Is Crown Hydro Environmental, Progressive? Discuss!!!

[Avidor]

http://www.mnprogressiveproject.com/diary/2598/shovel-ready-and-waiting">Progressive Project:

The Crown Hydro project is waiting for the Minneapolis Park & Rec Board to do its duty and sign off on it (as every other regulatory agency has done). Failing that, the project will be asking the legislature to do what the Park Board won't - to get a green project going. I became aware of this project two weeks ago, through a comment in a blogpost here on MN Progressive Project - a post entitled "Obama EPA Blocks Big Stone II". And it intrigued me - how could anyone in Minneapolis be against a completely green energy project??!?

http://liberalinthelandofconservative.blogspot.com/2009/02/project-we-can-believe-in.html">Liberal in the Land of Conservative:

This is precisely the type of renewable energy future that both President Obama and Governor Pawlenty have been pushing our state and country towards. It would have the two fold effect of creating immediate jobs (union jobs according to the developer) and helping Minnesota move towards its goal of 25% renewable by 2025. While it certainly doesn't solve the entirety of our energy needs, it is the perfect shovel-ready project as defined by the Obama Stimulus Plan that moves us one step closer to a greener cleaner energy grid.

Couple these environmental and immediate economic benefits with the fact that the developer of this project has promised to pay the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board $300,000 every year with a 3% increase every year for the next 100 years and you have a long term positive economic impact.

So, a project such as this would seem to be the dream of any self respecting progressive who heralds their love of the environment, right? A project such as this would seem to be an easy sell for those environment loving progressives inhabiting Minneapolis, right?

It appears as though we may have some progressives who refuse to practice what they preach...

A commenter on that blog post says the following:

The only reason this is not already done is because Fritz Mondale and one the most powerful lobbyist in the state Brian Rice are fighting this tooth and nail at the behest of the liberal big money donors who live next to the falls.

When money talks, green energy and jobs take a back seat.

http://mplsparkwatch.org/files/mondaleletter.pdf"> Part of a letter Walter Mondale sent to the Mpls Park Board (PDF):

I write today to urge that you, as a matter of public policy, conclude that the land
you own in the most historically sacred area of our great City be simply off-limits to
commercial development. Two projects have threatened to desecrate the most
sensitive of land you own—namely the condominium project on the old Fuji Ya site, and
the again-pending attempt to locate a hydro electric generation plant steps from the Mill
Ruins. The latter proposal, no matter what the view of paid consultants, is inherently a
taking of the public’s most historic property in this most historic area—the force of the
falls over the St. Anthony apron. I and I am sure countless citizens who care deeply
about our great City would urge you to draw a strong line of resistance against any
commercially driven sell-off of park lands in these few blocks where Minneapolis was
born.....

http://mplsparkwatch.org/node/79">Mpls Park Board Watch:

In the debate over the Crown Hydro power plant to be built on Minneapolis Park property, most proponents are framing the issue as being about renewable energy. They falsely claim those opposed to the project must be opposed to renewable energy.

Renewable energy is not the issue at all. It is whether the costs and risks of the project are worth the benefits to Minneapolis.

If what we want from this project is the additional hydro power, then why not simply allow Xcel Energy to produce it? Xcel has a hydro plant directly across the river from the proposed location running at far less than maximum output, simply for want of more water. Give the water rights to Xcel instead of Crown Hydro, and we save the $5.1 million from the renewable energy fund and an approximately $2 million rate subsidy from the state.

Dump Bachmann blog readers may recall http://dumpbachmann.blogspot.com/2006/06/wealthy-eminent-domain-advocate-hosts.html">William Hawks, the CEO of the Crown Hydro holding a fundraiser for Michele Bachmann with special guest Dick Cheney.

So, is Crown Hydro environmental... progressive?

Discuss!!!

[Minnesota Raindog]

1. Crown Hydro threatened to use eminent domain to steal Minneapolis park land

This boondoggle is about as progressive and environmentally positive as "clean coal." Is this what we want to do--start turning over public parks to commercial energy producers? What's next--"progressive" oil shale mining in national parks?

[TwoPuttTommy]

2. Just two quick questions

1 - Do you really equate a hydro project with "clean coal" from an environmental point of view?
2 - Can you see the comparison between denying Crown Hydro here, and Ted Kennedy objecting to wind farms behind his house at Martha's Vineyard?

For those interested in watching a video hosted by John Derus on this issue, including the project's engineer and State Rep. Kate Knuth, link here:

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=48387660

[Avidor]

3. Thanks . Tommy... was there an EIS done for Crown Hydro?

I don't see a link to an Environmental Impact Statement on the Crown Hydro website.

If you can link to the EIS, I'd appreciate it.

[TwoPuttTommy]

5. Good question!

And that's what I'm looking for; good questions with answers.

And your question brings up another one - was this project shot down by the Park Board before they knew the results of an EIS?

If so, why?

[Minnesota Raindog]

10. Do you support eminent domain to take public land for private profit?

That's what Hawkes wants to do.

[TwoPuttTommy]

13. Care to source your claim?

I'd be interested in seeing your claim verified.

[bigmuddy]

25. Crown Reneged on Agreement Not to Attempt to Use Eminent Domain

In an agreement filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on Oct 30, 1998, Crown agreed that it would not at any time attempt to use eminent domain to obtain property owned by the Minneapolis Park Board.

In October, 2004 Crown reneged on that agreement and sought to use eminent domain to acquire parkland in Mill Ruin Park.

FERC ruled on February 10, 2005 that Section 21 of the Federal Power Act does not allow eminent domain to be used to acquire property in the Mill Ruins park. Crown, still desiring to use eminent domain, appealed that decision and it is currently pending in the 8th Circuit of the Federal Court of Appeals.

Contrary to what has been represented in these blogs, Crown does not have a FERC license to operate a hydroplant at the Mill Ruins Park. Their amended application to do so was also turned down on Feb 10, 2005.

I have heard that Crown is attempting to introduce legislation at the Minnesota legislature to do an end run around the clear Congressional mandate contained in Section 21 of the Federal Power Act prohibiting the use of eminent domain to acquire parkland in the Mill Ruins Park. My legislator, who has seen a draft of Crown's proposed legislation, said that what Crown is trying to do is unconscionable.

[Minnesota Raindog]

26. So do you support the use of eminent domain to take parkland?

Your requested verification on Crown Hydro's attempts to use eminent domain to take public parkland for private commercial gain has been posted, Two Putt. What say you and the rest of the Crown Hydro supporters now?

[Avidor]

4. Interesting Video, Tommy, but....

... isn't John Derus is a lobbyist for Crown Hydro?

http://www.cfboard.state.mn.us/lobby/adetail/a3940.html

John Derus is a nice guy... early supporter of LRT.... but, I'd like a more independent assessment of the project.

I don't know much about Crown Hydro... It may or may not be a good project, but I'd like to see an EIS first.

Thanks again.

[TwoPuttTommy]

6. I don't have a problem with lobbyists, per se

A lobbyist's job is to provide information - and that's what John did. Does anyone dispute the information John presented?

[Avidor]

7. Will the electric rates I pay to Bil Hawks...

... go to more fundraisers for Michele Bachmann?

[TwoPuttTommy]

8. Thank You...

...for explaining exactly what your opposition to this project is.

[TwoPuttTommy]

9. However, According To A Quick Search Of OpenSecrets.org

HAWKS, KAREN - MINNETRISTA,MN 55364 HOUSEWIFE/HOUSEWIFE 12/2/05 $400 Coleman, Norm (R)

HAWKS, WILLIAM - MINNETRISTA,MN 55364 CROWN HYUDOR ELECTRIC 5/13/05 $2,000 Coleman, Norm (R)

HAWKS, WILLIAM - MINNETRISTA,MN 55364 CROWN HYDRO 10/11/04 $2,000 Dayton, Mark (D)

HAWKS, WILLIAM - MINNETVISTA,MN 55364 SELF-EMPLOYED 9/14/98 $500 Taxpayers League

HAWKS, WILLIAM - MOUND,MN 55364 6/15/94 $250 Burns, Conrad (R)

***

Does the dough given to Dayton count?

And, where's the alleged dough given to Bachmann?

[Avidor]

11. Not what I said Tommy...

I said fundraisers... like the one http://blog.lib.umn.edu/smit2174/cd6/2006/06/dday.html">Bil Hawks gave for Bachmann.

Isn't there another company, cooperative, utility that can build it?

[TwoPuttTommy]

12. Just To Make Sure I Understand Your Point

What you are saying, if I hear you correctly, is that anyone that held a fundraiser for the opposition shouldn't be allowed to do business in Minneapolis?

Is that your objection to this project?

[Minnesota Raindog]

14. My objection is to the use of eminent domain to take public property for private gain

Do you support this project if it means Mr. Hawks is allowed to forcibly take Minneapolis park property on the river to build a privately owned electrical generating facility?

[TwoPuttTommy]

15. As I understand it, Bil Hawks is NOT trying to use eminent domain

Rather, it's my understanding that what Mr. Hawks is trying to do, is negotiate a lease with the Mpls Park and Rec Board to receive approximately $300,000 a year in lease payments.


Considering Gov. Pawlenty's desire to drastically cut LGA - which, according to the Park Board, is a significant source of Park Board unding - do you really think voters should consider property tax increases to make up for the shortfall when the Board could have recouped some of the cuts through a lease with Crown Hydro?

http://www.minneapolisparks.org/documents/about/2009_annual_budget.pdf

[Avidor]

16. Is Bil Hawks a DFLer Now?.. if so....

It would be fun to know who was invited and who donated to Bachmann at that fundraiser.

Congressional candidate Bachmann attracts help from Cheney
Associated Press
ST. PAUL - State Sen. Michele Bachmann will get some White House help in her bid for Congress.

Vice President Dick Cheney is scheduled to appear at a fundraiser on Bachmann's behalf on June 26 in a suburb west of Minneapolis, according to an invitation to the event obtained by The Associated Press.

A Republican donor who received the invitation shared it with the AP on the condition of anonymity.

Neither the White House nor Bachmann's campaign has been willing to discuss the visit over the past week.

The invitation says Cheney will appear at the home of William and Karen Hawks on the shore of Lake Minnetonka. It gives guests the choice between a $250 per person reception or a more intimate reception and photo opportunity with Cheney for $1,000.

A phone number for the Hawks wasn't available.

Here's a photo from the fundraiser:

[TwoPuttTommy]

17. A Post From "Liberal In The Land Of Conservative"

What we need to understand is that this project was granted a FERC license in 1999 which in my understanding is one of the most rigorous processes for examining energy production proposals. Those weighing in included the US Fish & Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the National Park Service. My hope is that the Minneapolis Park Board has a far more legitimate reason for opposing this project than petty political gamesmanship. What information does the Park Board have which could possibly trump the combined expertise of all the aforementioned organizations?

As we in outstate Minnesota sit in the shadow of nuclear and coal plants with their significant environmental risks, it is downright shameful for renewable energy options to be shut down for what appear to be illegitimate reasons.

Entire post, here:


http://liberalinthelandofconservative.blogspot.com/2009/02/crown-hydro-objections-pt-1.html

[Avidor]

18. Where's the Sierra Club North Star on Crown Hydro?

Here's something from 2004:

http://www.mail-archive.com/[e-mail]/msg28385.html

May 13, 2004

To: The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board
From: Sierra Club North Star Chapter

Dear Commissioners:

A year ago, the Sierra Club began a campaign to restore two magnificent
natural resources in the heart of Minneapolis: the Falls of St. Anthony and
the whitewater rapids of the Mississippi River Gorge. The campaign, called
"Let the River Run," also calls for ending the taxpayer-subsidized barge
traffic on the Mississippi within the city, where the river's flow is
restricted by three sets of locks and dams built to facilitate commercial
navigation.

Put another way, more than 20,000 members of the Sierra Club's North Star
(Minnesota) Chapter have a major stake in decisions by the Park and
Recreation Board that would affect the Mississippi River. This includes the
pending decision on the proposal by Crown Hydro to build a hydroelectric
plant near St. Anthony Falls.

As you know, the City of Minneapolis plans to eventually close the Upper
Harbor. This will have broad and lasting consequences. Most notably, it has
been estimated, commercial barge traffic will decrease by two-thirds within
the city. That will raise further questions about the economic and
environmental desirability of maintaining the three sets of locks and dams:
those at Upper and Lower St. Anthony Falls and Lock and Dam No. 1 (the Ford
Dam).

The Sierra Club's North Star Chapter believes that any significant
investment made in the Gorge area which assumes no change in the
locks-and-dam system is ill advised. This includes the Crown Hydro
proposal, the proposed whitewater park, and even a rumored University of
Minnesota boathouse.

We strongly urge the Park Board to take a broad view when considering Crown
Hydro's proposal. For example, would the proposed power plant be dependent
on continued operation of the lock-and-dam system?

Please understand that the Sierra Club is not arguing against using the
river to generate electrical power. However, if the locks at St. Anthony
were breached or removed and the waterfall itself restored, could a
hydroelectric plant be incorporated into such a restoration project without
interfering with the esthetics and ecological integrity of the river?

The first goal of our "Let the River Run" campaign is for independent
studies to determine the financial cost and potential economic and
environmental effects of restoring St. Anthony Falls and the whitewater
rapids of the Gorge area. That would include a comprehensive review of the
potential effects on industries along the riverway to ensure protection of
the jobs and other economic benefits they provide.

Toward that end, the Sierra Club is one of 18 groups that have endorsed a
proposal by the Mississippi Corridor Neighborhood Coalition (MCNC) that
seeks $100,000 from the Minnesota Legislature to study the effects of
closing the lock-and-dam system in Minneapolis.

Please consider these developments as you weigh Crown Hydro's request.

Sincerely yours,

Dean Rebuffoni, Minneapolis
Water Committee
Sierra Club North Star Chapter

[TwoPuttTommy]

19. Yeah, I saw that one, too.

And there are two parts that got me:

The campaign, called "Let the River Run," also calls for ending the taxpayer-subsidized barge traffic on the Mississippi within the city, where the river's flow is
restricted by three sets of locks and dams built to facilitate commercial navigation.

****

The Sierra Club's North Star Chapter believes that any significant investment made in the Gorge area which assumes no change in the locks-and-dam system is ill advised. This includes the Crown Hydro proposal, the proposed whitewater park, and even a rumored University of Minnesota boathouse.

OK, does the Sierra Club really think they're going to get the lock 'n dams removed and take away commercial and recreational boating on the river? And, that "rumored" UofM boathouse?

The University of Minnesota and the Minneapolis Parks and Recreation Board held a grand opening in honor of their boathouse, which was completed in February of 2007. The Golden Gophers opened their doors to the general public for the first time on May 4, at the East River Flats Park. http://tiny.cc/v2LmZ

Nice try, but somehow I don't think reasonable people are going to buy into this one, from the Sierra Club.

[Minnesota Raindog]

20. You didn't answer my question about eminent domain

from an article about the project:

Crown Hydro requested—and was granted—repeated extensions on its FERC permit application. In its final request October 26, 2004, Crown informed FERC:

“Crown would still prefer to work out a lease with the Park Board, but has not dismissed the possibility of exercising eminent domain in accordance with applicable law in the event there is no ability to enter into an agreed-upon lease.”

So do you support private corporations taking public land for private gain?

[Avidor]

21. Right...

[TwoPuttTommy]

22. You're asking the wrong question

The question you're asking is "what the ol' Twoputter believes" - and that's completely irrelevant to the subject at hand.

But, since you asked, I'll respond with "I believe people and organizations are entitled to excersize any and all of their legal rights that they see fit to."

As I undersand it, the developer's right to Eminent Domain was granted via the issuance of a FERC license; and as I understand it, the purpose of Eminent Domain with a FERC license is NOT to protect the profits of private developers - it is to ensure the production of energy for our country.

Furthermore, Minnesota State Statute 103G.535* states, and I quote:

103G.535 HYDROPOWER GENERATION.
Subdivision 1.Public purpose.The legislature finds that:

(1) the public health, safety, and welfare of the state is also promoted by the use of state waters to produce hydroelectric or hydromechanical power in a manner consistent with laws relating to dam construction, reconstruction, repair, and maintenance; and

(2) the leasing of existing dams and potential dam sites primarily for power generation is a valid public purpose.

So, as I see it, the developer is attempting to do a project that is recognized by State Law as a valid public purpose; futhermore, the lessor (the Park Board) will be compensated for entering into an agreement allowing this to happen. Again, I quote from Minnesota State Statute 103G.535:

Subd. 5.Contents of development agreement.(a) An agreement for the development or redevelopment of a hydropower site must contain provisions to assure the maximum financial return to the political subdivision or the commissioner.

If you have a problem with Eminent Domain in conjunction with issuance of a FERC License and/or existing Minnesota State Statutes, I suggest you contact your appropriate legislators to have existing Eminent Domain laws and Minnesota State Statutes changed.

And good luck with that one.

***

* I forgot to post the link to Minnesota State Statute 103G.535 - here it is....https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=103G.535

[Minnesota Raindog]

23. Yeah, and the Pohlads said a new taxpayer subsidized Twins stadium is a "valid public purpose"

And the Vikings say their new playpen is also a "valid public purpose." So TwoPuttTommy is now the official apologist for developers everywhere as long as what they're doing is "legal" and thed evelopers say it's in the public interest? What greedheads on Wall Street did was "legal" too so you support them too? Look, if you want to defend these asshats, that's your right. Just don't call yourself "progressive" when you want to turn over public lands to energy developers by eminent domain.

[TwoPuttTommy]

24. Ya know, If You Can't Stay On Topic...

...I really don't see the point in responding to your rants.

So, I won't.