Readers Write: Water and the drought

I was not surprised to see the front page of the July 21 Metro section, where the top headline explained that "Minneapolis, St. Paul issue new guidelines on watering" of our manicured lawns, while the story below on the same page the headline read "Eating the landscape" and described a push for more edible forests and gardens.

Let's be completely frank about the grasses on most of our lawns: They are invasive species spread by humans. Unless you feed your sheep with the grass, you waste huge amounts of drinking water on it and apply pesticides that are poisonous to pollinators, wildlife and even people.

Lawns have their place as children's play fields. I even have a few square feet under our clothesline myself. Otherwise, they are destructive and should be taxed into oblivion. (Just my opinion.)

Charles Underwood, Minneapolis

•••

So, according to the July 20 Star Tribune story "PolyMet air permit back to MPCA," four of 20 permits will be going back to the state for review. The four were either revoked, suspended or needed more review. The issues: air pollution, water pollution, destruction of wetlands and the main permit. Well, thank goodness the permits didn't involve essential aspects of the proposed mine — just water, air, wetlands and the whole show! Remind me again how long this permitting process has been going on already? It seems some people more familiar with this process than I wonder if the company may be setting things up for a bigger mine later than what is requested now, i.e., "sham permitting." Wasn't it the Enbridge Line 3 pipeline installation that just discovered they "underestimated" the amount of water needing to be displaced by a factor of 10?! ("Enbridge water-use OK stirs anger," June 30.) Is it any wonder these large-scale corporate plans are met with mistrust and suspicion? "Trust us; things will be fine — until they're not."

Wayne L. Hornicek, St. Paul

I read with great interest the excellent front-page article by Jennifer Bjorhus on the worsening impact of the drought on our state and what this likely means in the way of restrictions to conserve our precious water resources ("Drought forces state to limit water use," July 19). I was surprised to see that there was no mention of the 5 billion gallons of water that the state approved Enbridge to move during construction and no examination of if that is advisable in the current conditions or what impact that might have on the environment during a drought. Surely this also should be a candidate for review and revision in the face of our worsening drought situation.

Adele Evidon, Minneapolis

•••

In the July 20 Business section, Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Rep. Angie Craig announced they are co-sponsoring legislation "to bring back the year-round market for E15, a gas blend that's composed of 15% of the corn-based fuel" ("Dems call for year-round E15 gas sales"). The article goes on to say that it is "a more environmentally friendly alternative to carbon-based fuel, though that view is not universally shared by scientists." When making these types of statements, folks are only looking at the potential impacts on air quality and are not considering the devastating impacts that growing corn has on our water.

As the article notes, 40% of our corn is made into the ethanol that is mixed with petroleum fuels. That increase in corn production for fuel has dramatically increased the pollution of our water, both here in Minnesota and across the country. The phosphorus and nitrogen fertilizers that are used to grow corn run off into surface water and seep into our groundwater, leading to extensive water pollution. These fertilizers contaminate our drinking water and make our lakes, rivers and streams green with algae so that they are no longer suitable for drinking, recreating or for critters to live in. More than half of the water in our state does not meet water quality standards, primarily because of agricultural pollution. This deeply concerns me, and it should concern you too.

Rebecca J. Flood, St. Paul

The writer is a retired assistant commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.

•••

I have two questions that are marginally connected by the idea of infrastructure, and I wonder if your readers could help me to answer them. The first is: Why did the U.S. never identify and destroy the Taliban's supply infrastructure? It seems their supply of weapons was unending.

The second is: Why has no one in the U.S. — whether publicly or privately — constructed infrastructure to collect water where we have too much of it and deliver it to where we don't have enough? We have pipelines to deliver oil and gas across the country. Yet when we have both floods and droughts, it seems all we can do is to wring our hands and fret. There must have been people who told President Dwight Eisenhower that an interstate freeway system could not be built, but look at us now. In each of these cases, I don't think anyone would seriously contend that they could not be done.

•••

The recent article about wake boats had this summary: "Critics say the boats are loud, disruptive and may damage ecosystems" ("Wake boats churn up controversy," front page, July 19).

Well ... they are pretty loud, but not as loud or irritating as many Jet Skis.

They are disruptive. If you are out on the same body of water as a wake boat you need to always be aware of its presence. Its wake, even hundreds of yards from the source, will easily swamp smaller boats or flush the decks of pontoon boats.

They absolutely damage ecosystems. Ignoring the damage they do to shorelines, in a world where global warming may well be our most serious long-term problem, these toys are ridiculous. They can burn around 8 gallons of fuel per hour or more at about 12 miles per hour (depending on boat type and "quality of wave"), which translates into 1.5 miles per gallon or less. As a point of reference, an 18-wheeler transport truck gets between around 6 and 10 miles per gallon.

That's an awful lot of greenhouse gas for an hour of fun for one person.

Neil Crocker, Eden Prairie