The MPCAâs Special Interestsâ Citizens Board held its final meeting Tuesday. It was a bittersweet day, depending on your political persuasion. For environmental activists, it was a bitter ending. For people that believe in holding government accountable, it was a beautiful sight. First, letâs listen to the special interestsâ whining:
“Dissolving the Citizensâ Board is bad for rural and metro Minnesota,” said Kathy DeBuhr at a protest before the boardâs final meeting Tuesday morning. “This legislature has taken away the voice of the common person. The little guy.”
DeBuhr was among those who protested a proposed 9,000-cow “mega-dairy feedlot” in western Minnesota in 2014. In a controversial move, the Citizensâ Board ordered the dairy operation to seek an expensive and time-consuming environmental impact statement even though MPCA staff had not ordered one. The dairy ultimately decided not to go forward with the project.
Ms. DeBuhrâs whining is annoying at best. This wasnât a panel of ordinary citizens. It was an activist board. The fact that they ran off a major dairy operation after the operation had gotten its permits from the MPCA speaks to their activism.
Further, what type of citizens panel reserves a spot for a union member? The Board had a member of Duluthâs Transit Authority and an “agriculture representative”, too. I still havenât heard anyone explain why thereâs a need for a citizens panel. Isnât the MPCA doing its job properly? If it isnât, shouldnât the MPCA be overhauled or outright abolished?
The Citizensâ Board was established to guard against undue political influence of the agency and to create a public and transparent decision making process on controversial issues. Supporters of the board say its abolishment will remove the final public process for environmental review and permitting actions for industry and factory farms.
The notion that the Citizens Board was impartial is absurd. It wasnât. It was filled with activists. As for the statement that this removes “the final public process for environmental review and permitting,” thatâs a bit melodramatic. Why is it necessary for limitless environmental reviews?
