The Hidden Threat to the Twin Cities’ Water Supply

By John Anfinson, Guest Columnist

"If the cutoff wall failed today, a million people would lose their primary water source"

St. Anthony Falls lies one tick of the geologic clock from ending a 12,000-year journey up the Mississippi River from St. Paul. When that tick slips, the Twin Cities could lose much of its water supply. Holding back the clock is a dam that stands1,850 feet long, 40 feet high and four to six and one-half feet wide, a dam no one can see. It lies under the Mississippi River, beneath the limestone and shale riverbed. For over 144 years it has withstood the relentless demands of nature to finish its task. How much longer will it last?

The St. Anthony Falls Reservoir is Key to the Twin Cities Water Supply

The Minneapolis Water Department draws 100% of its water from the Mississippi River. Their intake lies four and one-quarter miles above St. Anthony Falls and depends on a reservoir created by dams you can and cannot see. Forty percent of this water goes to some 430,000 Minneapolis residents, and Minneapolis supplies 110,000 residents of Golden Valley, Crystal, New Hope, Columbia Heights, Hilltop, New Brighton, and Edina’s Morningside Neighborhood. These suburbs take 22%. Minneapolis delivers another 38% to institutional, commercial, and industrial users. Among them, the University of Minnesota, Metropolitan Airports Commission and Hennepin Energy Recovery Center count among the largest customers and together consume 5%. Bloomington mixes its well water with Minneapolis river water. (Map)

Saint Paul Regional Water Services pulls 75% of its supply from the Mississippi nine miles above the falls. It provides water to 425,000 residents, delivering retail water service to Falcon Heights, Lauderdale, Maplewood, Mendota, Mendota Heights, and West Saint Paul and wholesale service to Arden Hills, Little Canada, and Roseville. St. Paul sends limited retail water to Sunfish Lake, South St. Paul, Lilydale and Newport. (Map)

Nearly one million Twin Citians depend on the Mississippi River for their household water. Major institutional, commercial and industrial enterprises count on it. How much water does downtown Minneapolis consume on any given work day? What about downtown St. Paul or the International Airport or University of Minnesota or all the K through 12 schools or the many hospitals? What would happen with a sudden, catastrophic loss of the St. Anthony Falls reservoir?

St. Pauls’ water supply lakes hold 3.6 billion gallons, and the city has ten wells that can distribute an average day’s needs to its customers. These reserves would see St. Paul and its dependents through a short-term emergency, but in the long term, St. Paul must draw from the Mississippi River. Minneapolis has no wells and no lake system. Its “finished reserve” would last three days. Minneapolis relies entirely on the Mississippi River and on the reservoir created by the dams at St. Anthony Falls for its water supply, including firefighting.

The Hidden Threat

In 1869, St. Anthony Falls and the reservoir nearly disappeared. The crisis began below the Mississippi River. Workers had been tunneling through the soft St. Peter Sandstone that lies under 18 inches of shale and up to 25 feet of limestone. They ran their tunnel under Hennepin Island, then under the river, and after 2,000 feet had reached Nicollet Island, where William Eastman and his partners planned to erect a mill.

On the morning of October 4, water started pouring into the Eastman Tunnel’s upper end, eating away the sandstone walls. Within hours, the six-foot-square tunnel grew into a cavern 10 to 90 feet wide and 16½-feet deep. The next morning, the limestone riverbed collapsed, forming a large whirlpool. Volunteers hurriedly built a massive raft and floated it over the vortex, which sucked it to the riverbed. They piled on dirt, rocks and debris, but another cave-in occurred between the raft and the shore of Nicollet Island, and they built another raft, and the breach expanded again, and they repeated the triage.

A second, separate whirlpool appeared, and they built more rafts to cap it. As described in historian Lucile Kane’s excellent account, they then celebrated “the triumph of human skill and brain power over the dumb force of nature” Nature took exception, and the river devoured the feeble structures. The power of falling water had turned against the millers.

Thus began a calamity that threatened to undermine the entire riverbed at St. Anthony Falls and end its long journey. Knowing the complexity and urgency of their crisis, Minneapolis looked to the recently established St. Paul District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, but navigation, not saving St. Anthony Falls, was its mission. So, the city convincingly argued that losing the falls endangered navigation above the falls. At the lower end of Nicollet Island, the limestone riverbed ends, and the digital geologic clock for St. Anthony Falls hits zero. Without the limestone, the falls would become a long, shallow, unnavigable rapids.

Between 1870 and 1874, the river foiled every fix devised by the Corps. Water flowing under the limestone’s leading edge was invading the tunnel and cutting new routes through the sandstone. While they balked at the cost and scale of the project, the Corps recognized they had to build a dam or cutoff wall under the river, under the limestone and shale, deep into the sandstone, from one bank to the other. The Corps began construction on July 9, 1874, and finished the cutoff wall on November 24, 1876. A Minneapolis Tribune article of November 20 that year reported that it extended for 1,850 feet and stood 40 feet tall. Not until 1885, however, did the Corps complete its work and leave the falls. They had to finish an apron to protect the falls’ leading edge, construct two roll dams to maintain water over the central falls and fill all the cavities.

General G. K. Warren, a Civil War hero and the first St. Paul District commander, visited falls about 1880 and offered this warning: “Only eternal vigilance will preserve the Falls of St. Anthony.” It is a testament to the Corps’ engineering prowess that their oldest dam on the Mississippi River has lasted so long without fix or failure.

One-hundred and seven years after Warren’s forewarning, the river and geology reminded Minneapolis of how fragile engineering at the falls can be. In 1987, water found its way under the deep foundation of the 90-year-old Lower St. Anthony Falls Hydroelectric Station. Reminiscent of the Eastman Tunnel, the river consumed the sandstone, forming a cavern under the station, draining the upstream reservoir in hours. Over the next few days, the station collapsed.

Why the Corps Must Stay at the Upper St. Anthony Falls (USAF) Lock & Dam

The Eastman Tunnel disaster did not steal Minneapolis or St. Paul’s water supply. Minneapolis started drawing water from the river for residential and commercial use in 1871, and for the next few decades, most people continued using household or community wells or springs. St. Paul did not begin siphoning water from the Mississippi until 1925.

If the cutoff wall failed today, a million people would lose their primary water source. Institutional, commercial and industrial users, including schools at all levels, and the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport might have to shut down or dramatically cut back their water consumption. Minneapolis’ reserve would run out in three days. Fire hydrants would quickly run dry. St. Paul would pivot to its emergency reserves, but how long would they last? Both cities could lose their water intakes. The Corps says if the dam at St. Anthony Falls fails, “A head cutting erosion would extend far upstream, affecting roads, bridges, homes, and other infrastructure,” and “It is conceivable that degradation could extend 30 miles upstream, …” In other words, the ensuing rapids would begin cutting down the riverbed until finding its natural slope.

How long would it take plug a breach at St. Anthony Falls and restore the reservoir? How long would it take and how much would it cost to repair the cutoff wall below the river and whatever damage inflicted at the surface? Who would do it?

The Corps of Engineers is the logical choice, and the federal interest is clear and strong. The Corps built the cutoff wall, undertook much of the infrastructure repairs caused by the tunnel collapse and constructed the two roll dams inside the horseshoe dam. They built the lock and own two short sections of the dam. The Corps, however, hopes to leave St. Anthony Falls. Because the Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock closed to navigation permanently in 2015, the Corps wants Congress to deauthorize their navigation and recreation missions, allowing them to dispose of the lock and associated infrastructure. Without a new primary mission, they have no reason to stay.

Given how critical the cutoff wall and dam structures at St. Anthony Falls are to the Twin Cities, that new mission should be water supply. While the Corps portfolio includes a water supply mission, they would contend it is only for dams they have constructed. Yet, without the cutoff wall they built, the reservoir created by the surface dam above would not exist: the cutoff wall makes the reservoir possible.

While it is not clear who owns the cutoff wall, the Corps built it, and they should have a direct interest in the Twin Cities water supply. Losing the St. Anthony Falls reservoir would qualify as a federal disaster, and if, as the Corps suggests, the river would start cutting down the riverbed, “affecting roads, bridges, homes, and other infrastructure” for 30 miles upstream, imagine the economic cost of such losses. As the Corps says in its draft disposition study: “The 19th century architects of the falls recognized that loss of the falls would be catastrophic. With the upstream and downstream development along the river, the same conclusion applies today.”

The Mississippi River will only become more important to the Twin Cities’ water supply. The metro area is growing, and there is a strong push to rely more on the river and less on the already overstressed aquifers tapped by many metro area communities. So, the Twin Cities needs the Corps to remain at St. Anthony Falls, and Congress must give it a water supply mission. The Corps could then continue their already authorized recreation mission, fulfill a critical flood risk mitigation responsibility and facilitate Xcel Energy’s hydroelectric power generation as additional missions. The national economic benefits of these combined missions is immense, especially compared to any commercial navigation that ever passed through the lock, and easily outweighs the federal costs. Ignoring this threat is not an option; consider the consequences – social, economic and political - if the wall fails and no one has heeded General Warren’s portent.

Science & Public Policy

By Representative Phyllis Kahn, Vice President, Great River Coalition

My life as described in this work, has been devoted to advocating two propositions:

1) we will all be better served when good science informs public policy and 2) scientific advancement will be facilitated if public policy makers appreciate the role of science and support it more fully.

One of the worst current problems is the prevalence of climate deniers in public policy decision positions with the most important one recently occupying the White House. We also have participants from industries that should be regulated, i.e., those that effect health or the environment, assuming the position of regulators.

A clean economy, protection of the environment, cyber security, the effects of toxic waste dumping as just a few examples, need a thoughtful, balanced and informed perspective. And while we are talking about balance, we need to add the importance of including the voices of women in the discussion.

The combination of science and public policy seems to have greater relevance today. We saw the increased interest of the public as evinced by the March for Science events in DC and in many localities including St. Paul. Also important is the creation of a new political group, 314 ACTION, designed to encourage scientists to seek political office.

We are also seeing increased political polarization of scientific issues such as global warming, emphasized now by Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Accord.

What is it like to try and do science in the political scene? In my first election, rather than emphasizing the women's issues that had sparked my interest in politics, I concentrated on the importance of having someone with an understanding of science in office. (My credentials include a BA in physics and a PhD in biophysics and some years of research in molecular genetics.)     

I do need to point out that in the 2016 election, both PhD credentialed scientists in the Minnesota Legislature were defeated.

Scientific and technological advances have been an important part of human development ever since the first Neolithic Farmer started to analyze conditions necessary to improve her agricultural practices for increased crop production leading to better nutrition and survival. As human interactions have increased in complexity and become dependent on more political interaction, science and technology has become increasingly important to each part of our political system; legislative, executive and judicial and at each level of government, federal, state and local.

A noted authority on science policy once wrote, “State and local governments employee science and technological knowledge in much the same way as the American populace employees the English language--On a daily basis, unquestioningly, and at less than technically attainable standards of performance.”

A traditional politician often takes a rather short term view of most public policy issues. It becomes difficult for him to consider issues which may not be significant in 10 or 20 years or perhaps a millennium, when his next election is in six months. In addition, the immediate consequences of actions are always awarded a higher perceived importance than any possible long-range problem.

It is not surprising that the general public feels uncomfortable in areas requiring scientific knowledge and that the politician reflects this discomfort to an even greater degree. The pressure of making a wrong decision on a subject she knows little about and understands even less appears to be an avoidable risk.

Folks on each side point out the inability of anyone without years of training in complex sciences to comprehend the full ramifications of any such decision. It is argued that it is far better and safer to political bodies to do nothing and to let the experts, i.e., the regulatory agencies on one side or tobacco companies, chemical companies or drug manufacturers decide.

A part of the problem is that the hopes of society have been raised and scientists have appeared to promise more than they can deliver. We are all familiar with the “man on the moon” speech, some variation of the plea that the same talent that put a man on the moon could get him to work on time, keep him out of jail, end pollution on earth and so on ad infinitum.

The additional complication is that these problems are often the province not of the federal government but of some murky intermediate stage of city, county, regional or state government. Local levels of government face an increasing number of problems with heavy scientific and technological content in the areas of healthcare, land management, pollution, nuclear power and other energy problems, waste management, transportation and even social issues in either rural or urban settings.

The scientists in the public view, take on conflicting roles. One is that of the neutral technician who produces the knowledge and lets others use it. Tom Lehrer expresses this in one of his songs:

“Once the rockets are up

Who cares where they come down?

That's not my department

Says Wernher von Braun.”

At the opposite pole are the scientists who think of all knowledge residing with themselves. The solution then appears to be to find a broker and translator to the public policy makers and relieve the decision-makers of the responsibility of evaluating technical competence. In this simplistic model, the best minds are assembled; they ask thoughtful questions; they reach solid conclusions and resolve the conflicts between any conflicting technical views. The public decision maker then confidentially adopts as policy the wisdom so delivered. These are models for the implementation of scientific decisions mainly conceived by scientists and so far unused in the real world as a replacement for the traditional political process.

Government uses and needs science and even appreciates it's need for science but the basic principles of running government have been derived by people trained in law with little understanding of the scientific method and thought processes.

The political – legal mind must make a decision even with inadequate data and in the absence of reason, will settle for ideology, a comparison of alternatives, political acumen or even “Gut reaction”. However, the scientist without data will most often remain silent or feel that she has forfeited her credentials to speak as a scientist. This fundamental difference in the decision-making process is perhaps the most difficult for either the scientist or the politician to understand.

The situation becomes even more complicated for the politician when confronted with conflicting scientific advice. Disagreement can occur from basic scientific evidence or from the implications imputed to this evidence or even the political orientation of the scientists producing the data.

With the issue of climate change, we see even the small minority of climate deniers given scientific credence because it fits into someone's personal agenda. 

How can we integrate sound science and public policy ? Even if we become expert at distinguishing cases of sound science from cases of junk science, in the public policy arena, scientific evidence is only part of the policy puzzle.

Public officials will also want to factor in social, economic, financial, logistical and political information into the decision-making process. Most frustrating to many scientists is the situation that just because the scientific evidence is sound doesn't mean it will be the sole determinant of the direction of public policy.

Part of the problem is diverse public policy opinions on the appropriate responses to science and technology policy issues, concerning the best strategies of balancing health, safety and environmental concerns against economic considerations, or the cause of productivity decline and the most effective means of stimulating innovation.

The necessary creative dialogue requires better education for its participants at all levels. There is a strong argument for judges to understand the subject matter of any dispute they are to resolve. The courts should understand the technical issues well enough to convey the implications of their decisions to the professionals in the agencies. This is also true of the responsibility of legislators for their statutory enactments.

Executive agencies are usually the repository for informed experts, and this makes the current administration's attack on the science-based executive agencies all the more alarming.

The scientific and industrial establishments have delivered the message that American scientific and technological advances have built the American way of life. Yet there is also the realization that we face serious problems in maintaining this way of life; including the establishment of new safe energy supplies, with attention to the problems of climate change, to dispose of solid or hazardous waste, to protect endangered species and enhance economic development while maintaining international competitiveness.

Despite some disillusionment, indications are that the public still retains great faith in science and technology and even still naïvely believe that technological fixes can be found for almost all the ills of the world. Our citizens, believing in participatory democracy, want to control the important forces serving their lives; Thus, the desire to control science and technology.

The imposition of public controls on science and technology must be done within a democratic social ethic. This means by lawyers, scientists, engineers, farmers, government officials and academics. There is an enormous job in both mutual education and translation on our hands.

Traditions Made Sweeter with Honey

By Anna Margl and Rick Margl

We came from the ‘old country’. Through weeks on the gray, wind-tossed endless sea, our children in fear of the abyss stretching below. Or, in a centuries-long migration, our people finding their way across the Beringia land bridge in the dim time before history. Some came by their own choice and some not. Many reasons drove us. We’d never have enough land to raise a family, or we were chased by starvation, we longed to worship in our faith unoppressed, perhaps we were indentured, or even brutally sold to the highest bidder.

Or because our dreams were lit by the golden torch held high by the stern woman gazing back towards those ‘ancient lands’ across the sea.

The new land awaited. Strange customs, new languages, long and wearisome labors, sometimes visited by disease and hunger, and often death came too soon. But we persevered, worked hard, learned new ways and built new lives. We taught our children what we had learned and became proud citizens of the young nation.

But often our thoughts drifted back to the old country and those whom we’d left behind. The ties that bind. Secure in our new life, still we missed the music, the dances, the food and the drinks that had brought much of what joy those long-ago days had held. And so, on holidays and feast days, in homes, church basements and fraternal halls across the land, the smells and tastes of the old days filled our plates and wafted delightfully through the air. Oh!, the latkes, spatzle, ravioli, lefse, gingerbread, pieroges, krumkake and so much more. For a while at any rate, our hearts could be filled with warm memories of those far distant lands…

Gratefully, nowadays those traditions continue, especially at this time of year. December brings holidays and many families like to celebrate them in very special, traditional ways. Many of these traditions are specific to ethnic groups, were brought over from the ‘old country’ and are carried on – with great pride – from generation to generation. These celebrations include various customs and events, but food and drinks are among the most important things passed on.

A key part of the Great River Coalition’s mission is to “bring awareness to the vital role pollinators play in the health of our riverfront communities”. In that light and during this time of celebration when we often drink to each other’s health, we thought it would be appropriate to share the recipes for a few traditional Polish holiday drinks that are extra special since they include honey. They are Krupnik, Jojokoniak and Kompot Owocowy. Enjoy!

Krupnik – A Polish Liqueur of Spiced Vodka and Honey

INGREDIENTS

250 ml (1 cup) mild flavored honey

250 ml (1 cup) water

1 clove

2 cinnamon sticks

5 allspice berries, lightly crushed

1 vanilla pod

1 unwaxed lemon, sliced in rings

1 unwaxed orange, sliced in rings

500 ml (2 cups) at least of 80-proof vodka

You will also need:

a large muslin cloth (or 2 medium)

a funnel

4 x 250ml (1 cup) bottles, sterilized (or any container(s) equaling the total amount of 1 liter (4 cups)

INSTRUCTIONS

1. Place everything, other than the vodka, into a large saucepan and bring to a simmer on medium heat.

2. As soon as it’s simmering, lower the heat right down and let it simmer for 1 minute.

3. At the end of the minute, take it off the heat, and leave to cool for 5 minutes before we add the vodka. This is important, as we don’t want the alcohol evaporating in the steaming liquid.

4. At the end of the 5 minutes, add the vodka, stir well with a wooden spoon, cover tightly with a lid or foil, and leave to steep overnight.

The Next Day

1. Double line your funnel with your muslin cloth. If you have a large one, folding it over will work.

2. Strain your Krupnik into the sterilized bottles, pushing down only ever so slightly on the contents. Don’t overdo this, or your last bottle may be a touch bitter from the vanilla.

For the Jojokoniak and Kompot Owocowy recipes, please visit our Facebook site at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatRiverCoalitionMN/.

The team at the GRC wish you, your family and friends, much health and prosperity in the coming year! Na Zdrowie!

Letter to the Editor: More Proof the Minneapolis 2040 Plan Was Never About Improving the Economy of The City, The Wellbeing of City Residents, or Reducing the City’s Carbon Footprint

Dennis Paulaha, PhD - Great River Coaltion

The question that will not go away whenever the Minneapolis 2040 Plan is discussed is: Was the 2040 Plan intended to help the residents and the economy of the city, and to decrease the city’s impact on global warming, or was it nothing more than a plan to support the less than successful Metro Transit System by letting developers and investors tear down single family homes and replace them with rental units?

Given that neither the Minneapolis City Council nor the City Planning Department was able to show residents how eliminating single-family zoning would improve the health, incomes, and wealth of homeowners, how eliminating single-family zoning would reduce the affordable housing problem for either potential homeowners or renters, or how eliminating single-family zoning to intentionally increase the population and population density of the city while destroying green space would not increase the city’s carbon footprint, the recent push to use language in the 2040 Plan to relax the requirements governing the construction of accessory dwelling units (ADUs), or “granny flats,” adds more weight to the argument that the 2040 Plan is all about busses.

Over the years, accessory dwelling units have at times been allowed and at other times prohibited. Currently, they are allowed, but with restrictions. 

One of the current zoning-code restrictions is that backyard dwelling units, whether they are used for granny or rented out as a source of income, can be constructed only on owner-occupied one- and two-family properties. 

Other restrictions are related to building code requirements covering fire and sound separation between units, the rise and run (steepness) of stairways, headroom requirements, access to utilities, and the percentage of a single-family property that can be covered with buildings.

Such safety restrictions have limited the number of accessory dwelling units in the city, partly because they add to the cost of constructing ADUs, partly because of limited green space, which is why most accessory dwelling units are built on top of renovated garages, or, in some instances, have replaced garages.

 A proposed amendment to the city’s zoning code will eliminate virtually all zoning-code restrictions on ADUs, allowing accessory dwelling units to be added to non-owner occupied properties and not be limited to properties with one- or two-living units. 

The idea is to expand the accessory dwelling units idea into a world of “tiny homes.”

And by altering the zoning code so builders of the tiny houses that will cover up even more green space in the city do not have to pay fees for sewer access ($2,485) and park dedication ($1,659), the construction of the tiny houses or newly defined accessory dwelling units will be more profitable for the builders and investors who, once again, end up being the primary beneficiaries of the 2040 Plan.

There are more details in the amendment, all of which make it easier and more profitable for developers and investors to buy and tear down single-family homes and replace them with multi-unit rental buildings.

The bottom line is simple: By being able to add one more rental unit to a property with a multi-unit rental building, the income stream from rents increases.

Which means developers and investors will be able to pay more for single-family homes they will tear down, which means more single-family homes will be demolished, which means the hope of owning a single family house in Minneapolis will increasingly be there only there for the very wealthy.

And so, the question is: What does the accessory dwelling units amendment have to do with supporting the Metropolitan Transit bus system?

A lot.

As everyone should know by now, replacing owner occupied single-family homes with rental units replaces city residents who do not normally use city busses with renters who are more likely to do so. 

By making it profitable to tear down even more expensive single-family homes, there will be even more potential bus riders.

An allowing a massive expansion of tiny homes also brings more renters into the city, meaning it also increases the population of likely bus users.

How does a plan that will knowingly lead families who can afford to buy single family homes to leave the city help the city’s economy? It won’t.

How does a plan that increases the city’s population and population density while decreasing its green space reduce the city’s carbon footprint? It won’t.

How will young people who are happy being renters today be able to become homeowners in the future? They won’t, unless they move out of the city.

The sad truth is, the Minneapolis 2040 Plan is not a plan for the future. It is a plan to accommodate today’s young singles with little or no regard for their future. And, as should have been expected, the huge building boom for apartments is not lowering rents; it is increasing rents.

Is there an alternative for those who are worried about affordable housing, where affordable housing is defined as renting, not owning?

There is, and it is already in place.

The Southwest Light Rail Transit Line, even though completion is years away, has already led to plans to build large rental complexes, and some condo buildings, within walking distance of the new stations. Will that lower rents inside the City of Minneapolis? Not likely. 

Is it a solution to the affordable housing problem in Minneapolis? It is if city politicians and planners accept the fact that it is impossible to drive down rents by gutting the city without changing the city in ways most will regret and that are irreversible, and, equally important, if they accept the fact that a plan that puts people first will make use of the interaction between the city and its suburbs, which is, at least on paper, the function of the light rail system.

In the end, the accessory dwelling units amendment is one more step down a path that, instead of solving problems, leads Minneapolis away from doing what can be done to make one of the world’s great cities even better. 

First in a Series on Replacing the Minneapolis 2040 Plan with Alternative Ideas for Economic Growth

By Dennis Paulaha, PhD, Great River Coalition

Sometimes the truth is so obvious we overlook it.

And the truth about the Minneapolis 2040 Plan is that it was never about economic development.

It was about buses. It’s about trains, too, but it is mostly about buses.

They call it Transit Oriented Development.

It is based on the idea that a city (or Metropolitan area) developed around mass transit (and bike lanes) is better than a city based on roads and private automobiles.

And because Minneapolis, like every other city in the country (world), is a mixture of private automobiles, mass transit, bicycles, and sidewalks, it is easy, at least on paper, to make an honest, logical, fact-based argument that says if more people can be enticed into using mass transit, the economic benefits are likely to outweigh the costs, given the construction, maintenance, and environmental costs of highways, freeways, and private automobiles.

The question is: If the Transit Oriented Development people at the top (including the Metropolitan Council) want more people on buses and on light rail, where are the people going to come from?

Their answer is to eliminate single-family zoning and to encourage commercial development along bus and light rail lines.

By letting developers tear down single-family homes and replace them with three- to six-unit apartment buildings, they have more people. 

By letting developers build apartment buildings with more units on mass transit routes and within a block of mass transit routes, they have more people closer to transit routes. 

By not requiring developers to provide off-street parking, they make it more convenient for many people to walk to a bus stop than to a car parked a block or two away on the street. Also, as more and more people move into the new apartment buildings without off-street parking, cars will begin to fill up the streets, and many people will not want to drive to work for fear of not finding a somewhat convenient parking space when they return; others, as the planners seem to hope, may find it too difficult, expensive, and inconvenient to own a car at all.

What about the fact that up-zoning will lead to the gutting of North Minneapolis and force many black families out of the city or into homelessness? That’s good for the Transit Oriented Development idea, because every time a single-family house is replaced with a three- to six-unit apartment building, a family that may not use mass transit will move out and younger people who are more likely to use buses and light rail will move in.

What about the fact that up-zoning may lower single-family home values throughout the city and lead many middle- and upper-middle class people to move out of the city? That’s good too, for the Transient Oriented Development plan, because middle- and upper-middle class residents do not use mass transit, and the younger people who will replace them are more likely to do so.

In other words, neither the entire 2040 Plan required by the Metropolitan Council, nor the up-zoning policy in the Minneapolis 2040 Plan, was ever about trying to solve the affordable housing problem.

It was never about helping black communities.

It was never about helping other minority communities.

It was never about being environmentally responsible.

It was never about economic growth or development.

It was, from the beginning, a plan intended to intentionally, and unnecessarily, move tens-of-thousands of people into the city in ways that make it difficult to own cars so they will be pushed into using mass transit, especially city buses.

TWO BIG PROBLEMS

The proponents of Transit Oriented Development overlooked, or ignored, two big problems.

One, which they can be excused for overlooking, is that in a world preparing for ongoing pandemics, the economic benefits of mass transit and transit oriented development are likely to be overshadowed by the human and financial costs of having people crowded together in small spaces.

The other, which they have no excuse for ignoring, is that Transit Oriented Development for Minneapolis, which is at the core of the Minneapolis 2040 Plan, is based on two false premises or assumptions. One is that the City of Minneapolis is an autonomous economic, business, and social unit, which is not true for any city. The second is that the economic, financial, and social structure of the City of Minneapolis can be describes as some sort of wagon wheel, with downtown Minneapolis as the hub and all spokes (economic, financial, and social) connected to the hub, which is also not true of any city.

THE BEGINNING OF A BETTER PLAN

The truth is, no city, including Minneapolis, can be described as an island or as a wagon wheel, with people going back and forth from their homes to jobs in the city center.

Which means any plan to increase the economic, financial, and social wellbeing of a city must begin by throwing out the wagon wheel drawings and replacing them with reality.

Without seeing a sign, it is difficult to know when you cross the Minneapolis-St. Paul line during the ten to fifteen minute drive from one downtown to the other.

And with St. Paul to the East, there are great suburbs and small towns north, south, and west of Minneapolis. 

People who live in condos and apartments in downtown Minneapolis or in single-family homes, duplexes, apartments, and condos in single-family zoned neighborhoods throughout the city work in many different parts of Minneapolis, in St. Paul, in Minneapolis suburbs, in St. Paul suburbs, in small towns outside the suburbs, and in Wisconsin.

People who work in Minneapolis live in Minneapolis, St. Paul, Minneapolis suburbs, St. Paul suburbs, small towns, and Wisconsin.

People who live in condos and apartments in downtown Minneapolis, or in single-family homes, duplexes, apartments, and condos in single-family zoned neighborhoods throughout the city and suburbs, take advantage of entertainment, restaurants, and bars throughout the the City of Minneapolis, including many located in suburbs and neighborhoods with single-family zoning.

The large department stores that, in the past, were the center of activity in downtown Minneapolis are gone, replaced by restaurants, bars, smaller retail, and entertainment.

The Mall of America, which is the largest retail space in the area, and which has more out-of-town visitors each year than Disneyland and Disneyworld combined, is in Bloomington, a suburb just minutes away by freeway from virtually anywhere in Minneapolis and most Minneapolis and St. Paul suburbs.

The stadiums for the Minnesota Twins and Minnesota Vikings are in downtown Minneapolis. So is the Minnesota Timberwolves arena. (Minnesota, not Minneapolis, because the fan base is not constrained by the city limits of Minneapolis, which is also the case for the Minnesota Wild whose arena is in St. Paul.) 

And office buildings that at one time would have been once clustered together in downtown Minneapolis are spreading into the suburbs.

All that is good for people who value a high quality of life. 

It is also good for business, because the quality of life in Minneapolis makes it easier for businesses to attract the best employees, whether they choose to live in condos or apartments in downtown Minneapolis or in single-family homes, duplexes, apartments, and condos in single-family zoned neighborhoods throughout the city and suburbs.

And it all exists today because of the protection afforded in the past by zoning laws and regulations.

Of course, like most cities in the world, Minneapolis has neighborhoods that have been in residential and commercial decline for years, a shortage of affordable housing, a recognition that it is necessary to do something about global warming, and the dishonor of having one of the worst records of racial disparity in the nation.

Good or bad, it is within that reality, where much of the city’s economic success can be credited to smart (meaning flexible) zoning laws and regulations that limited, but did not shut out, the ability of developers to buy and tear down single family homes and replace them with more expensive single-family homes, multi-family condos and apartment buildings, even commercial buildings, that any plan to improve the economy and the wellbeing of the people, and to address the affordable housing problem, the racial inequity problem, and the city’s impact on the natural environment, must begin.

Along with all that is a new variable that cannot be ignored, which is that any plans put together today cannot ignore the reality and uncertainty of living in a world that may face future pandemics. In fact, the above description of Minneapolis is a pre Covid-19 description.

Letter to the Editor: An Upper Harbor Terminal Housing Plan

By Dennis Paulaha, PhD, Great River Coalition

Although I am an economist, I would like to offer a somewhat personal plan for the Upper Harbor Terminal land owned by the city—48 acres of land in North Minneapolis with one mile of frontage on the Mississippi River.

Minneapolis, like every other city in the country, has an affordable housing problem and a racial inequity problem.

Both problems could be alleviated, although not eliminated, by building low cost single-family homes. 

The problem is, the private sector is not going to, or, more accurately, cannot provide low-cost new single-family housing. There are a number of reasons, all of which are valid, as to why that can’t happen. One of the most important is that a major expense when building any house is the cost of the land.

For example, the Minneapolis 2040 Plan is based on the idea that private developers can tear down single-family homes they pay $500,000 and more to purchase, and replace them with affordable rental units, not single-family homes, not even condos.

But because renters cannot accumulate home equity, a long-term solution to affordable housing and racial inequity should consider plans that allow families to build wealth with ownership.

And that is where the Upper Harbor Terminal land offers a unique opportunity to the city of Minneapolis.

I lived in North Minneapolis until I was 10. Then we moved to Robbinsdale, into a small cape, and my father turned the attic into a third bedroom. It was a small development that covered only two square blocks and it was a mixture of two-bedroom capes and three-bedroom ramblers. I lived there until I left for college. My parents lived out their lives in that house.

At the time, the houses in Edina were bigger, but nothing close to today’s new houses, whether they are in a suburb or rebuilds in the city of Minneapolis.

There are, however, no houses like the one I grew up in being built anywhere in the country. There are people building and selling what are called tiny houses, which are not much larger than camping trailers. But builders cannot afford, because of land costs, to build two bedroom capes and three bedroom ramblers.

And that is where the Upper Harbor Terminal land comes in.

The city owns the land, so the city could allow the property to be used to create a modern day (but smaller) version of older Minneapolis neighborhoods or suburbs.

Architects might be willing to donate time to re-create modern-day versions of homes that were built in Minneapolis neighborhoods from the 1920s through the 1940s and in suburbs all across America in the 1950s.

The City of Minneapolis could maintain ownership of the land.

And the houses could be sold to people based on an income limitation, which could exclude people who can afford more expensive homes.

I believe some discussions took place during the Minneapolis 2040 Plan debates regarding small houses, but Heather Worthington from the Minneapolis Planning Department was quoted as saying such ideas would be an admission of failure by the city.

I do not think small single-family houses should be considered a failure.

The real failure is a solution that ignores ownership.

Of course, the number of small single-family homes that can be built on 48 acres is much smaller than the number of living units that can be built in condo towers.

But condo units are not always a best choice for families with children, and there are already a huge number of towers being built or approved in the city—expensive condo towers downtown and in the suburbs, and rental units throughout the city, especially in Uptown and Northeast.

Years ago, small single-family homes were called starter homes, the idea being that young families could buy a small home and as they accumulated equity and their incomes increased, they would have the financial ability to move up to something bigger and better.

That is what has been lost in the city and it is what is missing from city plans.

And because renting does not provide the financial base that can be used by families to move up in the world, as well as to finance their children’s education, the loss of starter homes has significant economic. impacts, especially when identifying the most important causes of racial inequities in the city.

Again, 48 acres of small single-family homes will not eliminate the affordable housing problem or the racial inequity problem, but it could be a step in the right direction. It could be a model showing how various chunks of land throughout the city can be used to improve the lives of people and the economy of the city.

Letter to the Editor: There Is No Market-Based Solution to The Affordable Housing Problem

Dennis Paulaha, PhD, Great River Coalition

When we talk about affordable housing, and the affordable housing problem, we have to be careful.

If we look at single-family houses, we can say every single-family home in Minneapolis is affordable to someone. Not everyone can afford to buy and maintain a $10 million house with $70,000 a year property taxes, but someone can. In fact, more than one person or family can afford to buy that house, although not every one of them will choose that particular house over some other alternative.

The same is true for every single-family home in Minneapolis; regardless of its price, each is affordable to someone.

Of course, the other truth that matters is, not everyone can afford to buy a single-family house in Minneapolis.

In other words, we know there are thousands of individuals and families in Minneapolis, or who would like to move to Minneapolis, who cannot afford to buy any single-family house in the city.

The question is: Should we worry about individuals and families who cannot afford to buy a single-family house but can afford to pay market rents?

Some, especially city officials, say, no. They say, as long as individuals and families can afford to pay market rents, there is no problem. In fact, the belief that renting is in some way equivalent to owning is at the core of the Minneapolis 2040 Plan, a plan that assumes being able to rent an apartment is as good as being able to buy a single-family house, a plan that, because of that belief, intends to replace single-family homes, each of which is affordable to someone, with rental units, a plan that intends to force thousands of families into being renters for life, which, as the studies show, is the single-most important factor in creating the downward spiral that has kept blacks and other minorities poorer than whites.

Which means a plan that gives thousands of families no choice but to be renters for life by eliminating thousands of single-family homes is a plan to intentionally push thousands of families, black and white, into long term poverty by eliminating the opportunity for them to accumulate equity through ownership.

As such, to an economist, it is a solution to a problem that is not only unconscionable, but by destroying the wealth of the city and forcing middle-income families to move to suburbs or to other cities, is also bad for the economy of the city.

Very simply, ownership matters, and finding ways to increase ownership should be a major part of any responsible city plan.

THE REAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROBLEM

The affordable housing problems all cities should be focused on must address three groups of people. People who have jobs but cannot afford to purchase single-family homes, people who have jobs but cannot afford to pay market rents, and the homeless.

And none of them will be helped with plans that, either implicitly or explicitly, are based on the idea that if not everyone can afford to buy a single-family home, single-family homes should be torn down and replaced with little apartment buildings.

That’s a little extreme sounding, but it’s pretty much what the Minneapolis 2040 plan is doing. It is based on the idea, or fact, that not everyone can afford to buy a house in Minneapolis, which, of course, is true, not only in Minneapolis, but in every other city in America and the world. But that is not a reason to push for the tearing down of single-family homes, each one of which is affordable to someone, and each of which can build wealth through equity for an owner, and replace them with rental units in which renters cannot accumulate equity.

Most important is the fact that “market solutions” to the affordable housing problem for people who cannot afford to either purchase a home or pay market rents are non-solutions, or, at best, false solutions that will help a small number of individuals and families.

A better way to look at affordable housing is to begin by protecting single-family homes and to then focus on increasing incomes that are not high enough to afford either purchasing single-family homes or to pay market rents.

That is where the real problem lies.

And it is a problem that will be made worse, not better, by city plans based on the assumption that the private sector can solve a problem it cannot possibly solve.

In a February 16, 2020 article by Natalie Hall in MplsStPaul Magazine, a quote by Rep. Illhan Omar makes the homeless problem clear. “On a single night, over 10,000 people in Minnesota were homeless last year – the highest number ever recorded. 6,000 of them were youth – which means children are showing up at school without a place to go home to.”

The article also pointed out that all public housing units in Minneapolis are already occupied, and when the city created a waiting list, 17,000 people signed up in six days, many of whom will have to wait ten years for an opening.

It is easy to find articles describing the horror of homelessness.

It is even easier to find articles describing and lauding the huge number of apartment towers being built in Minneapolis, whether it is in Uptown, the “hot” Northeast, or the newly “hot” Southeast. And.although some promise token “affordable” units, most units are far from affordable to those earning less than 30 percent of the city’s median wage.

Which, to an economist, means the $1 trillion Homes for All Act introduced by Rep. Omar and discussed in the MplsStPaul article is, whether or not it passes, a recognition that the nationwide affordable housing problem requires solutions that include direct actions by federal, state, and city governments.

Reader Opinion: Up-zoning in a Pandemic World

Why the Novel Coronavirus Means Up-Zoning Should Be Eliminated from The Minneapolis 2040 Plan

Dennis Paulaha, PhD, Great River Coalition

The Minneapolis 2040 Plan was created on the premise it would help solve three crucial problems: affordable housing, racial inequities, and the city’s negative impact on global warming.

The major tool in the Plan is up-zoning, a policy that eliminates single family zoning throughout the city and allows developers to buy and tear down any homes they want and replace them with apartment buildings ranging in size from three units to an unspecified limit, depending on the proximity to mass transit routes.

The authors of the Plan, saying they did not want to impose any financial burdens on developers as they tear down and rebuild the city, removed lot-line setbacks, which means new buildings can be built right up to lot lines, or across lot lines if adjoining properties are purchased by a builder. 

The Planners also eliminated the “burden” to developers of providing off-street parking, which means the occupants (renters, not owners) of the new apartment buildings will have no choice but to park on the street.

The question is: Is there any chance the up-zoning tool will help solve any of the Plan’s stated problems?

The answer is, no. The truth is, up-zoning will make each problem worse. Of course, we knew that before the 2040 Plan was adopted. 

There were enough articles, meetings, and presentations to make it clear to the mayor, the Planning Department, and the City Council that up-zoning will lead to increasing, not decreasing home prices and rents, will eliminate the homes people who, as they struggle to advance, might someday be able to buy (because those homes will be gone), will increase population density, which will increase, not decrease, the city’s carbon footprint, and instead of reducing the racial inequity problem, will make it worse by forcing blacks out of homes they are renting with no thought as to where they can go after those houses are torn down and replaced with apartment buildings with each unit having rents higher than what they were previously paying.

In other words, if someone wants to increase the affordable housing problem, increase racial inequities, and increase a city’s carbon footprint, there is absolutely nothing better than eliminating single-family zoning.

A PANDEMIC WORLD

Now there is an even more serious problem with up-zoning. 

In a world we now know must live with pandemics on an ongoing basis, the absolutely worst thing any city could do is install an up-zoning plan.

Here’s why.

As the writers of the Minneapolis Plan promised, up-zoning will increase the population and population density of the city, which makes controlling pandemics worse.

Replacing single-family homes, which give people a physical safety net, with apartment buildings that remove that safety net by forcing people to live in much closer quarters makes it easier for a virus to spread. 

Apartment buildings with no lot-line setbacks, no off-street parking, and no grass make it impossible for people to spend safe time in their own yards, which imposes both psychological and physical damages on city residents.

The Minneapolis up-zoning plan, which city officials also called “transit oriented development,” meaning it is intended to increase the use of mass transit, is also the absolutely worst thing a city can do when dealing with the reality of pandemics, because mass transit does not allow social distancing unless the buses and trains only one-quarter filled with passengers.

The related plan of encouraging tall (and very expensive) condo buildings throughout the city, in order to give wealthy people an opportunity to accumulate equity in something other than single-family homes, has also been singled out as a dangerous design by architects who point out the obvious contamination issue with elevators and hallways. 

When the Mayor of Minneapolis, the City Council, and the Planning Department pushed through a Minneapolis 2040 Plan based on up-zoning, they made it absolutely clear at the few public meetings they held that they had no concern for the financial well-being of homeowners, the future of the black community, the education of the city’s children, the natural environment, or the city’s impact on global warming.

And now, in our new world, it can be said that a failure to eliminate up-zoning from the 2040 Plan and to reinstall single-family zoning will make it clear that their disregard for the residents of Minneapolis is even deeper and even more dangerous.

Reader Opinion: Why the Former Metropolitan Council Should Not Have Approved the Minneapolis 2040 Plan

By Dennis Paulaha, PhD- Great River Coalition

The Metropolitan Council is responsible for managing the impact on the natural environment of all Metropolitan Districts under its jurisdiction.

And because the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (MERA) prohibits acts or plans that are likely to impair the environment, the Metropolitan Council cannot legally approve a Plan from any District that is likely to impair the environment, because doing so is prohibited under Minnesota State law.

It also means the Metropolitan Council does not have the legal right to approve a plan from one District that is likely to impose spillover or external environmental damages to one or more other municipalities or Districts.

For the record, the Minneapolis City Council has admitted in court that the up-zoning policy in the Minneapolis 2040 Plan (eliminating single-family zoning throughout the city) will definitely impose environmental damage.

Which, according to the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (MERA), means a Plan that includes the elimination of single-family zoning cannot legally be approved by the Metropolitan Council.

Furthermore, because the increase in the city’s pollution caused by intentionally increasing the city’s population by eliminating single-family zoning cannot be contained within a cylinder placed over the city of Minneapolis, there is no question the up-zoning policy of the Minneapolis 2040 plan will impose environmental damages to other municipalities and Metropolitan Districts

As such, the former Metropolitan Council should have demanded the up-zoning policy be removed from the Minneapolis 2040 Plan before it was approved.

Additionally, it should be noted that the Minneapolis 2040 Plan is based on inaccurate population projection. Instead of using the official population forecast, City Planners made up and used a number large enough to justify an up-zoning policy that lets developers replace single family homes with apartment buildings in order to accommodate their false population forecast.

If the inaccurate population number (which the Planners admitted is a goal, not a forecast) is replaced with an honest forecast, there is no need to replace single family homes with multi-unit apartment buildings in order to accommodate a larger population, because the actual population forecast does not justify doing so.

Another problem is, the writers and promoters of the Minneapolis 2040 Plan claimed all the studies and research conclude that increasing population density reduces a city’s carbon footprint.

That is not true. What the studies say is that a given number of people in a densely populated city will have a smaller carbon footprint than the same number of people spread out in a suburb where people have to drive farther to get where they are going and have less access to public transportation. But the research warns that the city versus suburb comparison does not apply to increasing the population and population density in either a city or a suburb. In other words, what every valid study says is that if population density is increased in either a city or a suburb, carbon dioxide omissions will increase. That is, of course, simple logic that is not even debatable.

Therefore, the Minneapolis 2040 Plan is based not only on inaccuracies regarding its the population forecast, it is also based on inaccuracies about the environmental studies and research regarding the relationship between population density and carbon dioxide emissions.

In other words, Minneapolis Planners misrepresented the relationship between population density and a city’s carbon footprint to claim intentionally increasing the population density of the city will reduce the city’s carbon footprint.

All of which means the former Metropolitan Council did not have a legal right to approve a Minneapolis 2040 Plan that includes eliminating single-family zoning to intentionally increase the population and the population density of the city, given that doing so will not only cause environmental damage to the City of Minneapolis, but will spill over to other Districts and municipalities governed by the Metropolitan Council.

Upper Harbor Terminal & Affordable Housing

By Dennis Paulaha, PhD, Written for The Great River Coalition, Diane Hofstede President

The Minneapolis politicians managing the Upper Harbor Terminal project on 48 acres of city-owned land in North Minneapolis with one mile of frontage on the Mississippi River are asking for ideas from the public as to what people think is the best thing to do with the property.

Unless new ideas are able to change current plans, it looks like more than half the acreage will be used by private developers, or a single private developer, to build somewhere around 300 rental units, with the promise of making some of them “affordable”, along with a number of retail stores and restaurants.

A little less than half the land, the part that borders the river, is to be used as a park with an outdoor amphitheater that would be managed or owned by First Avenue Enterprise Limited.

On the surface, it doesn’t sound like a bad plan, but when you look a little deeper, it looks like one more example of the City of Minneapolis handing the city’s valuable resources over to private developers.

Are There Alternatives?

As an economist, one of my main complaints is that both the city and the private developer are focused on the construction of rental properties as an answer to both the affordable housing problem and the racial inequity problem in Minneapolis.

Given that we now know the single most important cause of racial inequity throughout the country is the differences in accumulated home equity, such a project will continue the rent-for-life downward spiral of African-Americans in Minneapolis.

Looking at what other cities are doing with city land, the current Upper Harbor Terminal Plan seems not only shortsighted, but lacking a goal that would benefit either the African-American community, lower income families in general, or the overall economy and health of the City of Minneapolis.

The Hunters Point Naval Shipyard project in San Francisco is just one example. Instead of building rental units, they built condos, hundreds of which sell for $500,000-$600,000, which, because it is San Francisco, are considered affordable housing.  if the Upper Harbor Terminal project followed the San Francisco model, building condos instead of rental units, the prices, because it is Minneapolis, not San Francisco, would be lower. Doing so would allow a number of families who are on the margin to become owners instead of renters. Which would not only help those families, but, according to the research, it would change the entire future of their children, their grandchildren, and add to the economic vitality of Minneapolis.

Doing so would not solve the racial inequity problem, the poverty problem, or the affordable housing problem on its own. It would, however, take at least some steps in the right direction.

Another example of a big city project is the Essex Crossing development in New York City. It is on the lower Eastside. It is also built on the idea of affordable condos. And it has a community garden, which is something North Minneapolis residents have suggested.

In other words, there are legitimate and better alternatives to guide the partnership between the City of Minneapolis and private developers. Condos and community gardens instead of rental units and an amphitheater is just one.

Upper Harbor Terminal: An Economist’s Viewpoint

By Dennis Paulaha, PhD- Great River Coalition, Photo by Tom Reiter for Friends of the Mississippi River

I must admit I am coming late to the table at which the Upper Harbor Terminal development is being discussed. My first thought, as an economist, is that the most important thing an economist can bring to any discussion is to make it clear it is a mistake to make any decision, especially a big decision, without looking at the alternatives.

Although some people have supposedly been working on plans for the 48 acre Upper Harbor site with one mile on the Mississippi River for 20 years, the barge landing wasn’t closed until 2014, and the reason for closing it was to prevent the spread of the invasive Asian carp.

Reading through the materials provided by the Minneapolis Park Department, the City of Minneapolis, and developers, as well as articles written by others, the one thing that jumps out is that the city has decided, without looking at any alternatives, to turn over more than half the land to private developers to do whatever they want with it and to build an amphitheater on park land paid for by the city and run for profit by First Avenue Enterprise Limited.

The planners will no doubt claim that is overstating the lack of intended oversight by the city and the lack of input from the community, but there is no reason to assume this plan will be handled differently from the 2040 Plan when the city, the city Planning Department and the City Council kept the public uninformed while ignoring its input.

So it is not only the amphitheater that is a questionable decision, because of the problems such a venue will create for the neighborhood, because the preliminary plan allows closing park access to the public during events, and because of the environmental problems it will create by being so close to the river, but because there needs to be an honest discussion as to how public land and public money should be used, and whether it should be used for the general welfare or to benefit a few private businesses.

To begin with, I cannot find anything offered by the city, the Park Department, or the development companies explaining the purpose or goals of the plans they are putting together. In fact, the plans are not really plans, as of yet, which means I am not the only one who seems to be late to the table.

The Upper Harbor 48 acres is, or may be, the last significant piece of land the city and the Park Department can use for a purpose or purposes that will benefit…And that’s the question. Who and what do the City Council and the Park Board want to benefit? If the plan is to help increase the economic and financial well-being of current North Minneapolis residents, there is nothing in the plan that will do that. If the plan is to increase the economic growth of Minneapolis itself, there is nothing in the plan to do that either. The city of Minneapolis is at the beginning of a transition forced into existence by the Minneapolis 2040 Plan.

So one of the questions is: Is the unspoken purpose of the Upper Harbor Terminal Plan to add to the gentrification built into the Minneapolis 2040 plan? Very simply, the decision makers involved have to think about what they are doing.

This is a piece of land that offers fantastic opportunities for the city, but none of those opportunities can become a reality without careful thought, not only regarding the goals, but how the land and river frontage can be used to reach those goals. So far, from everything that has been made public, the city and the Park Department have decided to leave the thinking to developers and private businesses.

That is not why we have city officials. And I doubt anyone could successfully argue the current plan is the best thing that can be done with the tremendous opportunity the city and the Park Department have in front of them.

Earth Day 50 with the Great River Coalition

Support the Great River Coalition...

Earth Day Seen in a New Light

By Rick Margl, Great River Coalition

With a relentless but reassuring regularity enacted by physics and celestial motion, spring has come again.  As the days pass the breezes play and gust, alternately cool and balmy, like the fretful indecisiveness of youth.  The sky is full of moving wings and melodious songs. Buds swell on tree branches and blossoms thrust up from warmed patches of soil.  Water everywhere, previously held in bonds set during weeks of long, cold nights, now gathers and flows down, down and ever down.  We walk the river trails with eager senses, delighting in awakenings of the natural world.  They herald the approach of summer, but also bring memories of past springs and the loved ones who peopled them.

Sadly, this springtime is different.  We’re confronting an infirmity let loose by carelessness, transported across the globe and through communities by our lifestyle and exacerbated by preexisting social inequities.  As the populations of developing nations grow and seek a ‘modern’ standard of living, vast tracts of primeval forests are being cut and burned.  In this process, people are encountering viral pathogens outside of previous experience, many of which have a nasty tendency to mutate.  Our encounter with this virus is illustrative in a larger sense of how we’ve come to interact with the natural world, which as a result is becoming less ’natural’ every day.

On a related front, NASA has determined this winter to be the warmest on land in the northern hemisphere over the previous 140 years.  This warming climate is also facilitating the spread of disease via mosquitos and other insect vectors.  In Minnesota, increasing temperatures and associated insect infestations have decimated the iconic North Shore birches, felled hundreds of thousands of acres of tamarack, diminished the northland moose population and will eliminate the over one billion ash trees currently growing in our state.

Can individuals affect these trends?  Certainly, but it requires a broad vision.  One of the primary goals of the Great River Coalition is to support healthy populations of pollinator species. Though rightly considered to be a ‘keystone species’ with disproportionate effect on the ecosystem, pollinators are also just one compelling instance of the critical importance of all species in maintaining an environment that will support us. John Muir once wrote,  “When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe." Over the eons, a vast and complicated web of species interdependence has developed through the evolutionary process. We wouldn’t expect our car or computer to continue operating while one component after another is removed and we shouldn’t imagine that our environment can remain vital as large numbers of species are diminished or eliminated. To paraphrase John Donne, ‘no species is an island’.

Though as Homo sapiens we are styled as ‘wise man’, there is clearly not enough of wisdom in how we care for the world we inhabit.  Perhaps a more accurate nomenclature would be Homo rationalize, as we seem particularly adept at making excuses for our behavior.  We labor under a stilted perspective that is both parochial in its interests and ineffectively short-term in its scope.  It hinders our ability to exercise the wisdom we claim as our namesake.  15,000 years ago the present site of St. Anthony Falls was covered with ice over a mile thick.  Paleoindians entered the area following the retreat of the glaciers some 12,000 years ago.  Civilization arguably began in lands around the Mediterranean Sea around 5,000 years ago and not until 1680 AD did Europeans first encounter St. Anthony Falls.  Societal decisions being made today will have environmental impacts along similarly lengthy timelines.  

In another ten or a thousand millennia, what will remain of our bustling and ambitious 21^st Century?  Maybe an AI version of Elon Musk philosophizing under a well-appointed dome on Mars.  Perhaps our plastics, almost all of which that have been produced in the last 70-odd years still exist.  They may be found in landfills, ravines, blowing along roadsides, in the flesh of marine creatures and in ugly millions of tons spinning lazily in one of several tropical oceanic gyres scattered around the globe.  When future archeologists come across them locked in sedimentary strata, won’t they wonder just what in the world occurred during those few short centuries that man now calls the Industrial Age? 

Thankfully, time remains to take effective action and a particularly opportune day for doing so approaches.  Fifty years ago, in an era of protests, sit-ins and social introspection, a consensus developed among citizens, businesses and government that our natural environment must be protected.  Senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin conceived of setting aside an ‘Earth Day’ every year to demonstrate support for our environment.  Earth Day is now celebrated annually by over a billion people in some 190 countries and has evolved from a day of education to a day of action meant to drive behavior and policy changes in support of the Earth.  Through community action, mindful consumption decisions and appropriate application of technology we can satisfy our needs without enacting needless degradation of our natural world.

As fellow travellers on this planet, each of us has a responsibility to consider how our actions impact the environment.  Remember, the Earth will be fine regardless of whether our species survives or not.  We will have changed it without a doubt, but a new environmental equilibrium will soon be reached even as the visible evidence of all our achievements and failures are inexorably erased from sight.  Perhaps it would help us make wiser choices if we were to think of Earth Day in a new light – as Humans Day, since our fate is surely and inextricably linked with that of the planet which has been our home through the eons.  On this Earth Day, let us together exchange our usual hubris for enlightened self-interest.  We cannot survive a mortally impaired environment.  The decision to take action is incumbent on us all.

Not one would mind, neither bird nor tree

If mankind perished utterly;

And Spring herself, when she woke at dawn,

Would scarcely know that we were gone.

From ‘There Will Come Soft Rains,’ by Sara Teasdale

From The Language of Spring, edited by Robert Atwan, published by Beacon Press, 2003.

The Great River Coalition is a 501 (c) (3) non-profit organization that advocates for preserving, protecting and promoting the historic, commercial and environmental significance of the Mississippi River, the City of Minneapolis and its relationship to the people and their communities.

Notes for Pollinator Protection

By Representative Phyllis Kahn, Great River Coalition Board Member

As someone who has always participated in the Earth Day Bee Run/Walk and River Cleanup, which was supposed to occur on April 18th at Boom Island Park in Minneapolis, I will miss it as it joins the list of cancellations.

Following Rick Margl’s excellent article, “Notes on Recent Pollinator Research“, I would like to expand on what we can do as individuals.

Obviously support Rep. Wagenius bill. HF1255, allowing cities to ban the use of pesticides lethal to pollinators. Of course urge your legislators to actively support it. As an individual make sure you avoid their use.

On a local political level, we should oppose or try to eliminate any ordinance that requires groomed lawns. Yards devoted to pollinator plants are extremely attractive and easy to take care of once established. Get rid of aversions to plants like dandelions or creeping Charlie. They are among the best early sources for bee populations, If you really can’t stand them don’t cut them out or down until the yellow Dandelion  flowers are gone but before the seeds form.

Also Google  “”pollinator  garden” for ideas and seed sources. Farmers markets, which we hope will stay open, are good sources of knowledgable suppliers,

Even iff environmental cleanup is more fun in a big group and in a specific place like Boom Island, don’t hesitate to do it by yourself or with a small group off friends, keeping appropriate distance and doing perfect hand washing.

And if you are lucky enough to have a bee colony nearby, welcome it without any fear. Unbothered they will leave humans alone.

We can all celebrate the 50th anniversary of Earth Day. Check out the Great River Coalition website for more information, (www.greatrivercoalition.com).  Remember that GRC is a 501 C3 organization, perfect for charitable donations, working to preserve the Mississippi River in Minneapolis.

A possibly useful contact is DreamProducts.com at 1-800-530-2689. They have pre-seeded mats that become Monarch butterfly, songbird flowers, sunflowers and others.

Great River Coalition Shares Notes on Recent Pollinator Research and 5th Annual Earth Day Bee Run/Walk & River Cleanup

Article by Rick Margl, Board VP with the Great River Coalition

Impact of Climate Change on Pollinators

One of the most daunting challenges of our time is to understand society’s impact on the earth’s climate and to develop means to mitigate and, eventually, reverse the damage we’ve collectively imposed on our environment. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the five warmest years recorded since 1880 have all occurred since 2015. The two-degree increase in surface temperature experienced since 1880 represents an immense amount of additional heat in our oceans and atmosphere.  That extra heat is driving regional and seasonal temperature extremes, reducing snow cover and sea ice, intensifying heavy rainfall, and changing habitat ranges for plants and animals—expanding some and shrinking others.

Credit: NASA/NOAA

Some people struggle to understand how climate change is impacting their daily lives. Unfortunately, for farmers who rely on native bees for pollination of food crops, the impact is already sadly apparent. In a recent issue of ScienceDaily magazine, Peter Soroye and other researchers at the University of Ottawa in Ontario describe how their research has confirmed that bumblebees are declining at a rate “consistent with a mass extinction” and that declines show a direct correlation with warming temperatures in North America and Europe. Analyzing data on 66 bumblebee species over a 115-year period, they were able to identify population declines by locality and compare to warming trends over the time period. They found that in the course of a single human generation, the likelihood of a bumblebee population surviving in a specific locale has declined by an average of over 30% globally and 46% for North America. Climate change is affecting pollinators and all of us who depend on them - we all have a part to play in reversing it.

Genetically Engineered Bacteria Protecting Honeybees

Credit: Stephen Ausmus, USDA Agriculture Research ServiceA significant threat to honeybees across the globe is a phenomenon referred to as Colony Collapse Disorder, in which the majority of worker bees abandon a colony, leaving the queen and a small number of nurse bees to care for the immature bees. A number of factors are suspected to play a part in collapse disorder, including Varroa mites (seen in the photo), pesticide pollution, viral infections, poor management practices, lack of quality forage and other stressors. Given the global importance of honeybees in food production, many researchers are working on developing solutions to the disorder. Scientists at the University of Texas-Austin recently announced a promising approach that employs genetically engineered bacteria that live in the guts of bees. The bacteria act as biological factories producing medicines that protect the honeybees from Varroa mites and deformed-wing virus. Way to go science!

How You Can Help Pollinators

One great way to support healthy and sustainable pollinator populations is to minimize the use of pesticides. Check bee toxicity before use and avoid application near food or nesting sites.

In an effort to curtail the use of pollinator-toxic pesticides, Minnesota State Representative Jean Wagenius recently submitted a bill (HF1255) that would allow cities to ban a group of pesticides that the MN Department of Agriculture has labeled as lethal to pollinators. Issues regarding the proposed legislation are further described in a recent Star Tribune article. As citizen advocates, research the issue and then make your opinions known by contacting your state representative to voice your support! Spread the word about threats to pollinators!

Another way to help pollinators is to join us for the 5th Annual Earth Day Bee Run/Walk & River Cleanup on April 18th at Boom Island Park. Family-friendly (bring those strollers!) and dogs are welcome on a course that travels through one of the city's most historic and naturally beautiful areas. Before and following the 5K learn about efforts to protect pollinators, and enjoy live music, entertainment, and 50th anniversary Earth Day festivities. Take part in an organized river cleanup.

The Great River Coalition is a 501 (c) (3) non-profit organization that advocates for preserving, protecting and promoting the historic, commercial and environmental significance of the Mississippi River, the City of Minneapolis and its relationship to the people and their communities.

Great River Coalition Weighs in on 2040 Plan

Dear Minneapolis City Council Members, and Mayor Frey:

The Great River Coalition (GRC) is a member-supported 501 c3 nonprofit organization. Our mission is to advocate for preserving, protecting and promoting the historic, commercial and environmental vitality of the Mississippi River, the Metropolitan area and its relationship to the people and our communities. GRC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Minneapolis 2040 Plan draft.

Dear Minneapolis City Council Members, and Mayor Frey:The Great River Coalition (GRC) is a member-supported 501 c3 nonprofitorganization. Our mission is to advocate for preserving, protecting and promotingthe historic, commercial and environmental vitality of the Mississippi River, theMetropolitan area and its relationship to the people and our communities. GRCappreciates the opportunity to comment on the Minneapolis 2040 Plan draft.

Download the complete letter...

Great River Coalition seeks volunteers for April 21 Earth Day - 5K Fun Run/Walk/River Cleanup

The 3rd Annual Earth Day - 5K Fun Run/Walk/River Cleanup is on Saturday, April 21, 2018. The Great River Coalition needs volunteers to help with planning and marketing, setup, registration, greeters, etc., during the event.

The 5K Bee Run daws hundreds of participants to the banks of the Mississippi River, and to the Great River Coalition's mission. By joining the team of volunteers, you can help to enhance our riverfront environment while bringing awareness to the plight of pollinators.

 

To sign up, send an email with your name and phone number to diane@greatrivercoalition.com. 

 

The Great River Coalition is a 501(c)(3) organization. Their 5K Bee Run has more than doubled each year, which they attribute to contributions made by volunteers, sponsors, partners, and participants.