My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-27-1992 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1992
>
07-27-1992 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/5/2024 1:04:09 PM
Creation date
4/5/2024 1:01:38 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
251
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
vi'^v:' ■"t®‘f:^•t-*. <br />&*■'i'P'^: <br />.'•V <br />r^it <br />t.-i <br />p.1- >• <br />K%- r,<^- <br />L'-J'-..m <br />■■ <br />’ y/ I*'!' <br />•, ■"* / <br />fr <br />U.. <br />tu <br />■Ji r. <br />>■; <br />fe.Ifk'k <br />fe, <br />iLjyfe.. <br />m- <br />MinnesotB Pollution Control Agency <br />520 Lafayette Road. Saint Paul. Minnesota 55155*3898 <br />Telephone (612) 296-6300 <br />April 10» 1992 <br />M«. Rachel Thlbolt <br />Lain ttinnetonkt Conservation District <br />900 Raft Vayzata Boulavard <br />Oayiatat Minnesota 55391 <br />Dear Ml. Thlboltt <br />You hav# raquostod the Agency position on pollution from docks constructed vlth <br />styrofoam. We not avare of any water quality degradation associated uith <br />•tyrofoan* There Is esthetic pollution, especially on beaches, which results <br />from the physical breakup of the styrofoam. <br />In an Ideal situation the Agency would vork towards a totally pollution free <br />environment* However, in reality ve have not pursued regulation of pollution <br />at the level of this particular situation. There are a number of reasons for <br />this. <br />1.Minnesota statutes do have broad descriptions of pollution which could be <br />interpreted to cover this or similar situations but ve have never been <br />given legislative mandates or Agency Board directives to pursue them. <br />2.Our main effort to raise the esthetic issue has been with container <br />deposit legislation which, I am sure you are avare, has been repeatedly <br />defeated. <br />3.Ve have limited resources and staff and therefore have to devote then to <br />issues with the greatest environmental impact* For example the impact of <br />septic tanks on lakes is considerable but virtually all regulation is <br />carried out by the counties. <br />auMsary, while we favor local efforts to deal with this situation, ve do not <br />have the regulatory tools to support your efforts. <br />Sincerely, <br />Harold J. Viagner, Biologist <br />Assessment and Planning Section <br />Water Quality Division <br />UJWijae <br />%M.ky J: .. . . <br />• * • <br />■m'
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.