Hope owns 176 units of affordable housing, almost all of which are on one block of the corner of Portland Avenue and Franklin Avenue. In the center of this unconventional housing development is a 16-plot community garden, which is within view of many of the houses on the block. Right next to the community garden is a children's playground, where many of the neighborhood kids hang out and play.

The first few years the garden was in operation, the children were naturally curious and wanted to help adults in the garden. Unfortunately, many times their help would become a hindrance, and adults began complaining about the presence of the children. The kids would climb into the garden and throw ripe tomatoes, generally wreaking havoc on people's carefully prepared gardens.

That's where Land Stewardship Project intern Sam Johnson stepped in. During the 2012 growing season, “I originally volunteered with Hope to work in the garden, and when I let you guys know about my background work with kids, we all saw the opportunity," he told me. "A lot of the kids that were interacting with the garden were not in the fold. They didn't understand the rules, and gardeners didn't know how to interact with [the kids]. There was high pressure, high anxiety, a lot of emotions and frustration. The original goal was to be able to engage these kids in gardening, and be there as someone who could be a bridge between the kids and the garden."

Since 2012, Sam's role in the garden has grown with the children he engages.

“When we started, we were meeting two days a week, very informally. I would come with activities and count on the fact that the garden was right next to the playground; the kids were going to be there," he said. "The hope was that if we could hook them with fun activities, they would start coming back intentionally. We started doing it informally, because we didn't want to foist a program on kids—we wanted to see if it was something that would happen organically. Last year we had a core of about five to six kids and two to three of them would be there every single week. Three to four others would be familiar faces that would come every couple of weeks.”

Sam added that, “In the wintertime, we had to bring things indoors. The amount of kids decreased. We only had a few that came in, but it was nice to have those few. We recognized that this was something that had some legs to it, and would be more long-term than we originally envisioned, so it would probably be more appropriate that I would work with Dhop to do this youth work.”

Dhop, aka Andrew Hopkins, has worked as a Community Outreach Manager at Hope Community's Community Engagement program on several initiatives to engage young people. One of the most significant contributions has been a program called Learning in Community. Hope's website describes Learning in Community as “a community literacy program for children ages 6-9 where children thrive and learn in a community environment.”

This past winter, Sam led the kids in indoor gardening activities such as vermiculture (worm composting) and seed starting.

“My hope for the garden this year is consistency. We're meeting once a week on Saturdays, and I'll be around for the other two work days," Sam said. "If we can put in that consistency, we're hoping that the kids will respond in kind and we'll have a handful of kids that will be there every week. Registration is happening now. This year, we also have a little plot of our own in the community garden. In those terms, I would like to see those kids really invest in that plot and see how those plants are doing, and get the kids excited to come back every week and care for the plants.”

Anna Cioffi is a Land Stewardship Program organizer working in the Hope Community on developing community based food systems. She can be reached via e-mail or at 612-722-6377.

LSP members and friends are once again encouraged to bring their homemade best for a silent auction that benefits LSP work in the Driftless region. A lap quilt handmade for the occasion will be a featured item. Also featured are books retired from the LSP office library in need of wider circulation.

As is the case every Friday during the summer, DreamAcres will be selling fresh-from-the-oven pizzas made with farm produce; LSP members will receive $5 coupons off the usual price of $15 to $20 per pizza. Memberships are available at registration. Participants should bring their own beverages, and are welcome to bring their own picnics. Table settings from home will limit the amount of trash; lawn chairs are encouraged.

The barn dance and summer sing ($8 at the door) features Bob Bovee and Gail Heil performing old time music and calling dances. Dances are taught; no experience is necessary.

DreamAcres is an off-the-grid, organic farmstead “that offers educational and cultural programs, and grows and produces darn good food,” according to its owners, LSP farmer-members Todd Juzwiak and Eva Barr. The farm feeds a Community Supported Agriculture base of members and is home to the Dreamery Rural Arts Initiative, Flourish Summer Camp, True Leaf and Thunderground Retreats, along with the weekly pizza nights and films, and many other events and performances throughout the summer months. In addition, the farm hosts school and family retreats, and facilitates custom-planned workshops in appropriate and alternative technologies.

This will be the 10th year that LSP has hosted a Driftless summer gathering on a member farm. LSP (www.landstewardshipproject.org) was launched in 1982 as a nonprofit organization dedicated to furthering the ethic and practice of stewardship on America’s farms. The advancement of social justice for people who produce food and care for the land is a guiding principle for LSP’s membership base of farmers and non-farmers alike.

-30-

Ellis has documented the die-off of bees on the very day that neighboring fields were planted with corn. As the camera pans the landscape and shows bees dead or so disoriented that they can't even forage, Ellis talks about the fact that corn seeds coated with a type of pesticide called neonicotinoid is to blame. Such claims are not new, but a recent Purdue University study has made it clear we can no longer ignore the relationship between our pollinator crisis and pesticide use in farm country.

As we've written about in the Minnesota Conservation Volunteer and the Land Stewardship Letter, pollinators are the kinds of keystone critters we all can play a role in helping—or hurting. As I realized while producing two LSP Ear to the Ground podcasts (episodes 54 and 60) on the subject, everyone from beekeepers to entomologists agree on that one.

We need to keep that in mind even when doing things that are seemingly unrelated to the lives of bugs. For example, when buying a potted plant or figuring out how to control the growing emerald ash borer menace, we may want to think twice about the unintended consequences when it comes to the health of our apian workhorses.

Every third bite of food is directly or indirectly connected to the work of pollinators. And wild habitats such a native prairies wouldn’t be quite the same if bees and other bugs weren’t hauling pollen from plant-to-plant.

That’s why scientists are frantically trying to figure out why honeybees seem to be suffering so much from Colony Collapse Disorder and other maladies these days. And why are their wild cousins in decline as well (including here in Minnesota)? Is it habitat loss, feedlot beekeeping, introduced diseases or the stress of becoming the insect version of migrant workers by being transported across the country to custom-pollinate almond groves? Or is it, as University of Minnesota bee expert Marla Spivak believes, a complicated combination of factors?

One part of the mix that cannot be ignored is pesticides, which have dogged wild and domestic pollinators since they became ubiquitous after World War II. Bees and other pollinators are notoriously sensitive to pesticide poisoning. And because bees are natural born collectors, they often bring chemical contaminants back to their hives.

A Penn State study released in 2008 showed that low levels of over 70 pesticides and metabolites of those pesticides were present in hives. Most of them were common insecticides and herbicides, including atrazine, used in agriculture and around the home. Penn State researchers are particularly concerned that when the pesticides combine in a hive, they can have a synergistic effect hundreds of times more toxic than any of the pesticides individually.

Up until quite recently it was thought labeling restrictions (no spraying during the middle of the day when bees are most likely to be foraging) and a transition to chemicals of lower toxicity made it less likely bees would be killed outright by spraying. Iowa’s agriculture department has a “Bee Rule” that limits applications of insecticides labeled as dangerous to bees.

However, research has shown that a new class of pesticides could offer a more insidious threat to bees and other pollinators. In recent years, organophosphate insecticides, which are toxic to mammals and birds, have been replaced by a class of pesticides called neonicotinoids. Derived from nicotine (yes, the same stuff that makes your body crave Marlboros and Copenhagen), these bug killers are systemic, meaning they are put on a plant’s seed, or injected straight into the roots or stem. They work their way up to the leaves, killing insect pests that feed on the plant.

The advantages to these kinds of bug killers are many: for one thing farmers, greenhouse keepers and homeowners aren’t spraying toxins in the open air, reducing the chance of the chemical going where it’s not supposed to. In addition, it works specifically on insects, offering little threat to other creatures, including humans. That’s the main reason neonicotinoids have become one of the most widely used pesticides—particularly in greenhouses, by landscape companies and in homes. If you bought a potted plant recently, likely it’s been fortified with neonicotinoids. And over 90 percent of all corn seed planted in this country this spring is coated with the neonicotinoid insecticides.

“I can’t impress on you how common this is on everything,” U of M entomologist Vera Krischik told me, adding that these types of pesticides can stay in a plant for up to a year.

A few years ago Krischik noticed that after feeding on some potted plants that were in her backyard, bumblebees would become disoriented, and fall to the ground where they would suffer from tremors before dying: a classic sign of neonicotinoid poisoning (the Steve Ellis video shows honey bees suffering from tremors).

She did follow-up research and found that plants containing the neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid caused high death rates in beneficial insects like pink lady beetles, green lacewings and parasitic wasps.

The effects of neonicotinoid insecticides such as imidacloprid on local non-target species such as bees is of particular interest now that the emerald ash borer, a devastating killer of ash trees, has arrived in the Minnesota and other Midwestern states. This class of pesticides is one borer-control tool being promoted by tree experts.

“This pesticide isn’t all bad. It’s just not a good idea if it finds its way into plants insects use for nectar,” says Krischik.

It also turns out this class of pesticides may not "stay" within plant tissue as much as we'd like. What the Purdue University study found was that during the spring bees near corn fields are exposed to "extremely high concentrations of neonicotinoids in waste talc." In other words, all that dust formed when a planter passes over a field isn't just dirt—it also contains neonicotinoids, and bees may be getting doused in it. That may explain why Steve Ellis' bees were suffering the same day neighboring fields were being planted with corn.

Fifteen European Union countries recently voted to ban neonicotinoid chemicals after they were linked with bee die-offs there. Bayer CropScience, the major manufacturer of neonicotinoids for corn, denies there is any evidence that its pesticide is linked to bee die-offs. But the scientific (and video) evidence is getting increasingly hard to ignore.

Spivak says it’s unlikely pesticides are the only cause of CCD or other mass bee die-offs. Typically in a CCD situation, one colony will collapse and a neighboring one won’t, although the bees often forage in the same areas where pesticides were applied.

“But the pesticides are a problem,” the entomologist told me. “And we need to pay attention to them, whether they are the root of the problem or not.”

SAINT PAUL, Minn. — An important clarification to Minnesota's groundbreaking "Buy the Farm" law was passed by the state Legislature on Monday, the last day of the 2013 session.

“Keeping the Buy the Farm law strong says that Minnesotans value family farmers above profits for energy conglomerates," said Dave Minar of Cedar Summit Farm near New Prague, Minn. “Our future as a fourth-generation family dairy farm was in jeopardy because Xcel Energy and others were trying to twist the law. This clarification means farmers will be treated fairly.”

Under the unique “Buy the Farm” law, which was originally passed in 1977, farmers have the right to require that utility companies purchase their entire farm if high voltage power lines are going to pass through their property. This law was intended to require that utilities reimburse farmers for their land, relocation expenses and lost business. The law was a result of the hard fought negotiations between farmers and utility companies over high power transmission lines cutting across farmland in the 1970s.

With the construction of more than 650 miles of new high voltage power lines across Minnesota underway, the law has renewed importance to family farmers and landowners throughout the state. Backers of the CapX2020 power line project, which includes Xcel Energy and 10 others, are trying to avoid paying their fair share to family farmers impacted by the project, said Land Stewardship Project organizer Mike McMahon.

"In an attempt to blur the intent of the law, they are claiming that farmers are voluntarily relocating their farms and that any reimbursements for moving expenses and lost business would be extra compensation," said McMahon.

The “Buy the Farm” provisions passed Monday clarify this issue, making it clear that farmers will receive compensation for moving and lost business, according to McMahon.

After stalling in conference committee, the "Buy the Farm" clarification was amended onto a bill on the Senate floor Sunday night and passed on the House floor Monday. It passed off the Senate floor on a 49-16 vote and off the House floor by a 114-18 vote.

Representative David Bly (DFL-Northfield) and Senator Kevin Dahle championed the "Buy the Farm Law" provisions from the beginning, and were key players in keeping them alive during the waning days of the session.

“When I heard that CapX was claiming that protections passed in 2010 concerning land takings under eminent domain did not apply to the Buy the Farm provision, and when I listened to the stories of dairy farmers like Julie Schwartz and Dave Minar, it was clear that refining this law could make the difference in whether or not they would continue to farm," said Bly. "That’s why getting Buy the Farm done this session was a priority for me.”

Dahle said that this bill strengthens legislation related to this issue that he passed in 2009.

“Corporations that skirt the law not only inconvenience us, but they can possibly put us in danger," he said. "The changes we’ve authored will further protect the rights of local farmers by closing loopholes and holding big companies accountable to the law.”

The bill had stalled in the Senate when key committee chairs refused to act on the proposal. Sen. Ron Latz (DFL–St. Louis Park), Chair of the Judiciary Committee, refused to hear the bill, making it unable to progress as a stand-alone piece of legislation. In the House, the provisions completed the committee process and were included as part of the House Environment and Agriculture Omnibus Finance Bill.

However, in conference committee Sen. David Tomassoni (DFL–Chisholm), the Senate Chair of the Conference Committee, refused to accept the language. By amending the language onto a bill on the Senate floor, Dahle was able to overcome these procedural roadblocks. Among the handful of Senators voting "no" were Dan Sparks (DFL-Austin), Chair of the Senate Agriculture Policy Committee, and Tomassoni, Chair of the Environment and Agriculture Finance Committee.

-30-

Urge MN Senators to Support the Coburn – Durbin Amendment

This amendment by Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Tom Coburn (R-OK) would place an adjusted gross income limit on crop insurance for those big farm operators and investors that make over $750,000 a year. The amendment would reduce the subsidy rate (paid for by taxpayers) provided for the insurance policies these huge and wealthy operators/investors get. Essentially, millionaires don’t need the same rate of support as rank-and-file farmers. LSP would like this subsidy rate to be much lower, but establishing even this limit would be progress and has never been done before. All other farm programs have similar limits, and so should crop insurance.

Both Minnesota U.S. Senators supported this amendment in 2012.

What We’re Hearing

With Senator Amy Klobuchar (202-224-3244) we DO NOT have a sense of how she will vote on the Coburn-Durbin amendment. Senator Klobuchar, who serves on the Agriculture Committee, did support the Farm Bill package in committee that unfortunately dropped this crop insurance adjusted gross income limit.

In talking to Senator Al Franken’s office (202-224-5641), we’re hearing he is inclined to support the amendment, but that he is getting intense pressure to vote no.

Contact Senator Klobuchar & Senator Franken

If you’ve already made a call, thanks. If you have not, please call today!! And everyone should feel free to share this alert with family and friends. How the two Minnesota U.S. Senators vote will be crucial to whether the amendment is adopted or not.

Draft Message:

“I’m calling to leave Senator (Klobuchar/Franken) a message. This is _____________ from __________.

Federally subsidized crop insurance needs reform. While important for farmers, it needs to be more accountable and fiscally responsible. I’m asking the Senator to support the Durbin-Coburn amendment that sets limitations on crop insurance. The Senator was right to support this in 2012 and should support it again.

Background on Federally Subsidized Crop Insurance

The largest piece of farm-orientated spending is the nearly $94 billion in federally subsidized crop insurance — most of which goes for crops like corn, soybeans and wheat. Farmers buy crop insurance from corporations such as Wells Fargo, ADM and John Deere, which receive federal consent to offer policies. These corporations hire crop insurance agents that sell policies to farmers. On average, 62 cents of every dollar of coverage an individual farmer purchases is paid for by taxpayers. Another huge cost is the millions that corporations get paid generously for administering the program. To top it off, insurance corporations get “reinsurance” with the federal government for any big losses they might have.

In 2012, a record year for federally subsidized crop insurance, federal spending totaled $16 billion; in 2011, the previous record, it was $9.4 billion.

Crop insurance is an important tool for helping farmers manage risk. But in its current form, it accelerates concentration of land ownership and destruction of the environment. It’s a crop subsidy system with no limits and no caps on how much producers can receive — facilitating the biggest of the big farm operators’ expansion efforts (with guaranteed farm revenue) and large payments to insurance corporations every year.

Additional background on Durbin-Coburn Amendment

U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, a Republican from Oklahoma, and Senator Dick Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois, have offered an amendment that attempts to rein in the costs and big giveaways that come with crop insurance. This amendment would ensure a fiscally responsible farm safety net by reducing by 15 percentage points the annual crop insurance premium subsidies for program participants whose adjusted gross annual income exceeds $750,000 ($1.5 million for most married participants). This amendment would save close to $1.3 billion over 10 years, and would ensure that millionaires pay closer to 50 percent of their own insurance costs. The government currently pays the vast majority of those costs. This amendment passed 66-33 in 2012 and is winnable again, but it will be very close.

Other Crop Insurance Amendments LSP is Supporting

• Shaheen-Toomey amendment: This amendment by Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) would place a $50,000 limit on the annual amount of premium subsidies any one farmer can receive, and would require those receiving the premium subsidies to be actual working farmers, not non-farm investors and corporations. The Farm Bill that will be considered on the floor already has the identical $50,000 cap and "actively engaged in farming" rule, but it only applies to commodity subsidies, not insurance subsidies. The Shaheen-Toomey amendment would apply the same, consistent rules to the entire farm safety net, rather than just a portion of the safety net. It would help restore equity and fiscal responsibility to the program.

• Gillibrand amendment: Senator Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY) is offering this amendment that reduces the rate of reimbursements that crop insurance corporations can receive for the policies they offer. Bringing it down will make the program more accountable and cost less. Those savings, which would be nearly $4.5 billion, would be applied to food support and nutrition programs, including the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Snack Program aimed primarily at children.

"Buy the Farm" legislation is critical for family farmers and landowners who need to relocate because of the massive CapX2020 high voltage power line project. This legislation was amended onto House File 854 on the Senate Floor by Sen. Kevin Dahle on Sunday night. The vote was an overwhelming 49 to 16. Now the House needs to pass the bill by midnight today (Monday).

'Buy the Farm' is About Justice

"Buy the Farm" clarifies that utility companies such as Xcel Energy and the other CapX2020 backers are required to promptly reimburse farmers when they move for their land, relocation expenses and loss of business. Farmers didn't have any say about the high voltage power lines crossing their land—it was forced upon them and without this clarification, the expense of moving an entire farm may shift from huge corporations like Xcel Energy to independent family farms. For many farmers, the moving and lost business costs will be too much to bear and they may be forced out of business permanently. However, we can stop utility corporations from forcing family farmers out of business by making sure the "Buy the Farm" clarification contained in House File 854 becomes law.

Support for 'Buy the Farm' is Strong

This letter to legislative leaders supporting the changes we seek and signed by representatives of the family farm, sustainable energy, local business, social justice and faith communities provides further information on why clarifying the intent of the "Buy the Farm" law needs to happen now.

We worked hard to get "Buy the Farm" adopted in the Environment and Ag Finance Conference Committee (details in this LSP aciton alert). But Senator David Tomassoni, the Senate chair of the conference committee, refused to accept "Buy the Farm," taking the side of energy conglomerates over Minnesota family farmers. However, with Sen. Dahle's action on the Senate floor, we can still pass this important protection for family farmers — what it will take is passage on the House floor today (Monday).

Take Action and make these two calls NOW

1. Call Speaker of the House, Rep. Paul Thissen at 651-296-5375 and ask him to make sure House File 854, which now contains "Buy the Farm," passes the House floor.

Suggested message: "As Speaker of the House I urge you to make sure that House File 854, which contains the "Buy the Farm" provisions, is brought up and passed before adjournment at midnight Monday. This bill restores the original intent of the “Buy the Farm" law. This is about justice. Family farmers didn't have a choice about the CapX high voltage lines cutting across their land — it was forced upon them. The provisions included in the House bill would require the energy conglomerate that is taking land from farmers and landowners as part of the CapX project to fully and promptly reimburse them for their land, relocation expenses and lost business.

2. Call your Representative and urge support of House File 854 and "Buy the Farm." Also encourage House leadership to make sure the bill gets to the House floor before midnight Monday. The House has a strong position supporting "Buy the Farm." It passed all of the appropriate committees and was included in the House's version of the Environment and Ag Finance Omnibus Bill. Now the House just needs to concur with the Senate version of HF 854. Your Representative's name and contract information is available by calling 651-296-2146 or 800-657-3550. It is also available online here.

A new five-year Farm Bill is way overdue, but even more overdue is reform to unaccountable crop subsidies. The largest piece of farm-orientated spending is the nearly $94 billion in federally subsidized crop insurance — most of which goes for crops like corn, soybeans and wheat.

Farmers buy crop insurance from corporations such as Wells Fargo, ADM and John Deere, which receive federal consent to offer policies. On average, 62 cents of every dollar of coverage an individual farmer purchases is paid for by taxpayers. Another huge cost is the millions that corporations get paid for administering the program. To top it off, insurance corporations get “reinsurance” with the federal government for any big losses they might have.

In 2012, a record year for federally subsidized crop insurance, federal spending totaled $16 billion; in 2011, the previous record, it was $9.4 billion.

Crop insurance is an important tool for helping farmers manage risk. But in its current form, it accelerates concentration of land ownership and destruction of the environment. It’s a crop subsidy system with no limits and no caps on how much producers can receive — facilitating the biggest of the big farm operators’ expansion efforts (with guaranteed farm revenue) and large payments to insurance corporations every year.

Ultimately who pays for federally subsidized crop insurance? You do. And who pays for how it affects and harms the farm landscape? Our rural communities and our nation’s soil and water.

Amendments will be offered in the Senate next week to rein in federally subsidized crop insurance. We don’t know how Senators Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken will vote, even though last year they supported some reforms.

But we do know this: The big agribusiness lobby’s pressure on the Senators to do nothing is intense.

Contact Senator Franken and Senator Klobuchar today!

• Senator Al Franken
202-224-5641 (D.C.); 651-221-1016 (St. Paul)

• Senator Amy Klobuchar
202-224-3244 (D.C.); 612-727-5220 (Minneapolis)

Durbin–Coburn Amendment

This is the key amendment we’re focusing on. It would place an adjusted gross income limit on crop insurance for those big farm operators that make over $750,000 a year. Essentially, millionaires don’t need the same rate of support as rank-and-file farmers. LSP would like this income limit to be much lower, but establishing even this limit would be progress and has never been done before. All other farm programs have similar limits, and so should crop insurance. (See below for more details on this amendment.)

Draft Message:

“I’m calling to leave Senator (Klobuchar/Franken) a message. This is _____________ from __________.

Federally subsidized crop insurance needs reform. While an important tool for farmers, it needs to be more accountable and fiscally responsible. I’m asking the Senator to support the Durbin-Coburn amendment that sets limitations on crop insurance. The Senator was right to support this in 2012, and should support it again.

NOTE: Anybody in Minnesota can make this call. If you are a farmer, make sure to tell them that. It’s important, given the quick time-frame, to leave a message on an answering machine if you don’t reach an aide to the Senators.

Background on Durbin-Coburn Amendment Crop Insurance Limits

U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, a Republican from Oklahoma, and Senator Dick Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois, have offered an amendment that attempts to rein in the costs and big giveaways that come with crop insurance. This amendment would ensure a fiscally responsible farm safety net by reducing by 15 percentage points the annual crop insurance premium subsidies for program participants whose adjusted gross annual income exceeds $750,000 ($1.5 million for most married participants). This amendment would save close to $1.3 billion over 10 years, and would ensure that millionaires pay closer to 50 percent of their own insurance costs. The government currently pays the vast majority of those costs.

This amendment passed 66-33 in 2012 and is winnable again, but it will be very close. How the two Minnesota U.S. Senators vote will be crucial to whether the amendment is adopted or not.

Shaheen-Toomey: Another Crop Insurance Amendment LSP is Supporting

This amendment by Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) would place a $50,000 limit on the annual amount of premium subsidies any one farmer can receive, and would require those receiving the premium subsidies to be actual working farmers, not non-farm investors and corporations. The Farm Bill that will be considered on the Senate floor already has the identical $50,000 cap and "actively engaged in farming" rule, but it only applies to commodity subsidies, not insurance subsidies. The Shaheen-Toomey amendment would apply the same, consistent rules to commodity AND crop insurance programs.

This issue is being debated in the Ag and Environment Finance Conference Committee, and could be decided as early as today. Two calls are needed immediately. Rep. David Bly amended the Omnibus Environment and Ag Finance Bill (House File 976) to include the language from his “Buy the Farm” bill (House File 338). This language is critical for family farmers and landowners who need to relocate because of the massive CapX2020 high voltage power line project. This language clarifies that utility companies such as Xcel Energy and the other CapX2020 backers are required to promptly reimburse farmers for their land, relocation expenses and loss of business when they move. The Senate Omnibus and Ag Finance Bill (Senate File 1170) does not include the “Buy the Farm” provisions. The two bills are in conference committee, where the difference will be reconciled. We need the Senate conferees to accept the House position on this issue.

A Key Senate Leader is Currently Unwilling to Accept "Buy the Farm" Language

The Senate chair of the conference committee, Sen. David Tomassoni, is currently unwilling to accept the House's "Buy the Farm" provisions. Because the language is only in the House bill, the Senate conferees must accept the House language. If they do not accept the language, the "Buy the Farm" provision does not become law. As Senate chair, Sen. Tomassoni has the most influence over this decision. While the "Buy the Farm Bill" provision did not pass off the Senate floor, it did pass through the Senate Environment and Energy Policy Committee, meaning that the Senate has an official position in support of the bill.

'Buy the Farm' is About Justice

Farmers didn't have any say about the high voltage power lines crossing their land—it was forced upon them and without this clarification, the expense of moving an entire farm may shift from huge corporations like Xcel Energy to independent family farms. For many farmers, the moving and lost business costs will be too much to bear and they may be forced out of business permanently. However, we can stop utility companies from forcing family farmers out of business to build high voltage power lines by making sure the "Buy the Farm" clarification contained in House File 976 becomes law.

Support for “Buy the Farm” is Strong

This letter to legislative leaders supporting the changes we seek and signed by representatives of the family farm, sustainable energy, local business, social justice and faith communities provides further information on why clarifying the intent of the "Buy the Farm" law needs to happen now.

Take Action and make these two calls NOW!

1. Call Senate Majority Leader, Sen. Tom Bakk, at 651-296-8881 and ask him to ensure "Buy the Farm" provisions are adopted in the conference committee.

Suggested message: "I'm calling about the Environment and Ag Omnibus Finance Bill. I urge you to ensure language that restores the original intent of the “Buy the Farm” law is adopted in conference committee. This is about justice. Family farmers didn't have a choice about the CapX high voltage lines cutting across their land — it was forced upon them. The provisions included in the House bill would require the energy conglomerate that is taking land from farmers and landowners as part of the CapX project to fully and promptly reimburse them for their land, relocation expenses and lost business. Right now Sen. David Tomassoni is refusing to accept the House language. This language was passed through the Senate Environment and Energy Policy Committee. Please, use your leadership to ensure that this provision is adopted in conference committee.

2. Contact Gov. Mark Dayton at 651-201-3400 or mark.dayton@state.mn.us.

Suggested message: "Governor Dayton, I would like you to support the “Buy the Farm” language contained in Section 52 of the House Omnibus Environment and Ag Finance Bill. I urge you to let Senate and House conference committee members know that you want it included in the final Omnibus Environment and Agricultural Finance Conference Committee Report. Restoring the original intent of the "Buy the Farm" law is about justice. Family farmers didn't have a choice about high voltage lines cutting across their land — it was forced upon them. Utility companies that are taking land from farmers and landowners as part of the CapX2020 project should be required to promptly and fully reimburse them for their land, relocation expenses and lost business. It's time for corporations to pay their fair share. That is what these provisions do."

If you have time for more calls, you can contact legislators on the Omnibus Environment and Agriculture Finance Bill conference committee.

Suggested message: "I'm calling about the Environment and Ag Omnibus Finance Bill. As a member of the conference committee, I urge you to support language that restores the original intent of the “Buy the Farm” law. This is about justice. Family farmers didn't have a choice about the CapX high voltage lines cutting across their land — it was forced upon them. The provisions in section 52 of the House bill would require the energy conglomerate that is taking land from farmers and landowners as part of the CapX project to fully and promptly reimburse them for their land, relocation expenses and lost business. I urge you to include these provisions in the final version of the bill. It's time for corporations to pay their fair share.”

• Senator David Tomassoni at 651-296-8017 or sen.david.tomassoni@senate.mn

• Senator Tom Saxhaug at 651-296-4136 or www.senate.mn/senatorsaxhaugemail

• Senator Dan Sparks at 651-296-9248 or sen.dan.sparks@senate.mn

• Senator James Metzen at 651-296-4370 or sen.jim.metzen@senate.mn

• Senator Torrey Westrom at 651-296-3826 or sen.torrey.westrom@senate.mn

• Rep. Jean Wagenius at 651-296-4200 or rep.jean.wagenius@house.mn

• Rep. David Dill at 651-296-2190 or rep.david.dill@house.mn

• Rep. Rick Hansen at 651-296-6828 or rep.rick.hansen@house.mn

• Rep. Andrew Falk at 651-296-4228 or rep.andrew.falk@house.mn

• Rep. Jeanne Poppe at 651-296-4193 or rep.jeanne.poppe@house.mn

The 2012 Garden has gone through many transformations since it was turned into a garden for community use in 2010. The lot used to have a house standing on it, which was torn down many years ago, and the foundation was packed with a sandy mix of filler soil.

When gardeners and community members realized that the property owned by Hope Community could be turned into a garden, they jumped at the chance. Since 2010 there has been a careful process of amending soil, adding compost and using cover crops to do remediation on the sandy, compacted fill material that made up the vacant lot.

Caretakers of the garden have also come and gone over the years. Participation was slow to start in 2010, and only a few gardeners used the space to grow melons and squash, as well as the other vegetables that were too large to grow in the small 5’ x 5’ individual garden plots nearby. During the 2011 and 2012 growing seasons, students from the Franklin Library Urban 4-H club tended a large patch of the garden. In 2012 they shared the space with community member Omari Chatman, who used the garden to practice the permaculture design principals he learned through his certification as an Urban Farmer at the Permaculture Research Institute.

This year, Omari is once again heading up the garden, and is working with a team of dedicated community members who have come together to contribute ideas for design, plant varieties and what to do with extra produce. Some community members would like to see produce donated to local food shelves, while others have talked about starting up a mini farmers' market to sell what is not divided up among the gardeners.

On Thursday, May 16, from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., Hope is hosting an open house at the 2012 Garden to welcome newcomers and finish getting the soil prepared for planting on Saturday. For more information about LSP’s partnership with Hope, see our Hope Community web page.

Anna Cioffi is a Land Stewardship Program organizer working in the Hope Community on developing community based food systems. She can be reached via e-mail or at 612-722-6377.

The U.S. House of Representatives released its draft Farm Bill on Friday, May 10. After numerous delays, things are moving fast — the House Agriculture Committee's debate and votes on the proposed Farm Bill are scheduled for Wednesday, May 15.

A huge problem with the draft legislation is the massive cut proposed to funding for conservation. House Ag Committee Chair Frank Lucas (R-OK) proposes to cut nearly $7 billion from conservation.

These will mean cuts to programs like the Conservation Stewardship Program, which would be reduced by nearly 20 percent, and the longstanding Conservation Reserve Program. These programs help farmers put in place measures to protect soil and water, as well as enhance wildlife habitat. They are proven tools for landowners and farmers in leveraging more conservation on the land.

While conservation spending gets axed, federally subsidized crop insurance is exploding in size and cost. Crop insurance is now the largest farm-oriented spending area at over $90 billion. With no limits or caps on what huge producers can receive in subsidies, the biggest of the big are “guaranteed” to keep expanding and acquire more acreage, making it harder for beginning farmers and rank-and-file farmers to thrive. On top of that, the corporations that control the crop insurance industry, like Wells-Fargo and ADM, continue to reap millions and sometimes billions a year in taxpayer dollars.

The bottom line is more for federally subsided crop insurance and less for farmland conservation.

The Minnesota Congressional delegation will have an influential role in the development of this Farm Bill. U.S. Rep. Collin Peterson is a powerful senior member of the House Agriculture Committee. U.S. Rep. Rick Nolan serves on the House Agriculture Committee as does Rep. Tim Walz, who is also the lead Democrat on the Conservation, Energy and Forestry Subcommittee. We need these Peterson, Nolan and Walz to fight for better and larger investments in conservation; a $7 billion cut is not acceptable.

• Contact U.S. Rep. Collin Peterson at 202-225-2165

• Contact U.S. Rep. Rick Nolan at 202-225-6211

• Contact U.S. Rep. Tim Walz at 202-225-2472

Suggested Message:

“I’m calling to leave the Congressman a message. This is _____________ from __________. These proposed cuts to conservation in the proposed House Farm Bill are wrong and excessive. I’m asking him to fight to restore investments in conservation. If you have to make cuts, cut from somewhere, but it’s unacceptable to slash conservation like this.”

NOTE: Anybody concerned about this issue can and should call their U.S. Representative. If you are a farmer, make sure to tell them that. If you use the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) or another conservation program, make sure to say that in your message. It’s important, given the quick time frame, to leave a message on an answering machine if you don’t get an aide to the Congressmen.

I understand you met with frac sand industry representatives yesterday. I would imagine their rhetoric included the promise of jobs and state competitiveness. Before accepting their statements as fact, I encourage you to consider the following:

• According to Industrial Minerals, Wisconsin produces more frac sand than any other state.

• According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, companies in Wisconsin have been mining frac sand since at least 2007.

I would guess that Wisconsin’s economy is on the smaller side among all states in the U.S. If you believe the oil and gas industry, natural gas production (fracking) is a huge contributor to the U. S. economy.

If Wisconsin is the biggest producer of frac sand in the nation, and they’ve been doing it for at least six years, shouldn’t this important industry have had a positive effect on Wisconsin’s economy by now?

According to a report released by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in April of this year, Wisconsin ranks 45 out of the 50 states in long-term job growth, and dead last (50 out of 50) in short-term job growth.

I urge you to focus on protecting the health, safety and welfare of Minnesota residents, rather than the empty promises of industry when you consider frac sand mining regulation in Minnesota.

Please continue to support Senator Matt Schmit’s trout stream protections.

Sincerely,

Kelley Stanage

LSP member Kelley Stanage lives in Houston, in southeast Minnesota.

Today the Star Tribune newspaper ran an editorial in support of strong regulation of the frac sand industry. The editorial, entitled "Minnesota Legislature must protect trout streams," says in part:

“Schmit’s common-sense legislation, which will likely face a critical Senate floor vote today, proposes a reasonable 5,000-foot-setback for sand mines from trout streams and the springs that feed them. Mining also couldn’t occur within 25 feet of the water table. The aim is straightforward: to protect the flow of the cold, clear waters that are the lifeblood of the region’s renowned trout fishery and, by extension, the jobs dependent on angling tourism. Cutting off springs or groundwater flow through careless excavation could reduce stream flows and increase water temperature to levels lethal to trout...The setbacks called for in the legislation are based on the best available research and would significantly reduce the risk of environmental damage. Waiting years to gather data for a more tailored approach isn’t practical. The damage to critical trout habitat may already have been done by then."

This vote is happening today on the Senate floor as early as mid-morning. Sen. Matt Schmit of Red Wing will offer his amendment on the Senate floor to the Omnibus Game and Fish Bill (Senate File 796) to protect southeast Minnesota trout streams from frac sand mining and processing.

Take Action. Contact your Senator immediately and urge them to support Sen. Schmit’s amendment. You can find your state Senator's name and contact information online here, or by calling 651-296-0504 or 888-234-1112.

Suggested message: “Today Sen. Matt Schmit will offer an amendment on the Senate floor to protect southeast Minnesota trout streams from frac sand mining. I strongly encourage you to support this amendment, which will include a setback from trout streams for frac sand mines. The Star Tribune editorial had it right today when it said that these setbacks "are based on the best available research and would significantly reduce the rise of environmental damage." I will check back in tomorrow to see how you voted on this amendment."

You can watch the debate on the Senate floor online here.

For more information on this issue, contact LSP's Bobby King at 612-722-6377 or bking@landstewardshipproject.

The bad news is that the Governor met with a group of frac sand industry lobbyists today. Despite several requests for a meeting from groups representing citizens affected by frac sand mining, we have not had the same opportunity this legislative session. That the Governor is hearing from one side only is a cause for concern. If the Governor maintains his commitment to the trout stream protections, including the one mile setback, we have a good shot at getting them passed. If his commitment softens, our chances are slim.

Take action! Call Gov. Dayton IMMEDIATELY at 651-201-3400 or 800-657-3717, and e-mail him here. If you use Facebook, post on Gov. Dayton’s official Facebook page under the fishing opener post or message him on his personal Facebook page.

Message to Gov. Dayton: “I saw the story in the Star Tribune today and am very glad to see that you are strongly supporting a one mile setback from trout streams for frac sand mines in southeast Minnesota. We need some standards in place now that clearly put these most sensitive areas off limits to frac sand mining. I also saw that you met with frac sand lobbyists today. While environmental review is good, it is not, as the industry claims, a standard that protects our community. I urge you to stick to the one mile setback. Once the damage is done, it cannot be undone. We must protect this resource now. I hope you will not consider changing your mind because of today's meeting. If you are reconsidering your views on this issue, I think you should also meet with people from southeast Minnesota whose communities are on the line."

This issue is being negotiated now, so we need calls and e-mails immediately.

Join us at the Capitol. We expect Sen. Schmit to offer his amendment on the Senate floor tomorrow and will be gathering at 10:30 a.m. in front of the Senate chambers at the Capitol to show our support. If you plan to attend, let Bobby King know at bking@landstewardshipproject.org.

These provisions that Sen. Schmit developed with Minnesota Trout Unlimited say that for southeast Minnesota’s driftless area (roughly the five counties that are in southeast Minnesota):

• No frac sand mining is allowed within one mile of any spring, groundwater seepage area, fen, designated trout stream, class 2a water or any tributary of class 2a water or designated trout stream.
• The DNR cannot issue groundwater appropriation permits for frac sand-related activity, including frac sand processing. (These permits are necessary when over a million gallons of groundwater a year will be used.)
• Mining frac sand within 25 feet of the water table is prohibited.

These provisions protecting trout streams would help dramatically in limiting the harm frac sand mining can do in southeast Minnesota, and would go into effect immediately. Without a moratorium, we need standards in place NOW before anymore frac sand mines or processing facilities are established in southeast Minnesota. For more details on the language proposed in the amendment, go to LSP's website here.

For more information, contact LSP's Bobby King at 612-722-6377 or bking@landstewardshipproject.org.

A bus from southeast Minnesota brought a crowd up to the Capitol today as part of our push to win the upcoming Senate floor vote on regulating the frac sand industry (a Rochester Post Bulletin story on the bus trip is here). Over 50 people were there at the press conference where we were joined by Department of Natural Resources Commissioner Tom Landwehr to support provisions to protect southeast Minnesota's trout streams from frac sand mining. (Details on the provisoins are in the action alert below.)

At the event, LSP member Marilyn Frauenkron Bayer of Houston County made a powerful statement about what is at stake. She began by saying, “My great-great-grandfather moved to Houston County at the end of the Civil War in 1865. I am blessed to be...living on part of our family's Century Farm, between Houston and Money Creek. All my siblings are farmers in Houston County.” Read her full statement here.

Constituents of Sen. Jeremy Miller of Winona delivered him an over-sized postcard that read in part, “..we were shocked at your vote to kill common-sense provisions to protect trout streams from the frac sand mining industry. The frac sand industry threatens our water, our air, our natural resources, our roads and our economy…We are calling on you to start putting the well-being of the citizens of your district above frac sand special interests."

Here is what you can do NOW to help in this final push. The vote on the Senate floor will happen any day now, very likely this week:

1. The frac sand documentary Price of Sand will be shown in the Great Hall of the State Capitol on Wednesday, May 8, at 4 p.m. Call your state legislators and encourage them to attend. It is open to the public, so plan to attend if you can. No reservation is necessary for this free event, but if you plan to attend please e-mail bking@landstewardshipproject.org. Contact information for state Representatives and Senators is here.

2. When you call your state Senator about the Price of Sand showing, give them the message below about the details and importance of this upcoming vote. These calls are making a difference. The message is here.

3. Volunteer for our phone bank this Wednesday, May 8, from 6:30 p.m. – 9:30 p.m., at our Lewiston and Minneapolis offices. We will be calling Land Stewardship Project members from around the state and encouraging them to contact their legislators. Contact Bobby King at bking@landstewardshipproejct.org or 612-722-6377 to sign up for this.

Critical Senate Floor Vote on Frac Sand Mining Coming Up This Week

Sen. Matt Schmit Vows to Keep Fighting for Strong Standards on Frac Sand Mining. Sen. Schmit added language to the Minnesota Legislature's Omnibus Game and Fish Bill (Senate File 796) protecting southeast Minnesota trout streams from frac sand mining and processing. These strong standards would help protect the area from frac sand mining and processing, but the provisions were removed in the Environment Finance Committee. At the bill’s next committee stop in the Full Finance Committee, Assistant Majority Leader Sen. Katie Sieben made a motion to reinsert the provisions. Her motion failed narrowly on an 11-10 vote, with Sen. Jeremy Miller of Winona casting the deciding vote against it.

After the hearing, Sen. Schmit committed to keep fighting and try again on the Senate floor. He said, “Nothing is ever lost here. We are going to continue to fight the good fight.” Watch the media coverage here.

Gov. Mark Dayton now supports these provisions and is working to pass them. Gov. Dayton has paid attention to calls and e-mails from the public and recognized the importance of establishing standards now, before the industry charges ahead. As a result, Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Commissioner Tom Landwehr has testified at the last two Senate hearings in strong support of these provisions, making a clear case that they are necessary to protect the area’s trout streams.

These are strong standards that will make a difference. These provisions that Sen. Schmit developed with Minnesota Trout Unlimited say that for southeast Minnesota’s driftless area (roughly the five counties that are in southeast Minnesota):

• No frac sand mining is allowed within a mile of any spring, groundwater seepage area, fen, designated trout stream, class 2a water or any tributary of class 2a water or designated trout stream.
• The DNR cannot issue groundwater appropriation permits for frac sand-related activity, including frac sand processing. These permits are necessary when over a million gallons of groundwater a year will be used. In effect, this measure will limit the amount of groundwater a frac sand facility can use annually to a million gallons or less.
• Mining frac sand within 25 feet of the water table is prohibited.

These provisions protecting trout streams would help dramatically in limiting the harm frac sand mining can do in southeast Minnesota, and would go into effect immediately. Without a moratorium, we need standards in place NOW before anymore frac sand mines or processing facilities are established in southeast Minnesota.

TAKE ACTION! The bill will be on the Senate Floor any day now and calls are needed IMMEDIATELY.

1. Contact Senate Majority Leader Sen. Tom Bakk at 651-296-8881, along with your state Senator. You can find your state Senator's name and contact information online here, or by calling 651-296-0504 or 888-234-1112.

Suggested message: “We have seen the harm the frac sand industry has caused in western Wisconsin. Sen. Matt Schmit has been working hard to enact legislation to prevent this from happening in southeast Minnesota. He will offer a critical amendment on the Senate floor to Senate File 796 to protect trout streams in southeast Minnesota from frac sand facilities. I urge you to support his amendment. The karst topography in southeast Minnesota creates conditions for cold streams and some of the best trout fishing in the country. However, it also allows for these streams to be easily polluted. The state has invested millions in maintaining these trout streams and trout fishing is an important economic industry for the area. This amendment has the support of the DNR Commissioner, who has twice testified in support of it. The amendment says that for southeast Minnesota: frac sand mining is prohibited within a mile of sensitive trout streams; frac sand facilities cannot use more than a million gallons of groundwater a year; and frac sand mining cannot happen within 25 feet of the water table. We have to protect our public resource and put it before corporate profit.”

2. Contact Gov. Mark Dayton at 651-201-3400 or 800-657-3717, or e-mail him here.

Suggested message: “Protecting southeast Minnesota from the frac sand industry must be a priority this legislative session. I want to thank you for strongly supporting the provisions Sen. Matt Schmit has proposed to protect trout streams in southeast Minnesota. Unfortunately, these provisions were taken out of Senate File 796 in committee. Sen. Schmit will attempt to amend them back into the bill on the Senate floor. I urge you to express to Senate leadership your strong support for these provisions, and do everything you can to see that his amendment succeeds.”

Update on frac sand provisions in House and Senate Omnibus Environment and Agriculture Finance Bills. Key frac sand provisions are in these bills (Senate File 1607 and House File 976), which are now in conference committee. The conference committee has met but taken no actions yet, and so calls and e-mails to conferees are still timely and needed. LSP’s action alert with full details is on our website here.

For more information on this issue, contact LSP's Bobby King at bking@landstewardshipproject.org or 612-722-6377.

Hope Community is a place-based community development organization that is entrenched in the Phillips Neighborhood, one of the most economically challenged and diverse neighborhoods in Minneapolis. Hope provides 173 units of affordable housing that is home to some 400 people. Since 2009, LSP has been working with Hope through an initiative called “Growing Neighborhood Access to Healthy Food.” It’s an attempt to build community power and capacity to shape a strong neighborhood-scale system that ensures reliable, affordable and equitable access to healthy food.

As part of this initiative, cooking classes were held twice a month on Saturday mornings during the winter to bring community members together to share their favorite recipes. The focus was on making and sharing food that is healthy and easy to make. Other cooking classes included lentil veggie burgers with sweet potato fries, and sambusas.

"The class went very well. Community members who have been participating in food-related classes are starting to really get to know each other and become friends," said Taya, who has been interning at Hope since March. "I am glad to see that people are interested in trying new things and love the feeling they get from cooking with, eating and sharing fresh food."

Taya has also helped to organize and perform outreach for events throughout the spring such as the Vegetable Garden Basics series, and food-themed movie nights.

"I would like to see attendance expand. Maybe we could encourage people to bring their friends, and reach out to more people in the community by asking them to share their kitchen skills with us," said Taya.

Community-led cooking classes will continue through the summer, alongside programming that supports new and continuing gardeners at Hope's Community Garden space. For more information about LSP's partnership with Hope, visit LSP's Hope Community web page.

Anna Cioffi is a Land Stewardship Program organizer working in the Hope Community on developing community based food systems. She can be reached via e-mail or at 612-722-6377.

Looking across the river at what is happening in western Wisconsin with the frac sand industry, one sees roads destroyed and water and air polluted. What were once peaceful rural communities are now industrial zones, with neighboring property values greatly diminished.

We do not want that to happen here in southeastern Minnesota. Our state has a national reputation for being at the forefront of treasuring its natural resources. Coming from a farming family, we have always known it isn't just "good fences that make good neighbors." Good land use regulations are also of paramount importance. Which is why there is a call for state standards to protect the bluff country region.

Citizens by the thousands have called for passing regulations to protect our southeastern Minnesota trout streams due to the sensitive karst topography in our region. Local officials throughout southeastern Minnesota have also called for this.

Senator Jeremy Miller of Winona had the chance to be the deciding vote on passing state standards to protect southeastern Minnesota trout streams from known and unknown consequences due to frac sand mining. Instead, he cast the deciding vote (10 to 11), voting them down. He voted with the special interests wanting to push frac sand mining into our communities without proper regulations in place. Waiting to establish standards after mining begins is like shutting the barn door after the horse gets out.

A very elderly farmer who lived through the Dust Bowl years was interviewed near the end of Ken Burns recent PBS documentary The Dust Bowl. The old farmer stated in a slow, measured voice: "We want it now. And, if it makes money now, it is a good idea. But, it isn't necessarily a good idea; if the thing we're doing now is going to mess up the future, it wasn't a good idea. Don't deal on the moment. Take the long term look at things."

We are signing this postcard and taking it to the Capitol today. We are telling Sen. Miller his approach is unacceptable.

We want him to "Take the long term look at things." He must start standing with the citizens of his district who are thinking about the next six generations of their families living where they have been blessed to live. They are thinking about not having those generations' futures messed up because someone was in too much of a hurry and didn't take the time to put proper regulations in place.

An early, competent, conservative conservationist who was a well-respected retired state legislator from Houston County, Virgil Johnson, worked tirelessly throughout his long career to protect Minnesota's groundwater. When this issue reaches the Senate floor this week, it will be Sen. Miller’s last chance to continue Johnson's legacy, proving to all citizens of his district he puts our interests above the frac sand industry's desire to push into our communities without proper regulations in place, threatening our futures with unintended consequences.

NOTE: LSP member Marilyn Frauenkron Bayer read this statement in Winona this morning as several southeast Minnesota citizens prepared to travel to the Capitol to deliver a postcard to Senator Jeremy Miller. The over-sized postcard reads:

"Sen. Miller, as your constituents we were shocked at your vote to kill common-sense provisions to protect trout streams from the frac sand mining industry. The frac sand industry threatens our water, our air, our natural resources, our roads and our economy. Hundreds of citizens as well as county, city and township officials have clearly and strongly asked for strong state regulations of the frac sand industry. You have not listened. We are calling on you to start putting the well-being of the citizens of your district above frac sand special interests."

One of the outcomes of this was the “Buy the Farm” law. Essentially, this law says that farmers and landowners have the right to require that companies purchase their entire farm if high voltage power lines are forced onto their property. The law was intended to require utilities to fully reimburse farmers and landowners for their land, relocation expenses and lost business.

When I heard that Xcel Energy and the other backers of CapX2020 are claiming that farmers are “voluntarily” relocating their farms and any reimbursements for moving expenses and lost business would be “extra compensation,” I can’t say I was surprised.

But farmers and landowners didn’t have a choice about the high voltage lines cutting across their land. It was forced upon them. The Buy the Farm law has been on the books for 35 years, and Xcel Energy and the rest of them knew it.

But the energy conglomerate backing the project thinks that by using its considerable resources (Xcel Energy alone has 37 registered lobbyists in Minnesota), it can sidestep the law.

CapX2020 is estimated to cost $2.2 billion. With less than 100 landowners expected to file for relocation across the entire state, the attempt to shortchange farmers and landowners is downright petty.

The Minnesota House did the right thing by including in their Ag Omnibus Finance bill language that clarifies the original intent of the Buy the Farm law. That bill is in conference committee right now and the conferees from both the House and Senate should stand up for family farmers and make sure the Buy the Farm clarification is included in the final bill.

Land Stewardship Project member Alan Perish lives near Browerville, Minn.

Sen. Matt Schmit added language to the Minnesota Legislature's Omnibus Game and Fish Bill (Senate File 796) protecting southeast Minnesota trout streams from frac sand mining and processing. These strong standards would help protect the area from frac sand mining and processing, but the provisions were removed in the Environment Finance Committee. At the bill’s next committee stop in the Full Finance Committee, Assistant Majority Leader Sen. Katie Sieben made a motion to reinsert the provisions. Her motion failed narrowly on an 11-10 vote, with Sen. Jeremy Miller of Winona casting the deciding vote against it.

After the hearing, Sen. Schmit committed to keep fighting and try again on the Senate floor. He said, “Nothing is ever lost here. We are going to continue to fight the good fight.” Watch the media coverage HERE.

Gov. Mark Dayton now supports these provisions and is working to pass them. Gov. Dayton has paid attention to calls and e-mails from the public and recognized the importance of establishing standards now, before the industry charges ahead. As a result, Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Commissioner Landwehr has testified at the last two Senate hearings in strong support of these provisions, making a clear case that they are necessary to protect the area’s trout streams.

These are strong standards that will make a difference. These provisions that Sen. Schmit developed with Minnesota Trout Unlimited say that for southeast Minnesota’s driftless area (roughly the five counties that are in southeast Minnesota):

• No frac sand mining is allowed within a mile of any spring, groundwater seepage area, fen, designated trout stream, class 2a water or any tributary of class 2a water or designated trout stream.
• The DNR cannot issue groundwater appropriation permits for frac sand-related activity, including frac sand processing. (These permits are necessary when over a million gallons of groundwater a year will be used.)
• Mining frac sand within 25 feet of the water table is prohibited.

These provisions protecting trout streams would help dramatically in limiting the harm frac sand mining can do in southeast Minnesota, and would go into effect immediately. Without a moratorium, we need standards in place NOW before any more frac sand mines or processing facilities are established in southeast Minnesota.

TAKE ACTION!

The bill will be on the Senate Floor next week and calls are needed NOW.

1. Contact Senate Majority Leader Sen. Tom Bakk at 651-296-8881, along with your state Senator. You can find your state Senator's name and contact information online HERE, or by calling 651-296-0504 or 888-234-1112.

Suggested message: “We have seen the harm the frac sand industry has caused in western Wisconsin. Sen. Matt Schmit has been working hard to enact legislation to prevent this from happening in southeast Minnesota. He will offer a critical amendment on the Senate floor to Senate File 796 to protect trout streams in southeast Minnesota from frac sand facilities. I urge you to support his amendment. The karst topography in southeast Minnesota creates conditions for cold streams and some of the best trout fishing in the country. However, it also allows for these streams to be easily polluted. The state has invested millions in maintaining these trout streams and trout fishing is an important economic industry for the area. This amendment has the support of the DNR Commissioner, who has twice testified in support of it. The amendment says that for southeast Minnesota: frac sand mining is prohibited within a mile of sensitive trout streams; frac sand facilities cannot use more than a million gallons of groundwater a year; and frac sand mining cannot happen within 25 feet of the water table. We have to protect our public resource and put it before corporate profit.”

2. Contact Gov. Mark Dayton at 651-201-3400 or 800-657-3717, or e-mail him HERE.

Suggested message: “Protecting southeast Minnesota from the frac sand industry must be a priority this legislative session. I want to thank you for strongly supporting the provisions Sen. Matt Schmit has proposed to protect trout streams in southeast Minnesota. Unfortunately, these provisions were taken out of Senate File 796 in committee. Sen. Schmit will attempt to amend them back into the bill on the Senate floor. I urge you to express to Senate leadership your strong support for these provisions, and do everything you can to see that his amendment succeeds.”

3. Join us for a press conference and last legislative push on Tuesday, May 7, at 12:30 p.m., in the State Office Building Press Room. (The Press Room is on the first floor, across from the Secretary of State’s Office.) LSP members and others from southeast Minnesota are coming up to the Capitol on Tuesday for a 12:30 p.m. press conference and one last push to see meaningful legislation passed to control the frac sand industry. For full details and to RSVP, e-mail LSP's Bobby King at bking@landstewardshipproject.org.

Update on Frac Sand Provisions in House & Senate
Omnibus Environment & Agriculture Finance Bills

Key frac sand provisions are in these bills (Senate File 1607 and House File 976), which are now in conference committee. The conference committee has met but taken no actions yet, and so calls and e-mails to conferees are still timely and needed. LSP’s action alert with full details is on our website HERE.

For more information on this issue, contact LSP's Bobby King at bking@landstewardshipproject.org or 612-722-6377.

"You know, I can do anything I want.…I can treat my workers any way I want. I've got my own personnel policy," Nopar, speaking on a recent LSP Ear to the Ground podcast, recalls the farmer telling him.

Fortunately, such an arrogant attitude is not common among Minnesota farmers. Most recognize that a day's work deserves a day's pay, no matter if the worker hails from Montevideo or Mexico. But there are signs that wage theft and other abuses of farmworkers are a growing problem in Minnesota.

The most prominent recent example was highlighted in January when it came to light that two large "model" industrial farms in southeast Minnesota were ordered to pay over $100,000 combined in back overtime wages to employees. One of the operations, Daley Farms in Lewiston, fought its fine for five years.

As rural Winona County resident Barb Nelson puts it, when something like that occurs, it puts a "black mark" on all farms in the region, as well as the community in general. And farms who engage in wage theft and other violations are enjoying an unfair competitive advantage over the operations that follow the rules.

Under Minnesota law, farms that have more than $500,000 in gross annual sales need to comply with the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act. Wage and hour law applies to all workers, regardless of status or documentation. LSP, working with Centro Campesino and the Latino Economic Development Center, has documented several examples of violations on industrial farms in Minnesota, including:

1) Failure to provide a final paycheck after employee’s resignation or dismissal.

2) Failure to pay for all hours worked.

3) Docking of worker wages for damage to farm equipment or buildings.

4) Failure to inform injured workers of their rights to workers’ compensation.

5) Personnel policies that are not in compliance with the law.

In LSP's Ear to the Ground podcast, Centro Campesino's executive director, Ernesto Velez Bustos, provides a shopping list of workers' rights violations he knows of in the region. Some violations can be blamed on ignorance on the part of farm owners when it comes to government labor rules. But others are contrary to what most of us would consider basic rules of human decency—you know, the kind where we treat people like we would want to be treated ourselves.

"A lot of these violations involve situations that are not too complicated to understand that something is wrong," says Bustos. "I think a lot of common sense and just everyday values and ethics would apply."

And most people want their food and farming system to be based on good values and ethics, argues Lisa Sass Zaragoza, who teaches a class on migrant farmworkers at the University of Minnesota. But because agricultural labor violations tend to fly under the radar, even people who generally seek out sustainably raised products are often "duped," as she puts it, into thinking their food is being produced, harvested and processed under conditions that are fair to workers.

"The farm worker rights piece is so crucial to being a part of a food system that is healthy, that is productive and that is dignified," Zaragoza says. "And it's the food production system many of us want."

A farming system that mistreats those who produce food is no more sustainable than one that mistreats the soil. That's why Centro Campesino, the Land Stewardship Project and the Latino Economic Development Center have combined forces and are asking allies around the state to help document farmworker rights violations.

The groups are also calling on the University of Minnesota and U of M Extension to dramatically increase their educational and research activities in the area of farm labor. After all, like many land grant universities, the U of M has played a key role in promoting the development of the kind of large-scale industrial farms that often rely on large numbers of low-wage workers. It’s time the U of M took responsibility as a public research and outreach institution and helped alleviate the problem of farmworker abuse.

The Minnesota Farmworker Justice Campaign is just one more step LSP is taking to create the kind of food and farming that builds communities of people, rather than sets them at odds with each other.

"We're not really approaching this from a do-gooder approach," says Nopar. "We need to look at this from a position of self-interest, with an attitude of 'What kind of community do you want to live in?' "

“It was irresponsible of the Board to decide that there would be no cumulative effects, when so many other sites have already been proposed for mining,” said Vince Ready, one of the appellants and a resident of Saratoga Township. “What is at stake is the industrialization of a rural area, with strip mining for the benefit of outside corporate interests at the cost of the health and welfare of residents.”

The appeal argues that the Board’s negative declaration on the need for an EIS was arbitrary and capricious and based upon errors of law. The appellants — including residents near the proposed mine, along the proposed frac sand truck hauling route on Highway 14, and near the sand processing destination in the City of Winona — came together to file the appeal because, in failing to order the EIS, Winona County ignored serious concerns about the project’s impacts on the land and on residents’ health, safety, and quality of life, said Ready. The Nisbit mine site is at the center of a cluster of proposed mines in Saratoga Township and neighboring Pilot Mound Township in Fillmore County.

An EIS is a more comprehensive study than the brief Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) previously undertaken on the Nisbit proposal. In their February comments on the EAW, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) recommended that the Nisbit mine be studied in an EIS, particularly because of the potential cumulative effects.

A second letter to Winona County from MPCA Commissioner John Linc Stine strongly repeated that recommendation in March. The MPCA comment stated that the issue of potential health impacts of airborne crystalline silica should be evaluated in an EIS. Among other points, the MDH comment called attention to the health and safety risks caused by the proposed mine’s traffic levels of up to 280 truck trips per day.

In spite of state rules requiring an analysis of cumulative effects, the Board rejected the agencies’ recommendations, along with dozens of comments from citizens also pointing out the potential for significant negative effects and calling for the EIS.

“Because Winona County has already failed to fulfill its responsibilities in this process, by dismissing the cumulative effects issue and by failing to provide specific responses to citizens’ comments, the Board should not move forward with a permit for the Nisbit mine before the appeal is decided,” said Jane Cowgill of Winona, another appellant. “We need an EIS to look at this mine as part of the whole picture and consider what this level of mining would do to the land.”

In addition to Ready and Cowgill, the appellants are Pauline Connaughty of Saratoga Township, Mike Knutson of Utica, Joe Morse of Wilson Township, Barb and Martin Nelson of The Arches, Jim Pelowski of Saratoga Township, Renee Ready of Saratoga Township, Stewart and Kay Shaw of Winona, and Margaret Walsh of Winona.

-30-

CONTACT: Johanna Rupprecht, LSP organizer, 320-305-4096; Vince Ready, LSP member, 507-259-7982

Applications for the 2013 sign-up in the voluntary Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) are due by May 31, the USDA announced this week. While CSP enrollment is continuous, interested farmers, ranchers, and forestland owners must complete the initial application form by May 31 to compete for a spot in the 2013 enrollment class for the program.

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) will accept slightly more than 12 million acres into the program nationally this year.

“The application producers need to submit by May 31 is essentially a basic form that outlines farmers’ intent to go through the CSP sign-up process with NRCS,” said Adam Warthesen, policy organizer for the Land Stewardship Project." NRCS will discuss program specifics and contract options with each producer in the months following that May 31 deadline.”

CSP offers financial incentives to farmers for adopting and maintaining high standards of conservation and environmental stewardship. Assistance is geared to both the active management of existing conservation systems and to the implementation of new conservation activities on land in agricultural production.

In the first four enrollment years for CSP (2009-2012), more than 39,000 farmers and ranchers have enrolled over 50 million acres of farm and ranch land. Land that is now under five-year, renewable CSP conservation contracts is valued at $680 million a year. Since 2009, Minnesota has consistently topped the nation in use of this program.

"We need more conservation on the farm landscape, not less, and Minnesota farmers generally rate quite high when applying for CSP contracts," said Warthesen. "This is a great opportunity to not only get rewarded for practicing good conservation, but for implementing new practices on the farm. Producers have nothing to lose and should check it out."

For more information, contact your local NRCS office at www.mn.nrcs.usda.gov.

-30-

Key Frac Sand Provisions are in Bills Headed to Conference Committee

The Senate and House Omnibus Environment and Agriculture Finance Bills contain frac sand provisions (Senate File 1607 and House File 976). The bills are now headed for conference committee to have the differences reconciled. The Senate bill is stronger because it contains the following provisions:

• For the next year, all frac sand mines over 20 acres and at least 10-feet-deep will require an environmental assessment worksheet.
• During that time the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) must amend environmental review rules for frac sand facilities to take into account increased activity and concerns over the size of specific operations.
• Local governments can extend local moratoriums to March 1, 2015, no matter how long they have already been in place.

Both bills contain provisions requiring that for frac sand mines the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) adopts rules for the control of particulate emissions, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) adopts rules for reclamation, and the Minnesota Department of Health adopts air quality standards. (While this is good, the concern is that there is no guarantee these will be tough standards and they will take time to create.)

We Need These Provisions Passed But They Are Not Enough

Without a moratorium, we need hard standards that protect our air and water enacted this legislative session. Provisions in Senate File 796 (the Game and Fish Policy Bill) would have created standards to protect trout streams in southeast Minnesota and were a good start. The provisions created a mile buffer between mines and trout streams, required frac sand mining not happen within 25 feet of the water table, and limited groundwater usage at frac sand facilities. However, despite strong testimony from the DNR Commissioner, these provisions were voted down in the Senate Environment Finance Committee. We must urge Governor Mark Dayton to demand that these provisions be reinserted.

We Must Have Strong State Regulations Before the Frac Sand Industsy Expands Any Further into Minnesota

The story by Wisconsin Public Radio—"Trempealeau County Frac Sand Site Ignores DNR, Sees Massive Runoff"—details how the owners of a frac sand mine in Wisconsin refuse to correct problems and comply with their permit, even after a massive spill into an Amish farmer's home. A county enforcement officer is quoted in the story saying, "So, we’ve learned that citations are pretty much ineffective for this industry. This industry has very deep pockets and a wealth of resources."

Take Action!

Calls are needed to conference committee members and the Governor demanding that the strongest frac sand provisions are included in the final bill.

1. Call the Representatives on the Omnibus Environment and Agriculture Finance Bill conference committee.

Suggested message: “I'm calling about the Environment and Ag Omnibus Finance Bill. I am concerned about the harm the frac sand mining industry poses to Minnesota. As a member of the conference committee, I urge you to support provisions in the Senate bill that require an environmental assessment worksheet on frac sand mines over 20 acres for the next year while the state environmental review rules are updated to deal with frac sand facilities. I also urge you to support a provision that will allow local governments to extend their local moratoriums to March 1, 2015, if they chose. Provisions requiring the MPCA to adopt rules for controlling particulate emissions from frac sand mines, the DNR to adopt reclamation rules for reclamation of frac sand mines, and for the Department of Health to adopt air quality standards are in both bills and should also be supported. Please work to ensure that all these provisions are in the final bill.”

• Rep. Jean Wagenius (DFL) at 651-296-4200 or rep.jean.wagenius@house.mn
• Rep. David Dill (DFL) at 651-296-2190 or rep.david.dill@house.mn
• Rep. Rick Hansen (DFL) at 651-296-6828 or rep.rick.hansen@house.mn
• Rep. Andrew Falk (DFL) at 651-296-4228 or rep.andrew.falk@house.mn
• Rep. Jeanne Poppe (DFL) at 651-296-4193 or rep.jeanne.poppe@house.mn

2. Call Senators on the Omnibus Environment and Agriculture Finance Bill conference committee.

Suggested message: “I'm calling about the Environment and Ag Omnibus Finance Bill. I am concerned about the harm the frac sand mining industry poses to Minnesota. The Senate bill contains some important provisions not in the House bill, and as a member of the conference committee I urge you to fight to include these in the final bill. The Senate bill requires an environmental assessment worksheet on frac sand mines over 20 acres for the next year while the state environmental review rules are updated to deal with frac sand facilities. It also contains a provision that will allow local governments to extend their local moratoriums to March 1, 2015, if they chose. Provisions requiring the MPCA to adopt rules for controlling particulate emissions from frac sand mines, the DNR to adopt reclamation rules for reclamation of frac sand mines, and for the Department of Health to adopt air quality standards are in both bills and should also be supported. Please work to ensure that all these provisions are in the final bill.”

• Sen. David Tomassoni (DFL) at 651-296-8017 or sen.david.tomassoni@senate.mn
• Sen. Tom Saxhaug (DFL) at 651-296-4136 or www.senate.mn/senatorsaxhaugemail
• Senator Dan Sparks (DFL) at 651-296-9248 or sen.dan.sparks@senate.mn
• Sen. James Metzen (DFL) at 651-296-4370 or sen.jim.metzen@senate.mn
• Sen. Torrey Westrom (R) at 651-296-3826 or sen.torrey.westrom@senate.mn

3. Contact Gov. Mark Dayton at 651-201-3400 or 800-657-3717 or by e-mail HERE.

Suggested message: “Thank you for supporting the standards to protect our trout streams that were contained in the Omnibus Game and Fish Bill, Senate File 796. DNR Commissioner Landwehr gave strong testimony in support of the standards at the hearing in the Senate Environment Finance Committee. Despite that, the provisions were stripped from the bill. I urge you to weigh in and express to House and Senate leadership that you want these provisions passed this legislative session. Without a moratorium, we must have strong state standards adopted this legislative session. Also, there are provisions in the Senate Environment and Ag Finance Bill that need your support in conference committee. The Senate bill requires an environmental assessment worksheet on frac sand mines over 20 acres for the next year while the state environmental review rules are updated to deal with frac sand facilities. It also contains a provision that will allow local governments to extend their local moratoriums to March 1, 2015, if they chose. Please insist that these provisions are in the final bill.”

For more information on this issue, contact LSP's Bobby King at 612-722-6377 or bking@landstewardshipproject.org.

During the morning session, grazing specialist Howard Moechnig will lead a workshop on the principles of grazing management. Topics to be covered include best grass/legume species for reseeding or establishing a new pasture, paddock location/size, watering options, lanes, forage management, and general concepts and indicators for developing and monitoring a grazing operation.

The afternoon session will consist of a pasture walk on the Breitkreutz farm so participants can view firsthand how the principles discussed at the morning workshop are being put into practice. The Breitkreutz family has a cow-calf operation and grazes cattle on permanent pastures managed for optimal forage and animal performance. They also graze cover crops grown in crop fields. They are experimenting with cover crops seeded after fall harvest as an early season feed source for their cattle. Cover crops are being widely recommended for their abilities to provide ground cover, lock up soil nutrients and build general soil health. Harvesting them with cattle adds to their value.

This field day is supported in part by grants from Organic Valley Cooperative and the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, USDA. For more information on the Land Stewardship Project’s Farm Beginnings program, see www.farmbeginnings.org, or call 507-523-3366.

-30-

The "Buy the Farm" law is a result of the hard fought negotiations between family farmers and utility companies over high power transmission lines cutting across farmland in the 1970s. Under this unique 1977 legislation, farmers have the right to require that utilities purchase their entire farm if high voltage power lines are forced onto their property. This law was intended to require that utilities reimburse farmers for their land, relocation expenses and lost business.

It’s an example of public policy that doesn’t subjugate the interests of people to the interests of corporations, something that we could use a lot more of in our local, state and federal laws.

The “Buy the Farm” law has been rarely used over the past 35 years. However, with construction underway of the CapX2020 high voltage power line, the law has renewed importance to family farmers and landowners across Minnesota.

CapX2020 is a massive, $2.2 billion project, which will erect 650 miles of new high voltage power lines across Minnesota. Today, the energy conglomerate behind CapX2020 is trying to avoid paying its fair share to family farmers negatively impacted by the power lines. Using their considerable resources to blur the intent of the law (Xcel Energy alone has 37 registered lobbyists in Minnesota), they are claiming that farmers are “voluntarily” relocating their farms and that any reimbursements for moving expenses and lost business would be “extra compensation.”

Why it’s Important to Restore the Original Intent of ‘Buy the Farm’ Now

Farmers didn’t have a choice about the high voltage lines cutting across their land—it was forced upon them. The CapX2020 high voltage lines are moving ahead, taking land and slicing across farms. Right now, Minnesota family farmers and landowners are wrestling with difficult decisions about the future of their families and their livelihoods.

The least the CapX2020 backers can do for family farmers and landowners is to compensate them fully and promptly. That is the intent of the original “Buy the Farm” law. However, since the utilities have challenged that in court and won at the appellate court level, legislation is needed to clarify that it is the obligation of the utility companies to pay for relocation and lost business costs. They also must set a time frame for payment that works for farmers and landowners.

It’s About Justice

The "Buy the Farm" law is unique to Minnesota and it is a testament to our state’s commitment to justice. When the extraordinary powers of taking land from people are exercised, we, the people of this state, must do what we can to lessen the burden of those whose land is being seized. Ensuring people will be promptly and fully reimbursed by the utility companies for all expenses related to the taking of land for high voltage transmission line projects is the least we can do.

That’s why a broad range of organizations from the family farm, sustainable energy, social justice, local business and faith communities support keeping the Buy the Farm law true to its original intent.

Take Action Today

Next week the Minnesota Legislature will be taking up this issue in the Environment and Agriculture Finance Conference Committee. The House has included good language in its bill to clarify “Buy the Farm.” If the Senators on the committee agree to accept the House position, the bill will go to Governor Mark Dayton's desk, affirming our state’s commitment to putting people ahead of corporate profits.

But the Conference Committee needs to hear from you. There is a lot of legislation wrapped up in these bills and the Committee members need to know that the "Buy the Farm" law is important to Minnesotans. Please read this action alert and take a simple step that could make a huge difference to family farmers across Minnesota.

Mike McMahon is an LSP staff member. He can be reached at mcmahon@landstewardshipproject.org or 612-722-6377.