MANKATO – About 50 persons including members of SAVE, Russel Schwandt, and a representative of AMPI, turned out here Wednesday to voice opinions on the need for environmental impact statements.
The discussion centered around proposed state rules under a 1973 state law on when such impact statements would be required and what they would include. The hearing was one of several held around the state.
Kenneth Narr, vice chairman of SAVE (Save America’s Vital Energy) made a plea that Northern States Power Co. be absolutely required to file an environmental impact statement for its proposed Henderson plant.
He said a SAVE representative had called the Environmental Quality Council (EQC) last week and received an inconclusive answer to the question of whether NSP would be required to file such a statement.
He said NSP’s environmental impact statement should include the effect of the Henderson plant, reservoir, transmission lines from the plant to the Twin Cities, railroad lines for coal trains, sludge pit, emissions into air and water.
“Full disclosure of NSP’s plans and the plant’s impact on the state is necessary before construction begins,” Narr said.
About 30 of those present Wednesday were from the Henderson area.
Mike Trautman of SAVE asked the EQC to delete from the proposed rules exceptions which would not require impact statements – the exceptions included instances when physical construction had started before the effective date of the regulations, and when land had been purchased or leased and rezoned before the effective date of the rules.
Bill Seeley of NSP said his company realizes that it must come up with information for such an environmental impact statement and bear the cost of preparing such a statement. He also said everyone should be aware of the cost factor of preparing impact statements and the delays such preparation would cause,factors borne eventually by the customers in the case of NSP.
SCHWANDT, president of the Minnesota Agrigrowth Council and former state commissioner of agriculture, said the proposed regulations should be simplified and authority maintained exclusively in the EQC for requiring impact statements.
Schwandt said that under the proposed rules the possibility exists of a farmer adding one cow to his herd having to file an environmental impact statement.
He urged caution in the final draft of the rules and said his agribusiness council would support additional funding in the area of research and mandatory requirements for impact statements.
Schwandt also urged a change in the rules which allows review of the need for an impact statement upon receipt of a petition signed by 500 persons.
He said the 500 signers of such a petition should be from the affected area, voters, leasers or landholders.
Ken Sette, an Owatonna area farmer on the regional board of AMPI, also said the 500 signers of a petition should be restricted. He asked who would pay for preparation of the impact statements.
“We in the dairy industry are not opposed to environmental quality but we feel the rules should be as simple as possible,” Sette said.
The proposed rules do not specify who would pay for the preparation of environmental impact statements, although they call for such preparation to be made by the “responsible” public agency or governmental unit.
Ron Evans, chairman of the Blue Earth County Board, said his group was not entirely opposed to the purpose of environmental impact statements, but was concerned with the delay to projects and added cost such statements would mean.
William Bassett, Mankato city manager, said if the EQC required counties, cities and villages to prepare impact statements for private individuals or firms, as proposed, funding for such efforts must also be provided.
Bassett said the rules should not provide for unlimited review of environmental impact.
Dr. Henry Quade of the Mankato State College biology department said the Sierra Club is concerned about the “grandfather” clause in the proposed rules, whether the rules would affect those already in operation when the rules are adopted.
Dr. Quade also questioned whether the persons who prepare the environmental assessments used in the impact statements would be working for the EQC or for the private firm such as NSP. He said the EQC must read the assessment reports and be the final reviewer.
Tom Moore, EQC executive director, assured Dr. Quade that the proposed rules call for the final review of the impact statements by the EQC.
The Steele County Engineer said the proposed rules might be interpreted too broadly and end up requiring impact statements from counties for such routine things as weed spraying, sand and salt put on roads, county ditches. He said administration of the rules in such cases would require legions of staff.
New Ulm Daily Journal, Nov. 23, 1973