From the River Alliance of Wisconsin:
Senator Neal Kedzie has just released his “preliminary” mining bill. It’s virtually identical to the bill passed by the Assembly late last month. The public hearing is scheduled for this Friday in Platteville! After several public statements from Senator Kedzie about seeking input from all members of the Senate Select Committee on Mining Jobs, and an invitation to sit down with the Bad River Tribe to discuss issues, we had hoped for a much more deliberate approach and reasonable proposal.  And after the public outcry about the Assembly’s decision to hold their hearing in West Allis, far from the proposed GTac mine and the people who would be most directly impacted, why Platteville? Sure, SW Wisconsin used to be an iron mining area, but not this kind of open pit mining.

There are two improvements in Senator Kedzie’s bill: it would, as under current law, allow citizens to challenge the information provided by the mining company for consideration of their permit and to contest the permit itself if approved; and, it creates a new tax on iron ore that would help local communities bear the impacts of a mining operation on their infrastructure. But make no mistake – all the rollbacks in protections to rivers, lakes, wetlands and groundwater are still there.

Senator Kedzie has stated he expects there will be changes to the proposed bill, but it’s hard to believe the thousands of public comments decrying the weakening of environmental protections have thus far been ignored. So it’s time we pump up the volume and stop this insidious attack. We all know what’s next – weaken standards for one industry, and everyone else will demand the same as a matter of fairness.

There are three things you can do, and now would be the time:
•              Join us for Mining Lobby Day at the Capitol this Thursday, February 16. RSVP to the Wisconsin League of Conservation Votershttps://www.thedatabank.com/dpg/273/personal2.asp?formid=meet&c=3433276 so they can sure you will be scheduled to meet with your senator.
•              Attend the hearing in Platteville on Friday. It starts at 10:00 a.m., and will be held in Ullsvik Hall, Harry and Laura Nohr Gallery on campus, 1 University Place.
•              Contact your Senator – find your Senator and contact information here http://legis.wisconsin.gov/w3asp/waml/waml.aspx .

They must hear loud and clear that any bill that decimates protections of our environment for the sake of an out-of-state mining company is unacceptable. See here (add link) for more details, but the message is simple:
Scrap the mining bill!

Senate Mining Bill LRB 4035/1 is wrong for Wisconsin because:
The Senate Mining Bill and the process by which it is being rammed through the legislature takes away the voice of Wisconsin citizens.
•              Unlike the current mining law which was developed with a thorough, consensus-based process with mining interests and scientific experts at the table, LRB 4035/1 is virtually identical to AB 426, which was written in secret with mining industry lobbyists.
•              LRB 4035/1, a 191 page, complex, technical bill was released less than a week before the public hearing, scheduled to be held as far away as possible from the citizens most immediately affected.
•              LRB 4035/1curtails the ability of the communities impacted by a mine to enforce their own zoning requirements or to negotiate for conditions to protect themselves.

The Senate Mining Bill elevates mining above all other industries and businesses in the state, applying special rules that allow mines to bypass the environmental and public health requirements that apply to everyone else.
•              LRB 4035/1 mandates that if there is a conflict between mining law and other environmental laws, the mining law trumps environmental laws.
•              LRB 4035/1 allows mine wastes to be piled next to rivers and lakes, in floodplains and areas where groundwater contamination is likely.
•              LRB 4035/1 requires DNR to allow wetlands to be filled, even the most critically important wetlands, as long as the mining company provides “mitigation.”
•              LRB 4035/1 requires DNR to permit structures and fill in waterways, to allow rivers to be altered, straightened, widened and dredged as long as it won’t “significantly” impair public rights, flood capacity, rights of riparian owners or water quality. “Significantly” is not defined.
•              LRB 4035/1 requires DNR to allow wells or direct water withdrawals from rivers or lakes even if it will severely draw down groundwater, rivers or lakes because it is assumed that the needs of the mine are in the best interest of the public.

The Assembly Mining Bill takes science out of decision making.
•              LRB 4035/1 allows a mining company to complete their environmental analysis in one year, even though experts indicate a realistic analysis of how water resources interact and would be impacted would take two to three years.
•              LRB 4035/1 prevents DNR from considering the quality of the information submitted by the mining company to determine whether their application is complete.
•              LRB 4035/1 creates unworkably short permit review timelines that prevent DNR from verifying the accuracy of the data submitted by the mining company – the information must be taken at face value, and if DNR doesn’t make their decision by the end of the timeline, must refund the permit fees to the mining company.
•              LRB 4035/1 sets arbitrary permit review deadlines for all iron mines, with no consideration for the scale or complexity of a proposal.
•              LRB 4035/1 eliminates the ability of DNR to monitor a mining operation and to order a stop in work if there is a substantial threat to public health and safety or the environment.

Contact:
Lori Grant
Policy Program Manager
River Alliance of Wisconsin
lgrant@wisconsinrivers.org
608.257.2424, ext. 111
www.wisconsinrivers.org

This year’s conference features “Civic Engagement” to launch implemenation of the St. Croix phosphorus reduction strategies. The conference explores phosphorus removal case studies and ways to encourage collective action on water quality through discussion, reasoning, and citizen participation.
Minnesota and Wisconsin are seeking US Environmental Protection Agency approval for the St. Croix water quality improvement plan (a.k.a.TMDL). The next step seeks input and involvement from stakeholders implementing on-the-ground phosphorus reduction for water quality improvement.

Strong community and sincere civic engagement will be required to successfully implement water quality projects to meet the goal of reducing phosphorus by 100 tons per year. Learn how you can help make it happen.

University Center, UW River Falls
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Advance registration deadline: April 10

To print brochure and register by check click here. To register via credit card, complete form below.

Come on out
join in the fun
get with the SCRA
on its paddle down the Namekagon
six days on the river
paddling with new friends
canoes and kayaks
twisting around bends

travel on the river
following its course
come out and discover
this amazing resource

How many people do you suppose crossed theSt. Croix RiverbetweenWisconsinandMinnesotatoday and realized, as they did so, that they had just crossed a national park? Or if you were to step into a travel office inHudsonorStillwaterand ask about an excursion to a national park, where do you suppose they might send you – toYellowstone, or Glacier? I suspect the majority of travelers in our area are unaware. I have to confess I’ve crossed the river on vacation in the past, but until I moved here I didn’t know theSt. Croixwas a national park. Nationally designated Wild andScenicRiversare all part of our National Park system.

The St. Croix is one of the first rivers in the world to be protected along almost its entire length. In the late 1960’s and 1970’s, it was given special status by Congress and both state legislatures. As a Wild andScenicRiver, this National Park is one of the premiere vacation destinations for both states. It contains both world-class native freshwater mussel resources and a world-class fishery. It provides recreational opportunities second to none in the Midwest. All this and it’s easily accessed, with many entry points over its hundreds of river miles.

What does it mean to have a national park in your back yard? People who have lived here their whole lives have differing opinions on what that means. Some are still irritated that ground once privately held is now public land. For some, it’s inconvenient that there are scenic easements, and restrictions on how and where one can build. In my two years here though, many more of the people I’ve encountered are thankful, at least now, for the Wild and Scenic designation AND the National Park Service presence.

Think about what the park has done. An obvious advantage is that it protects wild places, and wild plants and animals. Our three unique ecoregions support a diversity of bird species, many of them rare and endangered. The same can be said for plants. As I drive through the back roads and highways of our watershed, or float along on our rivers and lakes, I am continually amazed at the rich vegetation covering the landscape. As a hunter and angler inWisconsin, I treasure the 200,000-plus acres of public land. I think of that land as nature’s nursery, a place for wild things to live in concert with humans. Sightings of wild turkey, bear, deer, trout, cranes, and other wildlife that are now common, were rare when I was a child. Clearly the Wild and Scenic designation has served us well.

I did a little research on the economic impacts of our national park. I hesitate to throw numbers at you, but these are impressive. Recreational boaters alone spend more than $15 million each summer in the St. Croix Valley. The impact of the National Park Service payroll on our local economy was estimated to be $4,713,000 in 2010. In the federal zone from Stillwater north, there were 5,660,000 visitors, with 4,990,000 being non-resident. Our river may be the biggest reason small towns near the river are still alive and vibrant, unlike many other small Midwestern towns without this unique tourism draw.

It will take diligence to protect what we have. OurSt. Croixis no less important than theGreatSmokeyMountainsor theEverglades. I understand you may not agree with every stance the St. Croix River Association takes on issues, but I believe most of us living here place a high value on the river. Together we can ensure that our children, and their children, can swim, paddle, fish, and just plain play in the St. Croix River.

Dear Governor Dayton and Governor Walker:

The St. Croix River forms a portion of the border between our two states, with tributaries that feed well into the interiors of both states. One of the first rivers in the world to be protected along its entire length, it has been given special status by Congress and both legislatures. As a wild and scenic river, it is a National Park and is one of the premiere vacation destinations for both states. It contains a world-class fishery and world-class native freshwater mussel resources. It provides recreational opportunities second to none in the Midwest.
Those resources have never been threatened as they are today by the advance of four species of Asian carp up the Mississippi River System. Only one of these species has not yet been found in the Mississippi north of Lock and Dam 19, near Keokuk, Iowa. This is a high dam that is a fairly secure barrier to fish movement. We urge you to take all action necessary to support a federal and multi-state effort to install a barrier in that lock to protect water resources in Minnesota and Wisconsin.

Three other species have been found in very low numbers in some rivers in both our states; in 2011 a Big Head Carp was caught in the St. Croix River. Action now can slow their spread.  If these species become widespread in the St. Croix, and its tributaries into both Minnesota and Wisconsin, they will destroy the existing fishery, imperil the mussel population, and harm other animals and plants. Waterfowl hunting will be spoiled and recreational boating could be eliminated. Recreational boaters alone spend more than $15 million each summer in the St. Croix Valley. The economic impact of those lost dollars cannot be overstated.

As you know, Asian carp are known to batter boaters and even knock them into the water at the sound of a passing motor. Some encounters have been fatal. They are voracious filter feeders that can grow to more than 4 feet long, weigh up to 100 pounds and quickly dominate a body of water by gobbling up the same food that sustains native fish populations. As these jumping, jumbo-sized fish travel northward into Minnesota and Wisconsin waters, we are in an emergency situation and immediate actions are necessary.

The St. Croix River Association (more than 500 members, almost all of them residents of Minnesota and Wisconsin) has been advocating for protection of the St. Croix River since 1911 and we have never seen a threat as serious as this. Please act quickly.

Sincerely,

Peter Gove, SCRA Chair
Cc: Rep. Ron Kind; Rep. Sean Duffy; Senator Sheila Harsdorf; Rep. Dean Knudsen; Senator Kathleen Vinehout; Rep. Warren Petryk; Senator Herb Kohl; Senator Ron Johnson; Rep. Denny McNamara; Senator Kate Sieben; Rep. Eric Severson; Rep. John Kline; Senator Ray Vandeveer; Rep. Matt Dean; Rep. Chip Cravaack; Senator Sean Nienow; Rep. Bob Barrett; Senator Al Franken; Senator Amy Klobachar; Rep. Michelle Bachman; Mayor Darrell Anderson; Mayor Mike Buchite; Mayor Ken Harychi; Mayor Glen Mills; Mayor Mike Hunter; Mayor Patricia Snyder; Village President Gary Beckmann; Mayor Alan Burchill; Mayor Paul Hicks; NPS Superintendent Chris Stein; NPS Superintendent Paul Labovitz; WI DNR Secretary Cathy Stepp, MN DNR Commissioner Tom Landwehr;  Amy Frischmon, Wild Mountain Recreation; Eric’s Canoe Rental; St. Croix Boat & Packet; The Beach House Marina; River Park Marina; Bayport Marina; Wolf Marina; River Marinas; Stillwater Marine Services; St. Croix Marina; Afton Marina & Yacht Club; Windmill Marina Association; Miss-Croix Yacht Harbor; Point St. Croix Marina; Marine Landing

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 

Regional Division

Notice of Availability of the Draft Lake St. Croix Excess Nutrients TMDL Report and Request for Comment.

Public Comment Period Begins:  December 12, 2011

Public Comment Period Ends:  January 11, 2012

Following the comment period, the MPCA will revise the draft TMDL report and submit it to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval.

A TMDL is a scientific study, conducted on waters designated as impaired, required by the federal Clean Water Act. A TMDL study calculates the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and continue to meet water quality standards for designated beneficial uses. It is a process that identifies all the sources of the pollutant causing the impairment and allocates allowable loads among them. This multi-year effort results in a pollution reduction plan and engages stakeholders and the general public. An approved TMDL is followed by implementation activities for achieving the necessary reductions.

Lake St. Croix is a naturally impounded riverine lake in the lower 25 miles of the St. Croix River. Its drainage basin is approximately 7,760 square miles with 44 percent of that area located within Minnesota and 56 percent within Wisconsin. The lake is a highly valued resource that provides exceptional recreational opportunities and supports a highly diverse ecology of aquatic and terrestrial species. However, over the years eutrophication, or nutrient enrichment, has occurred due to excess phosphorus loading. This loading drives nuisance algae blooms which diminish the enjoyment and use of the lake.

This TMDL was a collaborative effort among the MPCA, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and the St. Croix Basin Water Resources Planning Team. The primary components of the TMDL were largely based on the results of past lake and nutrient loading studies. The primary conclusion of the TMDL is that a total phosphorus load reduction of 122 metric tons/year will be needed in order for the lake to meet water quality standards. This equates to an overall needed phosphorus load reduction of 27 percent. These reductions will need to come from various sources including runoff from agricultural and urban lands and discharges from wastewater treatment facilities. A separate implementation plan is being developed to identify specific measures needed to achieve the desired reductions.

The MPCA and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources are each conducting their own respective public comment processes for this TMDL. The process for the MPCA is described below.

Preliminary Determination on the Draft TMDL Report:  The MPCA Commissioner has made a preliminary determination to submit this TMDL report to the EPA for final approval. A draft TMDL report and fact sheet are available for review at the MPCA office at the address listed below, and at the MPCA website:  http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/tmdl/tmdl-draft.html

Written Comments:  You may submit written comments on the conditions of the draft TMDL report or on the Commissioner’s preliminary determination. Written comments must include the following:

1. A statement of your interest in the draft TMDL report;
2. A statement of the action you wish the MPCA to take, including specific references to sections of the draft TMDL that you believe should be changed; and
3. The reasons supporting your position, stated with sufficient specificity as to allow the MPCA Commissioner to investigate the merits of your position.

Written comments on the draft TMDL report must be sent to the MPCA contact person listed below and received by 4:30 p.m. on the date the public comment period ends, identified on page 1 of this notice. Suggested changes will be considered before the final TMDL report is sent to the EPA for approval.

Agency Contact Person:  Written comments and requests for more information should be directed to:

Chris Zadak

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

520 Lafayette Road North

St. Paul, MN 55155-4194

Phone:  651-757-2837 (direct)

Minnesota Toll Free: 1-800-657-3864

Fax:  651-297-8676

E-mail:  chris.zadak@state.mn.us

TTY users may call the MPCA teletypewriter at 651-282-5332 or 1-800-657-3864.

Petition for Public Informational Meeting:  You also may request that the MPCA Commissioner hold a public informational meeting. A public informational meeting is an informal meeting that the MPCA may hold to solicit public comment and statements on matters before the MPCA, and to help clarify and resolve issues.

A petition requesting a public informational meeting must include the following information:

1. A statement identifying the matter of concern;
2. The information required under items 1 through 3 of “Written Comments,” identified above;
3. A statement of the reasons the MPCA should hold a public informational meeting; and
4. The issues that you would like the MPCA to address at the public informational meeting.

Petition for Contested Case Hearing:  You also may submit a petition for a contested case hearing. A contested case hearing is a formal evidentiary hearing before an administrative law judge. In accordance with Minn. R. 7000.1900, the MPCA will grant a petition to hold a contested case hearing if it finds that:  (1) there is a material issue of fact in dispute concerning the draft TMDL report; (2) the MPCA has the jurisdiction to make a determination on the disputed material issue of fact; and (3) there is a reasonable basis underlying the disputed material issue of fact or facts such that the holding of the contested case hearing would allow the introduction of information that would aid the MPCA in resolving the disputed facts in making a final decision on the draft TMDL report. A material issue of fact means a fact question, as distinguished from a policy question, whose resolution could have a direct bearing on a final MPCA decision.

A petition for a contested case hearing must include the following information:

1. A statement of reasons or proposed findings supporting the MPCA decision to hold a contested case hearing according to the criteria in Minn. R. 7000.1900, as discussed above; and
2. A statement of the issues proposed to be addressed by a contested case hearing and the specific relief requested or resolution of the matter.

In addition and to the extent known, a petition for a contested case hearing should also include the following information:

1. A proposed list of prospective witnesses to be called, including experts, with a brief description of proposed testimony or summary of evidence to be presented at a contested case hearing;
2. A proposed list of publications, references, or studies to be introduced and relied upon at a contested case hearing; and
3. An estimate of time required for you to present the matter at a contested case hearing.

MPCA Decision:  You may submit a petition to the Commissioner requesting that the MPCA Citizens’ Board (Board) consider the TMDL report approval. To be considered timely, the petition must be received by the MPCA by 4:30 p.m. on the date the public comment period ends, identified on page 1 of this notice. Under the provisions of Minn. Stat. § 116.02, subd 6(4), the decision whether to submit the TMDL report and, if so, under what terms will be presented to the Board for decision if:  (1) the Commissioner grants the petition requesting the matter be presented to the Board; (2) one or more Board members request to hear the matter before the time the Commissioner makes a final decision on the TMDL report; or (3) a timely request for a contested case hearing is pending.

You may participate in the activities of the Board as provided in Minn. R. 7000.0650.

The written comments, requests, and petitions submitted on or before the last day of the public comment period will be considered in the final decision on this TMDL report.

If the MPCA does not receive written comments, requests, or petitions during the public comment period, MPCA staff as authorized by the Board, will make the final decision on the draft TMDL report.

Persons age 19 and over, as of August 15, 2012, will compete in the adult age division. Persons age 18 or younger will compete in the youth age division. Each first place winner will receive an 8”x10” Gary Alan Nelson print and a $100 cash prize. Second place winners get a $25 cash prize and third place winners will be presented SCRA caps. All winning photos will be displayed throughout the watershed during the following year.

The deadline to enter the 2012 Photo Contest is August 15, 2012. All entry forms must be delivered to the SCRA Office or postmarked by August 15, 2012. Participants can enter as many as five photos each. The four photo categories are: Wildlife, Landscapes, Close-ups, or People. Only amateur photographers are eligible to compete. An amateur photographer is one whose majority of income does not come from photography. Winning entries will be announced at the SCRA fall dinner in September.

In order to be eligible for the contest, entrants must follow the guidelines below:

1. SCRA Membership
   Participants may enter up to five photos total and are encouraged to be members of the SCRA. Go to http://stcroixriverassociation.org/ for membership information.
2. Multiple Submissions
   If you intend to enter more than one photo, you must complete an entry form for each photo. Any photo without its own entry form will not be considered for the contest. All photos may be submitted on one CD.
3. Photo Format
   Photos must be submitted by CD only (jpeg files only, 5 MB max/photo). No printed photos accepted.
              
4. Photo File Names
   Photos must be named on the CD, by category (Wildlife, Landscapes, Close-ups, or People), age division, last name, state, and photo number. If you are submitting only one photo in a category, your photo number is 1. Additional photos in the same category should be numbered consecutively.
5. Digital Enhancement
   Minor digital enhancements for cropping, red-eye removal, filters and corrective functions are permitted, but images that have been judged to be altered in any significant manner will be disqualified. Contestants are not permitted to place borders, frames or backgrounds around their images or to place watermarks, dates, signatures or copyright images onto photos.
6. Previously Published Photos
   Photos previously published electronically or in print or past year SCRA award winners are not eligible for the 2012 SCRA Photo Contest.
7. Photo Rights
   The St. Croix River Association reserves the non-exclusive right to use all photographs in publications, exhibits or for other promotional purposes.

Entry Instructions

• Complete and submit an Entry Form for each photo entered. Forms shall be submitted by mailing to: SCRA, Box 655, St. Croix Falls, WI 54024
• Submit photos on CDs according to entry guidelines. Please note that if your entries do not follow the guidelines listed, they will not be considered.

Photos will be judged on technical merit and composition. For technical merit, judges will check to see if the photo is well-framed, properly exposed and sharp and clear. For composition, judges determine if the photo features a recognizable center of interest, action and imagination and creativity.

Photos will be judged by Gary Alan Nelson, with assistance from Gary Noren. Minnesota native Gary Alan Nelson has spent the past 20 years exploring and photographing the wild places and vanishing rural landscapes of North America. His award winning imagery has been published in hundreds of magazines, calendars, books and other publications. His fine art photography is displayed in private collections as well as clinics and corporations across the country. He has two photographic books published, one of which was given a Benjamin Franklin Award as the best photographic travel book of 2002. In 2000 he was named a master of landscape photography by Outdoor Photographer Magazine.

If you have any questions, please contact Gary Noren (715-483-9566) or email at garynoren@gmail.com

What if they find them? Where well-established, silver carp took only a few years to out-compete everything else in the river and become the overwhelmingly dominant fish. This would be devastating to the St. Croix River’s outstanding fishery. In addition, silver carp are exceptionally prone to jumping when disturbed by motorboats, and have caused serious injuries to recreational boaters on other waters. Video footage shows 40-pound fish exploding from the river like popcorn. Abundant silver carp in Lake St. Croix would be devastating to recreational boating on one of the Midwest’s most popular waters.

We don’t yet know much about the number of silver carp already in the St. Croix, and the SCRA supports the work of the Interagency Asian Carp Task Force to learn more, and quickly. This includes more DNA sampling in the river, as well as netting and electrofishing. This work costs money and comes at a bad time for federal and state agencies facing shrinking budgets. We encourage agencies to prioritize funding for this important work, and we support efforts to raise much needed additional funding from non-traditional sources.

The SCRA also supports accelerated efforts toward possible construction of an acoustic bubble barrier at the mouth of the St. Croix at Prescott/Point Douglas. This emerging technology would allow watercraft and native fish to pass, but would discourage carp. While this may seem at first glance like closing the barn door after the horse is out, such a barrier could keep Asian carp numbers low and keep out species that have not yet arrived in the St. Croix. This would be a very expensive undertaking and the SCRA encourages federal and state officials to begin immediately determining how to fund it.

Ultimately, we will need to learn to live with Asian carp, and that requires research dollars to find a responsible control mechanism. We must look at a longer horizon than existing budget cycles to ensure that our children and grandchildren have a river they can enjoy. Limiting the numbers of invasive species is only temporary—the SCRA supports research that in decades to come will provide long-term control of these invasive fish.

We also need to look at a bigger picture. Just as efforts are underway in Chicago to keep Asian carp out of the Great Lakes, a major effort is also needed to stop invasive fish from moving upriver from the South. Lock and Dam 19 at Keokuk, Iowa, is a huge natural barrier and several invasive species—including black carp and snakehead—have not yet moved north of that point. Federal agencies need to work together to develop a method to keep invasive fish from moving upriver through that lock.

One of the great things about rivers is that they are always changing. We are seeing changes unfold before us, and the SCRA is confident we can meet these changes and continue to have a river we can all enjoy. Consider giving to the St. Croix River Fund to help keep the river healthy and diverse. Visithttp://www.stcroixriverassociation.org/river-fund

Links to learn more about Asian Carp and the St. Croix:

http://www.nps.gov/sacn/naturescience/asian-carp-action-plan.htm

http://news.dnr.state.mn.us/2011/08/11/edna-tests-suggest-presence-of-invasive-silver-carp-in-st-croix-river/#more-6274

http://www.startribune.com/sports/outdoors/127910828.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN2gMP3Q2Z4

Bertha Hall accepting award from Sally Leider

Bertha Hall was awarded a special “Wise Elder River Steward Award” at the SCRA member dinner held, September 29, 2011. Bertha was given this award in recognition of her long life of watershed stewardship demonstrated through her attitudes and her caring actions.

The SCRA has been protecting the St. Croix and its watershed for 100 years. Bertha Hall has been a watershed watchdog for half of those years!
She has been an active member of SCRA since 1964 and served as the association’s Secretary for 25years. In an effort to preserve the history of those years, Bertha has placed the associations meeting records in safe-keeping at the the MN History Center in St. Paul.

In July, 1964, Bertha was one of a handful of SCRA members who opposed the building of the King Power Plant even when the SCRA chose not to take a public stand against it. She helped to organize the new organization, “Save Our St. Croix (SOS) and with members and donors,raised $100,000 to take the power plant issue to court. Although the permit for the plant was granted, SOSʼs work did lead to modifications in the cooling towers and furthered a protectionist attitude towards the river.
Over these many years, Bertha took a river protection stand on issues such as illegal cutting of trees and vegetation on river banks, boat speeds, wake limits, building violations and zoning.
Berthaʼs stewardship ethic was infectious. She has passed on many stories of the volunteer work of the SCRA. For ten years she was part of the of river clean-up efforts which motivated others to lend a hand to clean up litter, beautifying the islands and river banks from Stillwater to Afton. She tells about the barge load of tires and “junk” hauled off the river banks south of Stillwater on the Minnesota side.
She was passionate about taking people canoeing on the upper stretches of the river, introducing many to the wonders of the watershed.
One of Berthaʼs special contributions was her involvement in frequent meetings where the public debated the value of being designated as a Wild and Scenic Riverway. There was significant community opposition to including the St. Croix in the legislation. At a well attended SCRA members meeting in October 1972, it was announced that the lower river was included in an amended version of the Wild and Scenic River Act of 1968. Bertha recalls the collective sigh of relief on the faces of the 170 members present.
At the age of 93, Bertha continues to attend SCRA member meetings and remains vital, curious and committed to the work and vision of the SCRA. During our 100th year, it is fitting that the SCRA honors our eldest engaged member.