of its years of existence, the MPCA has NEVER, but NEVER denied a permit, nor revoked one even if permit violations were persistent and dangerous and clearly justified the shutting down of a process or plant. The MPCA is there to enable, to facilitate projects that pollute by setting standards that are too high for human health and that of other flora and fauna within its sphere of influence or suggesting that emissions and contaminants may be introduced into the atmosphere or water at certain levels on the presumption that at least some levels are OK to breathe or swallow when, in fact, there are no safe levels of toxic emissions and contaminants. Such was the case with the Kondirator and St. Paul (Alter) metal shredder and now with St. Paul's ethanol plant, the only urban ethanol operation in the state - perhaps anywhere. Moreover, each project is isolated for its potential emissions and rarely, if ever, counted as contributing to a far more dangerous accumulation of toxic substances and volatile organic compounds emitted from surrounding plants and facilities. Until the MPCA and its sister rubber stamper - the EQB - Environmental Quality Board - are drastically revamped with renewed missions of responsibility to protect the air and water sources of this state, the already exponential rises in pulmonary diseases (asthma and COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) and cancer-causing compounds will go through the roof - especially in urban centers. I hope your call for commentary has an effect, but I fear it never will. The corporate power behind this thing is just too big. Andy Driscoll St. Paul email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: "Dave Stack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 23:00:42 -0600 > To: "Multiple recipients of list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: General Mills water issue EAW comments due 10-Jan > > This message is for those who may be interested in the General Mills pumping > and dumping issue. As you know, this has potential impact on the ecosystem > of Bassett Creek which runs through Minneapolis. Time is running tight, so > this is my last ditch attempt at drumming up EAW comment submittals. The > DNR, Met Council and MPRB are submitting comments of concern on the issue. > It would help greatly if there were also many letters of concern from > individual citizens. > > The EAW lightly brushes off concern for groundwater depletion and creek > water quality, and spends 90% of the EAW space talking about technical > aspects of the 27 acre net benefit nature preserve. I agree that it would be > wonderful to have a 27 acre nature preserve in Golden Valley. However, many > of us believe that the EAW is incomplete in addressing the long term impacts > of this dramatic precedent on groundwaters and surface waters. > > The deadline (Wed. 10-Jan, 4:30pm) for comments is coming up fast. Send > letters of concern to ::: > > EAW, Bassett Creek, Golden Valley > Jeannine Clancy, Dir. of Public Works > 7800 Golden Valley Road > Golden Valley, Mn 55427 > > If time is real tight, comments may also be emailed to ::: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Website for more info :::: > > http://www.mninter.net/~stack/aquifer > > In case you simply do not have time to write an in-depth letter, even a few > simple sentences of concern would help. Please, word your letter somewhat > differently than this one, but here is one example of a simple letter of > concern ::: > > --------------------------------- > --------------------------------- > > Dear City of Golden Valley, > > I want to express my support for the DNR in their efforts to protect our > public natural resources of groundwaters and surface waters. I agree with > the DNR in their work to have General Mills cease the wasteful and unwise > practice of once-through cooling. Pure groundwater should be reserved for > higher purposes and for our future generations. This EAW is incomplete, > therefore, I request an Environmental Impact Statement to fully address the > long term problems of groundwater depletion in this project, and in the > precedent that it sets > > I am also concerned for possible harm that the discharge may cause to the > various plant and animal species living in the Bassett Creek's ecosystem. > The EAW is incomplete in addressing possible problems from thermal effects, > runoff, chlorine, ortho-phosphate, or any other chemical that may be added. > I request an environmental Impact Statement to fully address long term > concerns with this discharge, and with the precedent that this action sets. > > This General Mills net benefit nature preserve proposal is very inadequate > in comparison to the only previous exemption of H.B.Fuller. This preserve > factors to an unprecedented approximate 45 times weaker than the H.B.Fuller > exemption to the 1989 state law. This new precedent would very unwisely make > future exemptions that much easier to obtain. > > Sincerely, > Xxxxxx Xxxxxx > > ------------------------------ > ------------------------------ > > This above letter is just one possible sample letter. Unlimited variations > and elaborations can be constructed, and are encouraged. I have been told > that it is better to cite specific EAW paragraphs. Please feel free to email > me with questions, comments or suggestions. > > The public hearing on this issue will be ::: > > 6-Feb, 7:00 pm > Golden Valley City Hall > 7800 Golden Valley Road > > Even if you do not want to speak at this hearing, your attendance as a show > of concern would be greatly appreciated. > > Dave Stack > Harrison > >
