Letters to the legislature

In the opening statement of his essay on Civil Disobedience, Henry David Thoreau offered the refrain, “That government is best which governs least.” Thoreau—a naturalist in his own right—knew politics should never be the “go to” solution for every issue of the day.

I think Henry and I would have gotten along well. But at the same time, I also believe there is a time and place for the intervention of public policy in the interest of protecting America’s public waters and lands from any actions or ignorance which would damage or destroy them.

It should send a message to us all that the most beautiful places on Earth are those which have either been utterly abandoned by men, or those parts of the planet whose protection has been legislated by leaders and visionaries.

You can bear witness to the work of these visionaries right here, in our area. In a work that defines his legacy, Walter Mondale helped craft the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act… an achievement which protects our beloved St. Croix River Valley, among other waterways. The Wilderness Act of 1964 designated the Boundary Waters Canoe Area as a part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. A special BWCA regulation in 1965 provided the structure for the way the treasure is protected and managed today.

While these areas are treasures that certainly deserve vigilance and care, protection of public lands and waters should not be limited to the most spectacular of our natural resources.
These are the convictions which led me to write two letters last week, addressed to various members of the Minnesota Senate and the House of Representatives. Both letters had to do with measures which were introduced during the last legislative session, but which did not survive to reach full floor debate or passage, as near as I can tell. (Researching progress at the state’s legislative website is not as easy as you might think, and correspondence does not always receive a prompt response, especially when the legislature is between sessions.)

My first letter was directed to Senator Ellen Anderson (and colleagues on the Senate Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources). A measure she introduced last year would have the people who make or distribute plastic shopping bags assume greater responsibility for the recapture and recycling of those bags.

A second letter was sent to Representative Melissa Hortman. She introduced legislation during the last session which would mandate similar behavior from the people who profit from the sale of plastic beverage bottles.

I am neither a statesman or politician. But from my vantage point, the essence of these bills was sound: The people who profit from bringing plastic into our environment should bear a significant share of the burden when it comes to taking them out of our environment. If that means placing conspicuous recycling options at the front of a chain store, so be it. If it means reporting quantities of product introduced into the state so the effectiveness of a recycling campaign can be measured, that seems to me a reasonable expectation.

Having spent hundreds of hours scouring miles of shoreline, we have seen first-hand the extent to which plastic bottles, bags, fountain cups and other plastic tarnishes the rivers of Minnesota and Wisconsin, and beyond. Every piece of debris that is recycled is one that shall not add to rivers overflowing with refuse… so either of these measures begins to solve a problem. Further, the burden of funding from these measures would fall to the people who benefit, financially, from the manufacturing and/or distribution of their respective packaging. Package which, I would argue, was destined to become trash on the day it was born.

You can either scroll down… or click here to see my letter to Senator Anderson (along with her measure on plastic bag recycling), or click here to read my note to Representative Hortman (along with her proposed bottle bill).

© 2009, Mike D. Anderson. All rights reserved.