Water Project District: Where's Russ Olson?

[Part 5 of a series!]

Last I checked, District 8 State Senator Russell Olson lives within the proposed boundaries of the Interlakes Water Project District. He stands to see his taxes raised by this district. A serious fiscal conservative, Senator Olson should have something to say about the creation of a new tax burden and a new layer of government for his immediate neighbors. Having referred to the federal stimulus package as "a blessing and a curse," Senator Olson should also have something to say about the water project district pursuing a massive three-million-dollar infusion of those federal dollars into the local economy.

Water Project District
Series:

1. Rolly's Case
2. The Pitch
3. The Pitchforks
4. Where's Lake Herman?
5. Where's Russ Olson?

Yet as far as I know, our man Russ has made no public statements on the water project district (WPD) or the upcoming public vote on July 18.

Now I can understand a politician keeping his head down on an issue not directly before his agency. Why risk alienating voters when a vote is a local issue, not a legislative issue?

But wait a minute: maybe water quality is a legislative issue. Both proponents and opponents of the WPD at Saturday's meeting in Chester got me thinking: the WPD would tax lake residents to pay for a problem caused mostly by people outside that taxing jurisdiction. It would create a new layer of government to address a problem that existing agencies and regulations apparently aren't addressing.

Why aren't existing agencies and regulations taking care of water quality problems? (We'll assume there are water quality problems... unless some global-warming deniers would like to take a break and argue that Lake Madison doesn't have algae blooms.) Some obvious hypotheses present themselves:

1. Current regulations aren't tough enough.
2. Current regulations are written to favor business and agriculture over environmental concerns.
3. Existing agencies (DENR, state Ag. Dept., etc.) don't have sufficient resources to enforce current regulations.
   
4. Existing agencies are choosing not to carry out their statutory duties.

Whichever of those hypotheses might be true, they all have something in common: they would all be legislative issues. Our legislators could write tough water quality regulations. They could give the boot to any preferential industry treatment. They could increase funding and staff for DENR to investigate water pollution, construct retention dams, and buy or lease land for other water quality projects. And they could light a fire under any Pierre functionaries who are sitting on their hands instead of doing their duty.

Besides, water quality is inherently bigger than any one local jurisdiction. We see it in the pending WPD proposal. The district would encompass Lakes Madison and Brant, yet the pollution is coming from sources west along Silver Creek and north of the city of Madison. If we foul up our water in Lake County, that directly affects downstream in Moody and Minnehaha. Watersheds don't fit our happy grid of townships and counties. Environmental issues demand local action, but they also require some state-level oversight to ensure smaller districts don't flush their troubles away to the poor suckers downstream.

These are all issues that Russ and Mitch and Gerry can and should holler about. Yet the Legislature appears to leave it to small lake communities to decide whether water quality is worth taking action and to find the money to do something about it.

There's certainly a debate to be had about local control versus state efforts. But there's an argument to be made that if the South Dakota Legislature (not just Russell Olson, but the whole kit and kaboodle, plus the governor) were serious about water quality and other environmental issues, Lakes Madison and Brant would not be holding a vote this weekend. That's something not just for Russ to keep in mind this Saturday at the Hillside, but for Russ, Mitch, Gerry, and the rest of us to keep in mind during the 2010 Legislative session... and for the rest of us to keep in mind during the 2010 election.

Read more >>

Water Project District: Where's Lake Herman?

...for that matter, where is everybody?

[Part 4 in a series!]

The proposed Interlakes Water Project District (which faces a public vote Saturday, July 18) would include the sanitary districts currently established around Lakes Madison and Brant. As you may recall, the original plan was to include the Lake Herman Sanitary District in the district. However, political opposition (I heard the Lake Herman Development Association—i.e., fishermen—said they would hire a lawyer to fight any such new district) induced the water project district (WPD) organizers to leave Herman out.

Water Project
District Series:

1. Rolly's Case
2. The Pitch
3. The Pitchforks
4. Where's Lake Herman?
5. Where's Russ Olson?

Including Lake Herman would have created an oddly discontiguous jurisdiction... though no more odd than the Heartland Consumer Power District (with outposts in Groton, Volga, and Madison) and the United States (Alaska and Hawaii). Including Herman would have made hydrological sense (hydro-logic?): the 17,000 acres draining into Lake Herman are the head of the Lake County branch of the Lower Big Sioux Watershed, which flows through Silver Creek to Lake Madison.

Now opponents of the WPD contend that leaving Herman out of the plan compromises the WPD's ability to solve water quality issues. (Make group happy, torque off another—you can't win 'em all!) At the July 11 public meeting in Chester, WPD supporters offered a number of responses on why leaving Herman out won't be so bad:

1. The district's taxing authority is limited to its legal boundaries, but it can spend that money on projects anywhere in the watershed. For example, the WPD could lease land north of Lake Herman to plant switchgrass along the tributary that brings lots of ag run-off into the lake by the golf course. (However, it is worth noting that Robert Todd, lead organizer of the WPD, said he is "concerned" about spending money on projects that would directly benefit Lake Herman when no one on Lake Herman is paying.)
   
2. Lakes Madison and Brant drain their own 29,000-acre watershed. Even if they never touched the Herman watershed, they could do a lot of water quality work.
3. Lake Herman doesn't have the population and tax base to make the district work. Robert Todd said that the planned assessment levels would add only $10,000 from Herman to the $80,000 the WPD tentatively plans to raise from Lakes Madison and Brant. Attorney Rolly Samp said that the biggest landowner on Herman is the State of South Dakota, and unless the state decides to offer payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT—my new policy term of the weekend!), Herman just can't support such a levy.
4. Lake Herman itself is not the leading source of pollutants. Robert Todd gave the example of phosphorus: while Herman has noticeable phosphorus levels, those levels jump significantly before the water reaches Lake Madison. Todd cited the old poultry facility (that would be Wenk's), ag operations north of Madison, the city itself, and the north shore of Lake Madison as key sources of that phosphorus.
   

I find point 3 particularly interesting. "Only" $10,000 from Lake Herman is still double the highest tax ever levied by the Lake Herman Sanitary District and almost five times the current tax levy.

More interesting is a combination of points 1 and 4. As WPD committeeman Martin Jarrett pointed out at Saturday's meeting, 85% of the pollution affecting water quality in Lake County comes from agriculture. 14% comes from the City of Madison. It's not like us dang dirty folks at Lake Herman are sending algae blooms to Lake Madison. The WPD could include Herman, and it still would be taxing a bunch of people who aren't the main cause of the problem.

Put harshly, the WPD will take money from lake residents and redistribute it to polluters. This money flow seems backward. At the very least, it suggests that the WPD would do better to include the entire county, or at least the formal watershed boundaries (folks up Nunda way send their water down a different track), so that the major polluters would at least bear some tax burden.

Better yet, let's be creative: perhaps we need a local version of cap-and-trade for nutrient run-off. Give every resident a certain per-acre phosphorus and nitrate allotment. If you want to use chemical fertilizer or run a certain number of cattle above your allotment, you have to buy nutrient credits from organic farmers or landowners who aren't using their allotment. Or perhaps a county-wide WPD could simply impose a higher levy on the ag land identified as the primary source of nutrient load and soil eroision.

The WPD organizers emphasize that the district, if approved Saturday, will be open to expansion. If Lake Herman or the city of Madison or any other jurisdiction wants to join, those residents can petition and vote and start contributing tax dollars right along with Lakes Madison and Brant. For now, as the organizers say, we've got to start somewhere.

But including Lake Herman, by itself, is not a solution. The WPD organizers themselves now say so. The WPD can do work anywhere in the watershed, with or without the official participation of Lake Herman. The only direct effect of including an area in the WPD is to raise that area's taxes. At that point, the question should be not "Where's Lake Herman?" but "Where is everybody?"

Read more >>

Water Project District: Points of Opposition

[Part 3 in a series!]

I gave the proponents of the Interlakes Water Project District a full post listing the main functions and benefits of their plan. Now let's list the points of opposition raised by the more vocal attendees at yesterday's meeting in Chester:

Water Project
District Series:

1. Rolly's Case
2. The Pitch
3. The Pitchforks
4. Where's Lake Herman?
5. Where's Russ Olson?

• The proposed water project district (WPD) includes only Lakes Madison and Brant. To make serious progress on water quality, the district needs to include at least Lake Herman, if not the entire county.
• We already pay taxes to support the Department of Agriculture, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and numerous other agencies to protect water quality. We should be able to get our money's worth from existing agencies without piling on more taxes for another agency.
  
• Lake residents are already seeing higher tax assessments from the county. Yet the lakes continue to have to form additional taxing entities, such as road and sanitary districts, to obtain services that the county doesn't provide. Lake taxation is already unfair; adding another special district only exacerbates the unfairness.
• WPD proponent Martin Jarrett said that 85% of the water quality problems come from agriculture. 14% come from the city of Madison. Only a tiny fraction results from the actions of lake residents. Therefore, said one attendee, it seems unfair that lake residents should pay higher taxes when Joe Blow who lives two miles outside the district causes the bulk of the pollution.
• Instead of creating a new district to redistribute tax dollars in leases and incentives, we need to put some teeth in existing laws and enforce fines for pollution.

Now as Rolly Samp said at the meeting, it's always easier to oppose than propose: building a plan requires making every piece fit together, while opposing a plan requires finding just one piece that doesn't work. But, as my classical conservative (and policy debate!) friends will tell you, such are the reasonable rules of the public policy game. If you have the temerity to suggest changing the status quo, the burden falls on you to justify the change and present a solid plan.

So how do these arguments against (and the earlier arguments for) the water project district stack up? Analysis, commentary, and wild speculation coming up!

Read more >>

Water Project District: The Pitch

[Part 2 in a series!]

Robert Todd opened yesterday's informational meeting in Chester on the proposed Interlakes Water Project District with his explanation of what the district would do and why that would be good. Here's a summary of his pitch:

Water Project
District Series:

1. Rolly's Case
2. The Pitch
3. The Pitchforks
4. Where's Lake Herman?
5. Where's Russ Olson?

• A formal water project district (WPD) would be able to carry out long-term projects (Todd mentioned a ten-year plan) that ad hoc volunteer groups cannot sustain.
• While there are entities like the state Department of Environment and Natural Resources and East Dakota Water Development District that work on water quality, those entitites limited funds spread over broad areas. The DENR has already funded the Wolff Dam project near Lake Madison and probably doesn't have much more to spend here. EDWDD directs its funding priorities to the Big Sioux River. Forming a WPD here would allow greater local control and focused attention on the local watershed.
• A WPD can levy taxes to support water quality projects that benefit everyone in the watershed. While the district could levy a maximum of $1 per $1000 in property value, a 50¢/K levy would be adequate for the district's first couple years of operation. That's $100 a year for a $200K property. A 50¢/K levy would bring in $80K for the district's annual budget. [Note: that means there is about $160 million in taxable property value around Lakes Madison and Brant.]
• A WPD can also seek special assessments for additional revenue. Obtaining a special assessment requires an affirmative vote by 60% of landowners in the district.
  
• A WPD can qualify for federal stimulus dollars that volunteer groups can't get. However, the deadline for applying for the remaining stimulus money is October 1. Thus, to have a shot at the money, this district needs to start now.
• The WPD would have five major action areas:
  1. controlling nutrient and silt loads (primary area of concern: immediately west of Lake Madison), getting cattle out of the streams by helping develop alternative water supplies
     
  2. reëstablishing grassy waterways
  3. building and maintaining retention dams
  4. controlling carp (they cause bank erosion, release phosphorus and other nutrients that aggravate algae growth)
  5. educate residents on water quality issues and actions
     

A dozen interested residents gave patient and polite attention to this pitch. How did they respond? Stay tuned... more to come!

Read more >>

Water Project District: Rolly Samp's Case

[Part 1 of a series!]

I'm not sold yet on the idea of forming a water project district around Lake Madison and Brant Lake. So the toughest part of yesterday's public meeting in Chester to discuss forming such a district was Rolly Samp's pitch.

Water Project
District Series:

1. Rolly's Case
2. The Pitch
3. The Pitchforks
4. Where's Lake Herman?
5. Where's Russ Olson?

Rolly has been a summer denizen of Lake Madison all his life. His grandkids are the sixth generation of his family to get to enjoy his family property on the lake. And this July 4th, the lakeshore by that property was too green to swim or fish.

Rolly sees the proposed Interlakes Water Project as the best way to ensure that his grandkids and the following generations can continue to enjoy our lakes. Not just the best way—the only way. As Rolly explains it, a water project district would have the organization and status to be eligible for three million dollars of federal stimulus money. If the district can get going and apply by the October 1 deadline, it could grab that cash and fund 30 projects in the local watershed. Those projects would have an enormous long-term impact on water quality, says Rolly.

Without a formal district, there'll be no stimulus money, and those 30 projects won't happen for 30 years. Rolly says Lake Herman would turn to a cattail slough. The lake he has loved all his life will only decline further into a carpy, algae-covered mess.

And at the end of the meeting, he looks me in the eye and says I need to "get on board" with this project.

I know Rolly from my Prairie Village days. I met his son Mike at Boys State. Rolly's a good guy, a good lawyer (not mutually exclusive categories), and an avid fellow writer. And he makes a pretty good case in favor of forming a water project district here in Lake County. So I neither lightly nor eagerly look him back in the eye and say I disagree.

That's why I want to spend some time today working through what I heard at yesterday's informational meeting, the fourth and final such public meeting held by proponents of the Interlakes Water Project District. I'll write up the information presented by organizers Robert Todd and Martin Jarrett. I'll explore some of the questions and arguments raised by opponents of the district, as well as the responses offered by the organizers. And then I'll probably presume to offer suggestions to you lucky 709 eligible voters on Lakes Madison and Brant on how to vote this coming Saturday.

Rolly Samp says you and I need to get on board, for the sake of our grandkids (present and potential). Other people of good conscience say no, we don't. This is complicated... and worth thinking about.

Read more >>

Rain Helps Sioux Falls Conserve Water

Rain is the worst weather for bicycling, so I can do without all the splashy days we've been having this month. However, on the upside, a little rain can have a remarkable impact on municipal water usage. Kevin Smith of Sioux Falls Public Works tells KELO that the big city's water usage is currently at 25 million gallons a day. That's down from 33 million gallons a day last July. Wow—8 million gallons of water saved each day, a 25% reduction, mostly just by people not feeling the need to throw water on their manicured grass.

Now 25 million gallons a day is still a lot of water, about 150 gallons per Sioux Fallsian. Note that out here in the Lake Herman metroplex, the Madville Times world headquarters uses about 100 gallons a day... and that's with three people, including a thirsty and inefficient three-year-old.

So when July turns hot again and that grass shades toward brown, Sioux Falls, go easy on the sprinklers, and save some water for the rest of us.

Read more >>

Noonan: Palin "Horrifying," Bad for GOP and USA

Well-credentialed Reagan conservative Peggy Noonan uses the august pages of the Wall Street Journal to issue a punishing post-mortem of Sarah Palin's "horrifying" political career and call on her fellow Republicans to "let go of her drama":

...[S]he was not thoughtful. She was a gifted retail politician who displayed the disadvantages of being born into a point of view (in her case a form of conservatism; elsewhere and in other circumstances, it could have been a form of liberalism) and swallowing it whole: She never learned how the other sides think, or why.

In television interviews she was out of her depth in a shallow pool. She was limited in her ability to explain and defend her positions, and sometimes in knowing them. She couldn't say what she read because she didn't read anything. She was utterly unconcerned by all this and seemed in fact rather proud of it: It was evidence of her authenticity. She experienced criticism as both partisan and cruel because she could see no truth in any of it. She wasn't thoughtful enough to know she wasn't thoughtful enough. Her presentation up to the end has been scattered, illogical, manipulative and self-referential to the point of self-reverence. "I'm not wired that way," "I'm not a quitter," "I'm standing up for our values." I'm, I'm, I'm.

In another age it might not have been terrible, but here and now it was actually rather horrifying [Peggy Noonan, "A Farewell to Harms," Wall Street Journal, 2009.07.10].

Noonan follows with a classic debate-style point-by-point debunking of every bit of Palinmaniac mythology (Among the best: The elites don't hate Palin. "The elites made her."). So for all of you Palin fans who like to deflect the argument by portraying liberals as "afraid" of Palin, I suggest you do better to ask why good conservatives are so afraid of Palin... and then read Noonan's very cogent explanation:

Here's why all this matters. The world is a dangerous place. It has never been more so, or more complicated, more straining of the reasoning powers of those with actual genius and true judgment. This is a time for conservative leaders who know how to think [Noonan, 2009.07.10].

Update: For some hard-core blogging, see Mel Green's freelance analysis of some double-counting on Alaska's state spreadsheets that appears to exaggerate the costs of the ethics investigations of Alaska's departing governor. Green's blog work is good enough to get attention in the Anchorage Daily News.

Meanwhile, Donald Craig Mitchell compares Palin's gubernatorial resignation to her bailing from the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and finds both instances revealing Palin as a self-absorbed quitter who knows she can't handle the job.

Republicans, if any of you are still desinging Palin-2012 posters, get serious. Back Pawlenty, Thune, or Huckabee. Draft Rounds. Push an amendment to allow foreign-born presidents and run Schwarzenegger. But listen to Noonan: put Palin behind you.

Read more >>

Bicycle Wonder thru Fresh Eyes: "It's Almost Like You're Flying"

Last week, Darren Weisz of Cycle South Dakota wondered if he is losing his fervor for purely recreational bicycle riding:

It seems like the more I am riding out of necessity the less I am interested in heading out to the highways of no where for no reason. I don't know, maybe this will pass but it seems on the side of boring to me to ride 40 miles down the highways and bi-ways. [Darren Weisz, "Am I Losing My Fervor...?" Cycle South Dakota, 2009.07.02].

I know as well as anyone that integrating bicycling into one's practical daily affairs can provide a great two-wheel fix and reduce one's urge for a long, aimless spin around the county.

But in case any of you avid practical cyclists are letting your ride become too mundane, NPR provides this reminder that bicycling is a wonder-full way to get around. Tovia Smith features the Somerville, Mass., Bicycle Riding School... for adults. Go ahead, chuckle, but some of us reach adulthood without conquering the great two-wheeled magic trick. (I didn't hop in the saddle successfully until I was 18.) One 27-year-old student in the report struggles, watching other people get the hang of it faster. Then she gets it. Boy, does she get it:

Now I know why people ride bikes. It's almost like you're flying.

—Lisa Moris, quoted by Tovia Smith, "Uneasy Riders: Adults Learn to Master Two Wheels," NPR: All Things Considered, 2009.07.09

Every now and then, those of us who daily race tractors and buses, hop curbs, and dodge highway hooligans can use a little two-tube-newbie perspective. Bikes bring wonder and wisdom, as the above student discovered on her first happy day of pedaling:

When I started to look at what other people were doing, that's when I got rattled. When I focused on myself, looking straight ahead, [I was] able to succeed.... When you're too concerned about other people, you get off balance. [Moris, in Smith, 2009]

I don't know if that will get you out to the cornfields, Darren, but hey, sun's out! Whether you're headed for Hy-Vee or the Norwegian Boulevard, happy riding, everyone!

Read more >>

Rushmore Reaction: Herseth Sandlin Makes Protesters' Point?

Sam Hurst at Dakota Day agrees with me that Wednesday's Greenpeace protest at Mount Rushmore was no outrage. He smiles and says he can imagine much worse things than having to bail his own kids out of jail for a similar stunt.

If there is any outrage, Hurst suggests it lies in Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin's missing the point over the incident:

This week the Congresswoman asked us to return her to Congress. She has just been appointed to the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. But it occurs to me that she has been so amped up with mock outrage that she never bothered to read the banner: "America Honors Leaders, Not Politicians. Stop Global Warming." I would feel a lot more comfortable giving her my vote if she showed as much passion and outrage about the problem of global climate change as she does about the Greenpeace trespassers [emphasis original; Sam Hurst, "Greenpeace Banner Challenges Congresswoman Herseth-Sandlin… 'Be a Leader, Not a Politician'. She Refuses," Dakota Day, 2009.07.09].

Hurst and I likely constitute a minority, likely to be heaped by our neighbors with scorn and calls to go back to Russia. One does not score political points in South Dakota by giving Greenpeace activists the time of day, let alone praising their message. But Hurst reminds us that the Greenpeace activists are making more than one point that many of South Dakota's politicians would rather we not pay attention to.

Read more >>

Update: More Numbers (and Maps!) from Regents on Enrollment Patterns

Last week I noted that a Board of Regents study of South Dakota student enrollment geographical patterns failed to support the conclusion the Regents touted, that having campuses in each geographical region of the state keeps in-state enrollment high.

In response, the Regents office graced me with the full report... with maps! (Note: I converted the document from Word .docx to PDF: it's a beefy 2MB... but the Word .doc version would have been 4.1MB! The report has background and explanatory text; the enrollment maps are included below.)

One set of maps break down South Dakota high school graduate enrollment by county and state campus. For instance, take the graduates from Lake County who choose the South Dakota Regental institutions for their higher ed. Which schools did they choose in the 2006–2007 academic year? (Distances figured from Madison.)

1. SDSU: 43% (38 miles)
2. DSU: 36% (0 miles)
   
3. USD: 15% (97 miles by Hwy 19)
4. NSU: 2% (167 miles)
   
5. SDSM&T: 2% (345 miles)
6. BHSU: 2% (373 miles)

These numbers and the rest on the maps show some correlation between where students live and where they choose to go to university. Unfortunately, they still don't answer the important question: if South Dakota students don't have a state university in their backyard, how much more likely will they be to choose an out-of-state school?

To illustrate, consider Tripp County, about as far removed from a state campus as you can get in South Dakota. Let's figure distances from Winner:

• SDSU: 49% (264 miles)
• BHSU: 19% (258 miles)
  
• USD: 15% (175 miles)
• SDSM&T: 9% (215 miles)
• DSU: 5% (219 miles— but Doug! Talk your brother up to those kids!)
• NSU: 4% (254 miles)
  

These numbers suggest that geography matters less when there's no campus within reasonable bicycle range. The closest campus to Tripp County, USD, is only the third most popular choice among the county's in-staters. The two top choices are a good hour and a half farther away.

The real rubber-meets-the-road data would be the breakdown of what percentage of kids in Tripp County went out-of-state, and how far they went, as well as an assessment of how many Tripp County students would pick another South Dakota campus if BHSU were closed, or how many Lake County students would flee the state if DSU closed. Alas, the Regents acknowledge they don't have that data, and such data, especially the latter speculative data, would take serious time and money to get.

So, to be clear, I'm not advocating the closing of any state campus. I'm simply saying that the data we have doesn't necessarily argue that keeping all six campuses open is essential to keeping students in the state. As the Tripp County enrollment patterns demonstrate, there is more to college choice than geography. If we did close a state campus, there is every possibility that a good selection of quality programs and cheap in-state tuition would still keep lots of South Dakota students in state.

But see for yourself: enjoy the maps, see if any instructive patterns leap out at you. (Click each one for a larger image!)

Read more >>

Greenpeace at Mount Rushmore: Outrage? Patriotism? Bravery?

Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin dubs the Greenpeace protest at Mount Rushmore "outrageous."



Outrage? I'm having trouble getting there. Can we find grounds for outrage in any of the charges SHS levels at the protestors?

• posed a security risk? To whom? What person did they threaten? What security hazard did they create? The protesters may have revealed a lapse in security, but even so, there was no risk to any Mount Rushmore visitor. They didn't bring any hazardous materials into the visitor center. They didn't threaten to push anyone off a cliff. This was a stunningly peaceful protest, worlds removed from the 9/11 doomsday scenarios we've spent big bucks to gird Mount Rushmore against.
  
• harmed the "visitor experience"? Here I will grant that folks come to Mount Rushmore for relaxation, not ruckus. But was their experience ruined? Folks who got pictures and videos lucked into a little bit of news and history. They caught images that they could share with KELO and the papers. They have visual souvenirs that will make their home albums and YouTube videos stand out out from the millions of normal tourist snaps of the impressive monument. Years from now, Wednesday morning's tourists will still have vivid memories of their visit to South Dakota.
  
• wasted taxpayer dollars at the monument? I could be wrong, but didn't this stunt happen during normal work hours? Isn't this the sort of thing we pay rangers to handle?
  

A few weeks ago, I suggested that the Tea Party rucki scheduled for July 4th were ill-timed. For me, the Fourth of July is the best holiday of the year, a patriotic time when we can put aside our partisan differences and poolicy disagreements and celebrate our common heritage and freedom. If I can see the Fourth of July as a sacred time ("sacred" in the sense of civic religion), I can accept that others could view Mount Rushmore as a similarly sacred place, where we should agree to set aside our differences and celebrate our shared freedoms, achievements, and aspirations.

But if someone chooses to violate the sacred times or spaces of civic religion with political dissent, do they commit an outrage? I found the July 4 Tea Parties bothersome, but not outrageous. And there were a lot more Tea Partiers shouting about socialism than there were skinny hippies unfurling a banner challenging the President to be a true leader (that's an important part of the message that Dr. Newquist astutely observes).

I would suggest that if this year's Tea Parties—and the original—were patriotic, then so was Wednesday's Mount Rushmore protest. The Greenpeacers are every bit as committed to their principles as the fellas in Boston Harbor, willing to break the law to get their message across. In the case of the guy at the bottom of the banner, that patriotism meant being willing to let a 65-foot banner take him for a parachute ride on the side of a mountain... and hang on to complete the mission.

Is it a crime? Sure. But an outrage? The four big fellas on the mountain might have thought otherwise.

-------------------------------
p.s.: The Greenpeace activists do deserve credit for well-executed political theater. These weren't drunken anarchist goons out to smash windows. They were highly organized, well-trained climbers who took care not to do damage that could distract from their message.

[Update 07:40 CDT: Sibby says I lied and reminds me that the protesters "intentionally damaged part of the memorial's security system." My apologies, Sibby, for missing that line. But I'm not lying. Whatever the damage (smashed movement sensor? blacked-out lenses on cameras? snipped fences?), the protesters clearly took pains not to do damage to the memorial itself, the work of art that everyone sees.]

Symbolically, Mount Rushmore may have been the best place in the world to carry off this specific protest action. The activists ventured into the heart of the conservative West (I can't help thinking some of the Greenpeacers would rather have been back in the big city) to stand up for what here is a very unpopular position. They juxtaposed a gray image of President Obama next to the most famous stone representations of American Presidents, a setting that echoed exactly what their banner said: we memorialize Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt, and Lincoln for brave leadership, not political craft.

To top it off, they achieved instant global attention, in a way no chanting in the streets of New York or Paris can. Not a bad day's work.

----------------------------
pp.s.: And don't forget the perspective from the last owners of Mount Rushmore: South Dakota Oglala Sioux Melvin Martin expresses "heartfelt admiration for this brave act."

----------------------------
Roster of those arrested and charged for the stunt:

• Noah Mace, 21, Chapel Hill, NC
• Mary Sweeters, 27, Chicago
• Basil Tsimoyianis, 22, Westport, CT
• Madeline Gardner, 27, Minneapolis
• Matthew Leonard, 30, San Francisco
• Brian Jenkins, 25, Helena, MT
• Simran McKenna, 25, San Francisco
• Jessica Miller, 31, Flushing, NY
• Cy Wagoner, 32, San Francisco
• Joseph Smyth, 27, Albuquerque, NM
• Hope Kaye, 23, San Francisco

And here they are in cuffs:



Among the comments: "Hang 'em high!" and "Go back to Russia!" Har har. But what bothers me most: "Shut up!" Not exactly appropriate comments in the Shrine to Democracy.

--------------------------
Update 2009.07.10 11:02 CDT: Meanwhile, debris leftover from the July 3 fireworks display is still harming the Mount Rushmore visitor experience and incurring "huge expense." Trash on the trails! Fire danger! Where's the outrage?!

Update 2009.07.11 07:10 CDT: See Matt Leonard, member of the Rushmore 12, discussing the protest (they hiked in through the woods!) and the climate change bill ("so watered down by industry interests that it’s really lost its basis in science") on Democracy Now!

Read more >>

State Law Conflicts on Water District Vote: Standard Drops from 60% to 50%+1

Lake Madison resident Steve Kant, an opponent of the proposed Interlakes Water Project (and current Madville Times sponsor), sends along some important information about the upcoming July 18 vote. We were of the impression that Chapter 46A-18 of South Dakota Codified Law, on water project districts, governed the upcoming election. Specifically, SDCL 46A-18-20 requires a 60% vote to create the new district [emphasis mine]:

46A-18-20. Establishment of district--Vote required. If at least sixty percent of the votes cast in an election are in favor of formation of the water project district, the Board of Water and Natural Resources shall by resolution create and establish the water project district and give it a corporate name. Upon filing of a true copy of the resolution with the secretary of state, the district shall become a political subdivision of the state with the authority, power, and duties prescribed by this chapter.
Source: SL 1984, ch 293, § 19.

But wait! SDCL Chapter 6-16-5 on special district elections calls for a majority vote:

6-16-5. Election on question of incorporation in districts containing less than one thousand voters--Election of directors or trustees. If the proposed district contains less than one thousand eligible voters as defined in § 6-16-6, the county auditor shall set a date, time, and location for a meeting to be held within the district to conduct an election on the question of formation of the special district. The date may not be more than sixty days after the appropriate board declares that the application for incorporation is valid. The auditor shall appoint three judges of election, one of whom shall serve as the superintendent, to conduct the election. The vote upon the question of incorporation shall be by ballot which conforms to a ballot for a statewide question except that the statement required to be printed on the ballot shall be prepared by the state's attorney. After the vote is cast and counted, the judges shall prepare a certification showing the whole number of ballots cast, together with the number voting for and the number voting against incorporation, and shall return the certification to the county auditor. If a majority of the votes cast on the question of formation is in favor, an election shall be conducted by those present at the same meeting to elect the initial board of directors or trustees.
Source: SL 1998, ch 36, § 5; SL 2006, ch 29, § 3; SL 2008, ch 35, § 2, eff. Feb. 27, 2008.

Uh oh! Someone dropped the style-and-form veto pen!

How do we resolve these apparently conflicting statutes? From what Steve tells me, the Secretary of State's office originally advised the 60% vote was the correct standard. However, the Attorney General's office has evidently weighed in to say the newer statute, 6-16-5, takes precedence, and the water project district requires only a majority vote to be formed.

Such conclusion also is supported by SDCL 46A-18-14, which explicitly states that "The election shall be held as provided in §§ 6-16-4 to 6-16-6, inclusive," and which also postdates poor, forgotten 46A-18-20. Darn—supermajorities are kind of fun (as Al Franken will soon attest).

Given that the proposed district has 709 eligible voters, advocates of the district just saw their work get as many as 70 people easier. 60% to 50%+1... that's a big difference! So, while someone at the LRC gets out the higlighter, the advocates of the district breathe a sigh of relief.

Read more >>