Forwarded on behalf of list member Tom Holtzleiter. - David Brauer, list manager Tom writes: Watch the wheels turn. :) You may ask yourself how all this happened? How has it come down to lawsuits? MnDOT was denied their request a few years ago to do the same type of dye test that Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is now trying to do. So MnDOT asked MCWD to get permission from a slew of other agencies before coming onto "MnDOT's property". The agencies are ones like the Department of Health, the Historic Preservation Office, Indian tribes in the area, Preserve Camp Coldwater Coalition, and others. The citizen groups and Indians said yes do the dye test (some have asked for this years ago), and most of the agencies said go ahead as well. Others said they have no jurisdiction so they did not say "yes", and so then MnDOT said no. No Dye Test. Oh how, oh how could things like this happen? The answers are everywhere....just brought to my attention today... Mary Ann Nabor, formerly a Historic Preservation Specialist with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (overseer of the Section 106 process), who was responsible for looking into all complaints made in 1999-2000 about the neglect of historic resources in Highway 55 planning and construction and who denied a fair hearing for those complaints, left the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in December 2000 to become Federal Preservation Officer for the Federal Highway Administration, the builder, with MnDOT, of Highway 55. And for MnDOT's position, is as follows as they publicly stated at a Lower Minnesota watershed district meeting; Lower Mn reserved the right to revoke the permit (for the interchange), or propose additional conditions on Mn/DOT, to "Eliminate any such impacts, should significant impacts to Camp Coldwater Spring occur, as a direct result of this pond" so it is a duty for Mn/DOT to ELIMINATE any such impacts. Malkerson (attorney for Lower MN) asked if Daniel Dorgan spokesman for MnDOT, understands this language? "Yes" was the answer. And Dorgan said Mn/DOT has "No Objections to this language" . Malkerson: "So if, weather it's three months from now, six months from now, or six years, or sixty years from now, there is a problem, and it is because of this (pond), this board has reserved to it's self, the right to revoke the permit, or impose whatever conditions are necessary, to eliminate the problem. Do you understand that?" Dorgan: "Yes I do, and I hope I'm here sixty years from now to respond." So there you have it. MnDOT has essentially agreed to do whatever it takes, to spend whatever is necessary after the fact, rather than do some tests up front to potentially eliminate that damage before it happens. After hearing both sides of the story, MnDOT and MCWD both have good arguments. Without testing though, no one really knows who is right. I would think after a month of asking if anyone has objections, and no one having any, MnDOT would have the guts to do the test and find out. It could save us taxpayers a lot of money. Tom Holtzleiter King Field _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
