by Julia Schrenkler
Member since:
August 31, 2005

Can Minnesota still be considered the land of sky-blue waters?

January 23, 2008 01:11 PM UTC (Updated: January 23, 2008 04:01 PM UTC)
views: 0 | comments: 17

Are Minnesota's ground water quality issues the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's problem, a government issue, or a citizen's problem?

What action would you like to see on this issue?

 

More from MPR

 

________________
Julia Schrenkler
Interactive Producer
Minnesota Public Radio
American Public Media
Objects in Mirror

(Updated) 

Comments: 17

I still miss the clear blue waters in Minnesota. Much better than the muddy ones in Texas.
Diana Raabe Jan 23, 2008, 1:38pm UTC
When I think of skipping rocks at Elk River as a child - or swimming in some lakes that I would never go to now - I am reminded of how much we need to vote for legislators who care about our lakes here in Minnesota.
Richard Frisbie Jan 23, 2008, 1:52pm UTC
Amazing! I still think of Minnesota as a pristine environment. Sorry to hear of the spreading pollution.
Julia Schrenkler Jan 23, 2008, 1:54pm UTC
Well Priscilla, I hate to say it but it is probably the things we can't see in our h20 that create the most problems.

Dan do you think this needs to be worked at a federal or global level, then?

Interesting point, Diana. There seems to be focus on the preservation of lakes (I believe water has been referred to as "the new oil" by some) when it comes to sales, but in your opinion who has made a splash (sorry) when it comes to conservation and quality?
Julia Schrenkler Jan 23, 2008, 1:58pm UTC
Sorry Richard, I was typing my comment while you posted yours. The issue isn't new. Maybe we should look at successes and revisit clean-up efforts to see what worked and what didn't.
Diana Raabe Jan 23, 2008, 3:14pm UTC
For starters, it looks like Pawlenty's office is proposing some $53 million in funding toward the Clean Water Legacy Act.

That might sound good except that the Clean Water Action Alliance of Minnesota has proposed a need for $100 million.

Is Pawlenty the right person to govern Minnesota's waterways?
Diana Raabe Jan 23, 2008, 3:35pm UTC
In 2005, Senator Coleman supported the League of Conservation 35% of the time.

In 2006, the percentage went down to 29%.

Is that the direction in which we should be moving?
Winston Smith Jan 23, 2008, 4:17pm UTC
More corn ethanol, more river polution. Don't question the ethanol lobby!
Charles M. Jan 23, 2008, 7:24pm UTC
Amen Winston!
Gary Engstrom Jan 24, 2008, 12:21pm UTC
You missed one headline - our precious underground aquifers are becoming depleted.
Winston Smith Jan 24, 2008, 1:56pm UTC
Yes, ethanol requires a lot of water too.

Now there is an article for public radio to cover!
Julia Schrenkler Jan 24, 2008, 2:39pm UTC
That's a question for the voters, Diana.

Gary you brought up an interesting point. I'd like to offer something more than this map capture... please check out the audio piece and suggest revisiting the topic.

Of course ethanol is a wide topic, Winston, and there's plenty of aspects to cover:

Community issues & income: Rural residents protest ethanol expansions
Runoff AND consumption: Ethanol vs. water: Can both win?
Nature: Root River: Trout vs. ethanol
Marketplace: Gaga for ethanol
How much energy it consumes: The ethanol equation
How it isn't lost as a political issue: Ethanol fuels debate in Iowa
Or even the ethanol effect, which may be felt an unexpected cost of ethanol

There's more. But don't forget to make suggestions and help us cover this story!
Julia Schrenkler Jan 24, 2008, 2:42pm UTC
You inspired me to expand a search, Gary: Check out this map.
Winston Smith Jan 24, 2008, 3:51pm UTC
Where the corn is at isn't always where the water is at?

There is alot of talk about switchgrass being made into ethanol. Do you fertilize it? How much ethanol gets made for an acre of corn versus an acre of switchgrass?

From what I've been told is that corn requires more chemicals that any other farm crop. Corn also doesn't hold the soil in place and leads to erosion. Corn also strips the land of many nutrients, thus requiring more chemicals. In the old days they planted soybeans after corn but with the "corn craze" they just add more chemicals.

We can talk all we want about dirty lakes and streams, but in my opinion, we know where it's coming from. But do we have the political resolve to address the corn lobby, farmers, and the politicians who love corn money.
Tim Nelson Jan 24, 2008, 8:16pm UTC
They are native plants, and switchgrass is just one of about a dozen native plants grown for ethanol that grow together better than they grow apart. These would be cut in the fall, they grow just as well on marginal land, and need no fertilizer at all after they are established. Watering is generally not needed, but droughts do occur.

(native plant junkie)
Winston Smith Jan 25, 2008, 10:55am UTC
But is there the same amount of energy produced per acre of land?

Join the Conversation
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Already a member? Sign in
top
 
Gather | Friends | Groups | Share
About Gather | Engagement Marketing | Gather Points | Advertise on Gather | Gather Press | Privacy | Terms of Service | Community Guidelines
Books | Business | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Giveaways | Health | Money | Moms | News | Politics | Sports | Style | Technology | Travel | Writing
Version 18247, "Zach"; Copyright © 2013 Gather Inc. All rights reserved.