The May 5 commentary by Peter Gove and Ron Sternal ("Big companies should push back vs. Chamber agenda") may be excellent fodder for a Sierra Club membership drive, but the rhetoric and misstatements are a gross disservice to the initiatives of the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce and the images of the specific businesses they target. The statewide business community is a long-standing supporter of sensible environmental regulations that will allow Minnesota to preserve and protect our treasured natural resources and a healthy business climate.
The legislative proposals seek to streamline the permitting system and find efficiencies in the environmental review. Contrary to claims by Gove and Sternal, the legislation neither lowers any environmental standards nor curtails public comment.
Big and small companies of all types and sizes have to obtain permits through Minnesota's regulatory agencies. Companies consistently report that it takes too long to obtain a permit, it costs more than in other states and it includes a level of uncertainty not seen in other states.
Proposals before the Legislature build on the bipartisan cooperation between the Legislature and Gov. Mark Dayton with the mutual goal of having regulatory agencies operate, in his words, at the "speed of commerce." We've made significant headway since 2011 working with the governor. More work remains.
If you take the commentary's hyperbole and "the sky is falling" rhetoric at face value, you would think there is no state-level environmental regulation of Minnesota businesses. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, Minnesota is recognized for its nation-leading environmental laws and regulations. We are known for our clean water and air. Our employees enjoy the great outdoors. The Minnesota Chamber simply wants to modernize rules and regulations that were first written in the 1960s and '70s.
We don't have the space to rebut each and every claim presented in the commentary. Here is a sampling:
Claim: Proposed changes "gut" the responsibilities of the Environmental Quality Board.
Fact: The bill proposes to expand the board from five to eight members, and require one member be from each congressional district so the whole state has representation. The board is asked to focus on finding efficiencies and duplication in environmental review and permitting.