Readers Write (Oct. 9): Minnesota's rivers, millennial voters, nuclear weapons

The Oct. 2 article "Mighty Mississippi at perilous bend" (part of the "Danger Downstream" series, Oct. 2-4; see startribune.com/rivers) continues the saga of a degrading river system.

Yes, there has been a stunning transformation of the land by conventional agriculture that continues to threaten and impact the rivers and lakes in Minnesota. The time-related message in the quote by John Linc Stine, commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, stating that "what we do to our land, we do to our water" is visibly evident in our own backyard.

The short-term effect of intensive agriculture on the marginal sandy soils around Park Rapids should raise a "red flag" about what we're doing to our soils producing food. It is interesting to note that about 160 years of intensive agriculture have transformed many of our resilient "beautiful prairie soils" of southern and western Minnesota, resulting in muddy and polluted Minnesota/Mississippi Rivers. And now we learn 20 to 25 years of intensive agriculture on marginal sandy soils is depleting and polluting groundwater and loading the once-pristine upper Mississippi with sediment, nitrogen, phosphorus and other chemicals that breed water pollution and algae. Yes, the sands maybe provide the ideal physical conditions for growing potatoes; however, the sand particles act like "glass beads," with very little contribution to soil chemical and biological properties and processes. Hence, the need for large amounts of synthetic inputs, with some ending up in our groundwater and river systems.

Natural landscapes and clean water will define a healthy ecosystem and economy. Perhaps we should transform our agricultural landscapes forward toward "more natural" landscapes with a new type of agriculture using soil health principles and conservation agriculture systems.

The writer is a soil scientist emeritus.

• • •

Monday's front-page exposé on the environmental degradation of the Red River ("Pollution expands, exacting high toll") did an excellent job of detailing the unintended consequences of ethanol fuel blend mandates. Factoring in all the diesel consumed in planting, fertilizing, cultivating, applying herbicide and pesticide, harvesting and transporting the 40 percent of the total corn crop used for ethanol production, and the massive amounts of natural gas used to boil it off, this industry produces a net loss of energy at huge environmental costs.

After being involved in a planning process to reduce sedimentation around Hastings, where nothing was really accomplished except the plan, I have realized one thing: Until we as a society agree that no one really owns the land, increasing pollution and sedimentation will be an ever-pressing and increasing problem.

We only buy the right to live on the land or make a living from it. We do not have the right to abuse it. If someone puts chemicals (including nutrients) on the land, that person should be held accountable to make sure the chemicals do not leave that land to pollute elsewhere. Also, sediment that is passed downstream by agricultural practices is a form of pollution. I as a homeowner pay to make sure my sewage and waste water is properly treated. Shouldn't others who put foreign materials on the land be forced to do the same?

The land was there for eons before our time and will be there for eons after all of us alive today are gone. Our water supply, which no one owns, will also still be there, but it will no longer be clean.

• • •

I appreciate the Star Tribune's efforts to highlight the complex problems facing Minnesota's precious water resources through its series about threatened rivers. The articles placed much-needed attention on the scourge of pollution in lakes and rivers throughout the state.

Earlier this year, Gov. Mark Dayton unveiled a proposal to put significant funding into grant and loan programs that help cities pay for needed upgrades to their wastewater facilities. In a rare example of bipartisanship, both the House and Senate supported the governor's plan.

The final version of the bonding bill included $133.5 million for these programs — money that would help cities across the state address water pollution without putting undue burden on our citizens and businesses. However, the bonding bill ultimately failed to pass due to partisan bickering over other issues like transportation.

We cannot allow partisan gridlock at the Legislature to continue to prevent important bills from passing. Cities across the state are doing their part to reduce pollution caused by wastewater, but it will cost hundreds of millions of dollars to fully address this issue. We simply cannot afford to bear this burden without additional funding from the state.

The writer is mayor of Moorhead and a member of the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities board of directors.

The comment by a young voter in the Oct. 2 article "Millennial voters keep options open" that "I don't want to vote just because I can" was one of the most annoying things I've read this election season. People have literally died for the right to vote, and each victory helped make the country substantially better. Yes, the government still has enormous flaws, but they are only changed when people are willing to put in the often-grueling effort to make it happen.

It appears that some millennial voters are leaning toward Donald Trump. Not sure why. Trump wants to "build up" the military. It would seem that the only way to do this is to re-establish the draft, which would affect millennials. The young people of the 1960s helped end the draft. Those millennials supporting Trump seem to be so different from the students of the '60s — possibly not so committed to peace as their earlier counterparts.

Though the presidential and vice presidential debates were two very different events in tone and substance, a common thread was the robust discussion about the role and use of nuclear weapons.

The Obama administration has taken some important, commendable steps to reduce nuclear dangers, such as negotiating the landmark nuclear accord with Iran and the New START with Russia to modestly reduce U.S. and Russian stockpiles. In particular, Hillary Clinton deserves praise for her role in negotiating those agreements as secretary of state. However, our next president should seriously consider canceling the current plan to spend $1 trillion to maintain an excessive, Cold War-era nuclear weapons arsenal for decades to come.

If our leaders truly intend to address 21st-century security threats like terrorism and hacking, they must prioritize differently. Nixing new nuclear weapons is a good place to start.