Wondering why our League didn't host a candidate's forum this year?

/
This letter to the editor was submitted to the Ashland Daily Press last week.

No LVW forums prior to elections

I am writing on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Ashland and Bayfield Counties to express our disappointment that we will not be able to hold voter forums this month leading up to the November 4 elections. The League’s forums are a chance for all area citizens to ask questions of the candidates and are operated in an unbiased, fair manner. Unfortunately, some of the candidates in this season’s elections did not respond to our forum invitations or indicated that they were “too busy” to participate in League forums. To their credit, Janet Bewley, Beth Meyers and Kelly Westlund all enthusiastically agreed to participate, and provided a number of dates they would be available. Their opponents did not.

The League of Women Voters will continue offering forums, if candidates will agree to participate. The service is for the voters, and candidates who are unresponsive or refuse to attend are denying citizens a chance to hear from them, learn of the candidates’ positions, and gain the knowledge necessary to make informed voting decisions on election day.

We encourage citizens to exercise their right to vote on Nov. 4, and are delighted that because of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last week, photo IDs will not be required.

Madelaine Herder, President

League of Women Voters of Ashland and Bayfield Counties

Link to Letter

State Issues Meeting: We are all in the same canoe!

/
Elizabeth MacNamara, Andrea Kaminski and Mike Wiggins, Jr.

Elizabeth MacNamara, Andrea Kaminski and Mike Wiggins, Jr.

Thank you Mike Wiggins Jr. for speaking at the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin State Issues Meeting.

League of Women Voters of Ashland & Bayfield Counties sent three representatives to the meeting.

Mike is shown with League of Women Voters National President, Elizabeth MacNamara, and Andrea Kaminski, Executive Director of Wisconsin.

Yes, we are all in the same canoe on many issues facing our state.

LWV/ABC's Letter to DNR re: Request for Input on Enbridge Sandpiper Pipeline Project

/

At an August meeting, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources requested public input to help determine the scope of an environmental impact statement for the Enbridge Sandpiper Pipeline construction and replacement project in northwestern Douglas County. 

The following letter was sent by our president, with the approval of our board, in response to that request.

Please add your input regarding this project to ours!

See our related Action Item for information about submitting input to the DNR.

ASHLAND-BAYFIELD COUNTIES 
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS

September 3, 2014

 

Jeff Schimpff
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707-7921

DNROEEAAComments@wisconsin.gov

 

RE:  Enbridge Pipeline EIS

 

Dear Mr. Schimpff:

We are writing to urge DNR to conduct a broad and thorough assessment of the environmental impacts associated with Enbridge Energy’s Douglas County Sandpiper Pipeline proposal.  The potential impacts of this project would include oil leaks and spills into waters in the Lake Superior basin, and as precious as Lake Superior is, any proposals which put it at risk should be subjected to intense scrutiny.  Furthermore, this proposed pipeline would facilitate increased production and consumption of shale oil, particularly troublesome from a climate change perspective.  Those impacts should feature prominently in the environmental analysis of the Enbridge proposal.

As you have indicated, the proposal would involve extending the pipeline from the Bakken Shale region in North Dakota.  That crude is an especially hazardous material, in that its corrosivity will increase the likelihood of spills and leaks.  The Kalamazoo River disaster in Michigan in 2010, as well as incidents closer to home—the pipeline ruptures in Clark and Rusk County in 2007 and in Grand Marsh last summer, are examples of the dangers this pipeline expansion would pose.  Given Enbridge’s role in the largest inland oil spill in our nation’s history and over 800 oil spills in the past 15 years, the prospect of allowing it to increase its crude shipments in the Lake Superior basin is troubling, indeed.

As disturbing are the climate change impacts of the pipeline.  We understand that this line would be a “key enabler” for tar sands crude expansion projects, and tar sands oil is far “dirtier” than other oil with respect to carbon emissions.  In part because the extraction process is extremely carbon intensive and destroys vast areas of Canadian boreal forest, one of the globe’s largest carbon sequestration sites, greenhouse gas emissions associated with tar sands oil are approximately 17 % greater than other oil.  Any project which will facilitate increased production, transportation, and/or consumption of tar sands oil should be the subject of a detailed environmental impact statement which examines all of the potential adverse consequences, including the risk of catastrophic Lake Superior oil spills, the destruction of pristine boreal forests, and increased carbon emissions.  

We are inclined to agree with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial writer who observed that “Earth’s finest collection of fresh water—Lake Superior and the Upper Great Lakes—is not a reasonable location for a major transportation corridor designed to carry tar sands crude oil to the overseas market.”  We were encouraged to learn that it is the Department’s intent to look at not only “direct local effects,” but also at the “broader impacts at regional, statewide and larger scales.”  We urge you to conduct the fullest possible environmental assessment of this project.

Sincerely,

Madelaine Herder
President
League of Women Voters of Ashland and Bayfield Counties