Minneapolis Star Tribune, Jan. 8
Brown County commissioners failed citizens by rejecting well testing
The Brown County Board erred last month when it failed to support a new drinking water testing program led by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture. The board should reconsider its decision, which was made without giving state officials a chance to respond to questions about how the water quality data would be used.
The statewide testing program is rolling out in areas where private wells are considered at higher risk for contamination with nitrates, a pollutant that can cause a life-threatening condition called methemoglobinemia, or “blue baby” syndrome, in infants. Many of the areas are in rural Minnesota, where certain soil types combined with fertilizer use on farm fields can lead to unsafe nitrate levels in well water.
Given state estimates that fewer than 40 percent of Minnesota’s private well owners have tested their water supply in the past decade, the program is a proactive public health measure that should merit broad support. The testing is voluntary. Homeowners do not get a bill for it. The program also puts a spotlight on how important it is to regularly check what’s in your water.
Not surprisingly, it has been met positively in other counties and townships around the state, according to the Agriculture Department, which is leading the effort. Local governments generally enter into an agreement with the state to implement testing, which is why the issue came before a meeting of Brown County’s five commissioners last month.
Lending the board’s support should have been routine. Yes, families can still pay on their own for water analysis. But when so many don’t, a program such as the state’s is common sense. Regrettably, a majority of the board’s members didn’t support the measure. The move effectively blocked the program’s launch in the three Brown County townships identified as having high-risk wells.
To his credit, Brown County Commissioner Tony Berg responded last week to an editorial writer’s pointed questions about the board’s failure to support the testing. Berg, a farmer who opposed the plan, said he didn’t think the tests should be paid for by state tax dollars. He also had questions about accuracy and cost.
But the key reason, Berg said, is that many farmers believe the state will unfairly blame agriculture for any nitrate pollution they find. And then, they fear, state officials will use the data to heavily regulate fertilizer use. “There’s a lot of mistrust,” he said.
That explanation is appreciated but still frustrating. Berg and the influential special interests who cheered the decision, such as the Brown County Farm Bureau, are apparently more afraid of regulation than the contamination that might be found. That’s ludicrous, given nitrates’ potential to harm infants. Parents in the area should be up in arms.
Berg’s comment about “mistrust” is also disappointing. No one representing the state was at the County Board meeting to answer questions, resulting in misinformation and incomplete information about the testing. Conscientious leaders would have recognized that and tabled the issue to ensure that they had accurate information.
Inviting state officials back to address concerns about the data’s use and potential future regulations is the decent, responsible thing to do. It would also be a welcome step toward mending the relationships that Berg maintains are broken.
___
Mankato Free Press, Jan. 11
The climate bill grows ever higher
Hurricanes and tornadoes, fires and floods, hailstorms and drought. The natural disasters keep adding up. So does the expense.
This week the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that the United States had 16 billion-dollar weather disasters in 2017 - tying the record - carrying a total bill of $306 billion, more than $90 billion more than the previous high.
Minnesota was one of 13 states (plus Puerto Rico) visited by such a calamity, a string of June hailstorms that racked up some $2.5 billion in damage in the metro area.
The past calendar year featured three of the five most expensive hurricanes in U.S. history: Harvey in Texas, Irma in Florida, Maria in Puerto Rico. The Western wildfire “season” is now virtually year-round; 2017’s fire bill was put at $18 billion, triple the previous high.
And the cost keeps climbing. On Tuesday in southern California hillsides that lost their vegetation to the giant Thomas fire last month started giving way in the belated winter rains, bringing horrendous mudslides into residential areas.
Climate change is without a doubt part of the problem. We have criticized in the past this administration’s unwillingness to grasp that reality, and we renew that criticism today.
But another aspect is the continued insistence on development in high-risk areas, and the market distortions that mask or subsidize the cost of that development.
A century ago a hurricane could blow into Florida and not find much beyond swamp and shacks. Today Florida is the third most populated state, and the coasts are dotted with significant urban areas.
Houston is one of the nation’s largest metro areas, but remains flood-prone and resistant to zoning and development restrictions. California, hard-hit by fires in both the wine country in the north and the hills in the south, is looking for ways to mute the effect the fires figure to have on insurance premiums.
People want to live on the coast. We get that. But as the planet warms and the extremes intensify, the risk grows and the costs mount. Insurance premiums are a blunt tool for discouraging risky investments, but they have a role to play.
When California and Florida officials talk about ensuring “accessibility” to insurance, they are also saying that those who don’t live and build in high-risk areas must subsidize those who do. That approach will only continue the escalating cycle of disaster and destruction.
___
Post Bulletin, Jan. 11
Voters will decide whether social media matters
“Nobody ever wins.”
Rochester City Council President Randy Staver said that about social media last week.
He should know, considering he tried to win the game by ending it when he deleted his Twitter and Facebook accounts last week after a contentious city council meeting. Now people are asking whether it’s appropriate or reasonable for a top elected official to cut off a popular and effective platform for communicating with constituents.
It’s an impulse many of us have had when dealing with vitriolic, troll-rewarding rhetoric on Facebook and Twitter. Staver says he made his decision after talking with others about the negativity that’s so prevalent on social media, and that it wasn’t directly related to his final posts, which involved the behavior of fellow Council Member Michael Wojcik.
Is it acceptable for an elected public official to opt-out?
Politicians obviously are under no obligation to be active Facebook and Twitter users, but they are obligated to be responsive. Public life requires interaction with the public, for better or worse, and that requires being where people are.
Does that mean social media is an ironclad requirement? Not necessarily. The City Council page on the city’s website has each member’s email address and phone number, though council members’ phones may be work, home or mobile and they naturally respond differently. If council members are responding quickly and effectively by phone and email, we’ll leave it up to constituents and voters whether that’s good enough.
Those council members who have social media accounts also use them to widely varying degrees. Nick Campion is quick to respond to constituents on social media, such as when the “igloos” at La Vetta were in jeopardy last week. As soon as a constituent tagged Campion in the post, he was commenting and providing information.
Council Member Mark Bilderback isn’t as prolific a poster on social media, but he has a reputation for being easy to contact in other ways. Ed Hruska, at the other end of the spectrum, has tweeted three times since joining Twitter in 2009.
There’s no question that face-to-face conversation is best, and a phone call is a close second. Then there’s the back-and-forth of email and social media.
Nonetheless, social media is how much of America communicates. Many of us regard social media as absolutely fundamental ways to be heard and to get information. It doesn’t take much effort by a council member or any other elected official to keep the lights on, use social media for basic information at minimum, and offer constituents one more way to connect.
When that happens, everyone wins.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.