Interview with James Harrison Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission

Interviewed by Margaret Robertson Minnesota Historical Society

Interviewed on December 16, 1986 at the offices of the Minnesota Historical Society

MR: Are you a native of Minnesota?

JH: Yes, I was born in Minneapolis in 1937 and grew up in Worthington,Project in southwestern Minnesota. We visited the Twin Cities a lot because my grandmother lived in Saint Paul. My mother's family had lived in Saint Paul since 1849. My father had grown up in southeastern Minnesota. His grandfather, John Harrison, was an English sailor who came to Winona County and became one of the first white settlers there. So my family is deeply rooted in Minnesota. History

MR: What was your educational background? Oral JH: I graduated from the University of Minnesota in 1962, but I had spent a few years at Carleton College in Northfield.Society My degrees were in radio and TV speech and journalism.

MR: I know that you were a research assistant to the Minnesota Senate, but did you have a chance to use yourIssues degrees?

JH: Well, yes. I was in broadcasting for several years. Actually, before I got my degree, I was in broadcasting for about four or five years, and I did quite a bitHistorical of communicati ons work. While it might not have been in broadcasting industry, I was public relations director for the Saint Paul Chamber of Commerce for awhile and things like that. I've always liked speaking and writing about things that I think are important.

MR: So how did you end up working for the Senate? Environmental JH: Actually the SenateMinnesota Counsel, H. Blair Klein, was a personal friend, and they were just setting up the office. He thought I would be interested in their work, and I accepted. But because they were just starting up, they had not really established criteria for the positions. So soon after that, they decided that they would hire attorneys to work on the staff, which I was not. So another opportunity came up in 1968, and I took that. I've been there ever since.Minnesota That was the Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission.

MR: How had your background prepared you for your work on the commission?

JH: Well, the Boundary Commission, of course, is an advisory body to the state governments that sponsor it--Minnesota and Wisconsin. Because so much of the work has to do with the political considerations between the two states and among the states and the federal government, they were really interested in my legislative affairs background. They thought that because I had worked for the Senate, with city government through the Chamber of Commerce, and because I had a background in public affairs, that I could probably represent a

16

conciliatory role among the various political interests that were affecting the river system.

MR: There does not seem to be much legislative precedent for the Boundary Area Commission. How did it come about?

JH: Well, the stimulus for it was the Northern States Power Company decision to build their big steam generating plants south of Stillwater on the Saint Croix River--the Island King plant. It was Projectthe first non-centralized facility in their system, I believe, even before the Monticello facility. So they were establishing a precedent insofar as they were beginning to spread out their baseload generating system to support the fast growing Twin Cities and western Wisconsin areas. They had owned the land there for many, many years. It was no big deal for the company, I guess. It was natural. Where their Historypowerline crossed a major river was a good site for a plant, because they needed the water for the steam. And indeed, in that case, they needed the river for shipping the coal. Oral So it was a very logical engineering decision, but politically and socially it was a very, very difficult thing forSociety the politicians to handle. The Saint Croix Valley, which of course, had been a tremendously active industrial center for the lumber industry until about 1914, had more or less becomeIssues a recreational area or a scenic area by default. All of the rest of the development that was river-oriented centered around Fort Snelling or Saint Anthony Falls or around the barge and towing industry in Saint Paul. The Saint Croix was left over. People had taken for Historicalgranted that its highest and best use was for those nonindustrial and recreational purposes. So when this decision came along, it was really a jolt.

MR: So it caught government flat-footed--they realized that they did not have the mechanism to deal with this situation.

JH: That's right.Environmental At the time, Governor Warren Knowles was in office in Wisconsin. He happenedMinnesota to be from New Richmond, which was in Saint Croix County--right on the border. He knew the area well. He knew the issue well. Along with Governor Rolvaag in Minnesota, he saw the wisdom of trying to create a stronger liaison or partnership arrangement between the two states.

MR: Then there are still commissioners who are appointed from each state,Minnesota along with your position as executive director? Is that correct?

JH: Yes. Actually, there are ten commissioners--five from each state and appointed by their respective governors. The requirement is that they be a resident of the state they represent. They don't have to represent any constituent interest or any particular discipline. So it's really a government of the people, except it is an advisory position.

MR: Then on what basis are the legislative representatives appointed?

17

JH: Well, they're appointed by the House and the Senate in the case of Minnesota, according to whatever criteria they tend to think is important. Very often, I think the majority of the legislators who are appointed as advisors to the commission are from border districts, which stands to reason. But there are also others who come from the Twin Cities proper or from other parts of the state. Former Senator Jim Nichols, now Agriculture Commissioner, is from way out on the western border, and he was one of our advisors at one time. So it varies.Project As their polical sensibility may apply to a given situation, they either are interested or not according to how they see the situation.

MR: Is it a two-way street? Do they use your expertise, while you use them to push specific legislation? History JH: That's the way it's worked out. I think especially for those who have border area districts, they see the commission as a worthy advisor for their own district needs. And indeed, we do as a commission depend on the legislators for advice and leadershipOral--particularly in recent years, when Minnesota and Wisconsin were strong adversaries on the impact of sewage discharges from the Twin Cities.Society

MR: The Pig's Eye plant problem? Issues JH: Well, it had been the Pig's Eye Treatment Plant in the past. However, as the plant's operation improved, the concern developed over a combined sewer overflow problem from the intermittent overloading of the system through rain and snow melt.Historical Wisconsin thought it would be politically advantageous for both states to sue Minnesota over this and join the issue judicially. This strategy did not result in any rulings because it was dismissed by the Appeals Court.

One of the reasons the Appeals Court dismissed it was because the Boundary Area Commission had persuaded its legislative advisors to join with the commissionEnvironmental in going directly to the governor. Governor Perpich was very receptive,Minnesota and his administration then responded by saying, "We're going to take care of this." He and Governor Earl of Wisconsin, who were good friends, met on the river through our auspices, worked out an agreement, and that's what's now being executed. It was a coordinated inter-state agreement, but it was an informal agreement. There was nothing binding--it was a goodwill agreement. And that's what the commission, I think, ends up doing best--Minnesotaworking out goodwill agreements between the two states where they're needed.

MR: So as part of your function, you conciliate and you advise. But you do some research too, do you not?

JH: Yes, especially on the Saint Croix River. As a result of the power plant dispute and the desire to preserve the Saint Croix, which was stimulated by the dispute, the river became the original proving ground for the commission's work. The commission focused its program attention primarily on the Saint Croix River for the first six or eight

18

years of its life. In so doing, it really became a nerve center for a lot of the discussion, a lot of the planning, a lot of the inter-governmental deliberations over how best to achieve the goal of protecting this valley for future generations. It was a very fortunate set of circumstances, in terms of timing, that the federal Wild and Scenic River act was just being implemented at the time.

MR: What was the date that the bill was finally passed? Project JH: Well, the original act that set up the national system was signed by President Johnson on October 2nd of 1968. That established the eight river system, including the Upper Saint Croix about 200 miles from Taylors Falls upstream. Then the Lower Saint Croix--the fifty-two miles from Taylors Falls to the Mississippi--was one of the study rivers in that setup. Those studies, publicHistory meetings, and investigative work which followed was coordinated through our office. Finally, Congress took action in October of 1972. Four years after the original enabling act, the Lower Saint Croix became the first river segment to be added to the original eight in Oralthe nation. Now there are over sixty such rivers. [Chuckles] Society MR: So you began in 1968 when all this was starting. You really got your feet wet in a hurry. Issues JH: My first day on the job was the day before President Johnson signed that bill. I hardly knew what it meant at the time, but it was prophetic. I remember going to a dinner on the second or third day I was there. Senator Gaylord Nelson Historicalof Wisconsin had been one of the real leaders in that effort, as he was in many of the environmental movements at the time. This was to be a big celebration dinner honoring him at a restaurant in Baldwin, Wisconsin. I went there just green--right off the farm--I didn't know any of these people. So I was introduced around, and it was really quite an event. I'll never forget it. Environmental MR: Talk about learningMinnesota on your feet. [Chuckles]

JH: Oh yes, I hit the ground running. Yes, it was exciting.

MR: Now the Park Service is in charge of the first fifty-two miles of the Saint Croix. Is that correct?

JH: Minnesota Well, that was a compromise. You know, the Lower Saint Croix didn't just fall into the system without some fairly significant debate. The study that was done--and indeed, I think the mood of the public in all of the meetings that were held--reflected a very positive attitude and broad based support for adding the Lower Saint Croix. But the Nixon administration at the time was very much in favor of what they called the New Federalism--of the states taking more responsibility. It was almost impossible--as the studies very objectively showed--for these two states with the disparity of their populations and the intensity of the use of this border river to undertake this on their own. The fact that the National Park Service

19

was already established on the river as the administrator of the Upper Saint Croix with an office at Saint Croix Falls made it a logical conclusion, we thought.

Nevertheless, it took really all of the political horsepower of our state delegations and their leaders--Nelson, Senator Mondale, Senator Humphrey, Representative Al Quie, Representative John Blatnik, Representative Don Fraser--they all had to get into the act. It took really a major commitment on their part to get it through theProject Congress over the objection of the administration. In so doing, the administration worked out a compromise so that the Lower Saint Croix ended up being split administratively. The National Park Service administers the first twenty-seven miles from Taylors Falls to Stillwater. Then the states administer the twenty-five miles from there to the Mississippi as part of the nationalHistory system under one master plan. It was already prearranged that it would be a part of the federal river system, but the Park Service would only have twenty-seven of the first fifty-two miles. So they manage approximately 227 miles of the total Upper and Lower Saint Croix NationalOral River, and the states then through their Departments of Natural Resources--in cooperation with the federal government--administer the twentySociety-five mile lake.

MR: So the formation of the Lower Saint Croix Management Commission fell into place out of that act? Issues

JH: That's right. The Management Commission is made up of the two DNR's and the Park Service. It is then coordinated through our office by a special cooperative agreement betweenHistorical the two governors--Governor Wendell Anderson of Minnesota and Patrick Lucey of Wisconsin. Also participating in that agreement was the regional director of the National Park Service, headquartered in Philadelphia, named Chester Brooke. Of all things, he grew up in Minneapolis.

MR: That was opportune. [Chuckles] Environmental JH: It didn't hurt toMinnesota have somebody who knew the territory. That's right. That was in 1973.

MR: How is the Lower Saint Croix Commission operated? Have there been many disputes among the Park Service and the DNR's?

JH: Well, I guess not a lot, but maybe more than I would have expected.Minnesota There had been a very strong and very united position in 1972 to get the bill enacted. There had been virtually unanimous viewpoints--all the way from landowners through to the governors offices--that this ought to be done. I guess as time went by, as administrations changed in the state capitols--maybe more so than at the federal level--the bloom went off the rose a little bit. When it got down to actually executing some of the policies that were envisioned in the master plan, there were some deviations from that. Especially, with all due respect, it was Minnesota that felt and still feels--perhaps in large part because of the pressure of the population right against the river--that they needed better access to the Saint

20

Croix. After all, half of Minnesota's population is within an hour of the river.

As part of the Metro Lakes Access Program, which of course, has caused great consternation in other parts of the metro area, the Minnesota DNR instigated an access development program. Wisconsin, feeling that it was already saturated on peak days with recreation use, really opposed that. But they were able to work out a compromise. Right now, Minnesota is trying to implement a program of installing boatProject access ramps on the river on their side for up to a hundred water craft. They would be placed in maybe five different sites and designed so that they don't invite people to come into areas that are already crowded. Also, they will not invite boats that are gigantic and high powered.

MR: Is Wisconsin opposing that, or have they workedHistory that out?

JH: They aren't officially opposing it at this point. There have been some recent discussions that suggest that if it were to be renegotiated, they would take a tougher stand.Oral There have been some other events concerning marina developments on the river that have called into question how we will control by designSociety and by management the amount of traffic that impacts this resource.

MR: You talked about the master plan.Issues What were some of the elements of the master plan? Have they been achieved?

JH: The major elements of the plan as required by the law were first of all, a classification of the riverHistorical as to whether it would be considered wild, scenic or recreational. In terms of the Upper Saint Croix and the Namekogan, it's basically considered a scenic river. The generic term is wild river, but it's too accessible to be really wild. Basically, a wild river in the national system is accessible only by trail. On the Saint Croix, there are all kinds of roads to the river. So it's considered scenic, which basically means that it is underdeveloped, butEnvironmental accessible. The Lower Saint Croix--the first ten miles or so below TaylorsMinnesota Falls--is classified as scenic, and the rest is recreational. So one element is the classification. That has to do with the types of management and types of development that are allowed.

Another requirement of the law was that there be an official boundary of the riverway, which would indicate where the governments would be authorized to acquire property or set zoning standards. That was achieved.Minnesota

Thirdly, the law required that there be some kind of a development scheme. On the Lower Saint Croix especially. that's very modest, because the states already had four state parks--three in Minnesota and one in Wisconsin--on the river, and Wisconsin later added a fifth. So it was deemed that there was no need for major new recreational development. Rather, the emphasis has been on protection and management of existing use. On the Upper Saint Croix, there is more outright acquisition of the shoreline by the National Park Service. Much of that was donated by Northern States Power Company, the same

21

company that caused all the consternation on the Lower Saint Croix. They donated about 27,000 acres of land to the state and federal governments on the Upper Saint Croix. So those elements were achieved.

The land acquisition element is really one of the areas where the federal government has kept their part of the bargain. The state governments have not been as ambitious or maybe as forthright in following through on actually acquiring areas to protect. The states instituted zoning regulations--mandatory zoning--for their communities,Project all of which was developed through the planning process very openly in consultation with local officials and citizens. So it wasn't exactly a dictatorial or arbitrary overlay on local interests. I think the states discovered that they could control the area with zoning. Until they were challenged for taking rights of property without just compensation through such a technique, they were goingHistory to let it go at that. In Minnesota in particular, very little has been done in acquiring the intended scenic easements on Lake Saint Croix. In Wisconsin, I think they've done more, but again, it's not nearly to the extent that it was envisioned. Oral

MR: I read some harsh words recently fromSociety a Park Service representative who was concerned that land zoning is not sufficient. Has the commission taken a position on that--is it urging the states to do more with scenic and conservation Issueseasements?

JH: The Boundary Area Commission per se has not conducted an independent review of the implementation of the master plan. However, there was the so-called MetropolitanHistorical River Corridor Study, which was done for different reasons--it primarily concerned the Mississippi River itself in the Twin Cities--although the Saint Croix and the Minnesota rivers were included since they had already been designated as managed rivers. That report did in fact cite the need for revising the master plan and determining in today's world whether or not it was still relevant to follow through on the acquisitions that were envisioned in 1972.Environmental I was a part of that committee, and I advocated quite strongly--as I didMinnesota in 1972--that there be a long term perpetual governmental presence in the valley.

Of course, interest rates went sky high. Development pressures subsided. I guess I'm more concerned about apathy or complacency than I am about overuse. It could just quietly slip away from us. However, both of the DNR's have a veto power over variances to those zoning codes.Minnesota If the zoning holds up in terms of the standards, and if the variances objected to by the DNR's have the effect of vetoing the local action, it's a strong exercise of the states' police power over a home rule government. So far, there's never been a legal challenge to that. If there were a successful legal challenge and that power was withdrawn or overruled by a court, then we might wish we had those easements. It could reopen cases where local officials would--for tax revenue or political reasons--just feel more at ease in allowing things to change. I think we see a little evidence of that now in certain areas.

22

MR: There's a little bit of hope involved that the land zoning will hold up.

JH: Yes. Over the past ten years, it has proven to be an effective tool, but this has been a less volatile climate than during the early 1970s. I remember one instance when the master plan had been prepared, and it was determined that the federal administration had grossly underestimated the cost of the project. Senator Mondale in particular was very anxious to see to it that this was rectified, and heProject arranged for a meeting in February of 1975 in the U.S. Capitol. The reappraisal had been done in our office with Park Service personnel, so we knew what the right answers were. But they had a very difficult time trying to get officials of the Nixon administration to concede that the funding was underestimated and that they needed to greatly increase the authorization. History

I remember Senator Humphrey, who had not been personally that directly involved like Mondale and Nelson, but was still vitally interested. He came into the room and sat there for a few minutes,Oral listening to the National Park Service official explaining their philosophy and their approach. He interrupted the proceedings and pointedSociety to a map that showed all of the development projects that we knew about which had been targeted for the river valley. He said, "Now I want you to look at Mr. Harrison's map over there, and I Issueswant you to tell me. That's God's green earth. What are you going to do about it?"

Well, before the end of the day, they had introduced a bill that would increase the appropriations by over Historical$11 million. The bill was passed eventually, again by the united political commitment of our elected representatives in Congress. Prior to that, there had been this vision of potential incursions into the valley by these high powered developers with high rises, ski slopes, and subdivision development--it looked like suburbia was moving in. That threat was written off by the institution of this bill. Gradually, people just said, "Fine, that area is no longer available."Environmental The Park Service, in fact, then started buying out the rightsMinnesota to some of those properties, or at least a controlling interest in them.

MR: So really the law has not been tested all that much, because people realize that there are obstacles and they're not willing to try to overturn them. Is that it?

JH: Minnesota I think that's true, although there have been developments that have been approved in the valley that do conform to the standards, that are set back from the water and the bluff. They are basically screened from obvious view, which was the goal of the plan--to protect the essential landscape characteristics of the area. Through creative planning and reservation of common ownerships on waterfronts for some of these developments, there are some dandy subdivisions in there. I would be glad to show people these and say, "This is the way you ought to do it." So the plan is not to prohibit, but to guide development.

MR: The Saint Croix has experienced a great increase in recreational

23

use. Perhaps you would like to talk about that a bit.

JH: Well, very early on, back in the late sixties before the Wild River Program was even officially conceived for the Lower Saint Croix, the Boundary Area Commission was getting comments from all kinds of people--legislators, sheriffs, users, neighbors. These people were saying that this sort of unrelenting growth of recreation use just had to reach a logical plateau at some point, or it was just going to be all-out chaos. So we did some studies of our own--having a pilotProject in a plane counting boats up and down the river and so on--to develop actual research for the first time. There had been all kinds of estimates--six thousand boats visible from the Hudson Bridge or something like that. It turned out to be far from accurate. What we got that first summer, which was a good year for recreation, was at the most eight or nine hundred boats in one day on theHistory entire fifty-two miles.

But this issue certainly preceded the designation of the riverway. I guess it was one of those things where you Oralhave to trust the public sentiment a bit. We found that if you just took various areas of the river, calculated the amount of pressure of boatsSociety per acre, and used some reasonable standard, certain areas of the river really justified use control, whether it was speed control or eliminating certain very high consumptive uses like waterskiing.Issues It didn't take much persuading for the states and the National Park Service to adopt some special rules very early--slow speed regulations and the like. I think that's worked quite well where it's been applied. The restrictions on the addition of slips and marinas and theHistorical building of launch ramps have helped to keep it down.

Nevertheless, in the sixteen years since the studies began, the boating pressure has increased at an average rate of about five percent a year compounded. I don't know where it's going to end. Some people philosophize and suggest that we just let it run its course--that boaters will self-Environmentalselect themselves out of the picture. We've had a lot of people in the industryMinnesota--in marine and boat sales--tell us that the average boater stays in boating maybe five years, and then he goes on to another hobby--a motor home, skiing, whatever. Some of this we have to take at face value.

The main concern of the commission and of all managers of riverway is number one, safety, and number two, the public's enjoyment. We're concernedMinnesota that just the sheer congestion does bring about some real safety problems. Secondly, for people who are looking for a renewing experience and not a freeway battle, it can't be much fun. There have been some suggestions based on studies done by the University of Wisconsin in 1977, that there is a dislocation of people who are looking for a certain type of experience on the Saint Croix. But it's a river that has the potential--especially the Lower Saint Croix--of satisfying a lot of different users successfully where you can canoe in the upper stretch and you can have your cruisers in the lower area. Maybe they don't have to interact. But the debate goes on, and the studies go on, and the allowance for greater use pressure tends to bend

24

a little more. Until you have a high body count, maybe it'll just keep growing.

MR: The end isn't in sight yet then?

JH: I don't believe so. There is a possibility of limiting use--I'd say it's very remote in a river that's this accessible. It's open to the Mississippi for people to come in. It's accessible by freeway and every other means. There is a remote possibility that theyProject could ration the use literally by selling tickets or having a sticker or some device. Some rivers are that way in the national system, where they're trying to preserve a certain type of experience. A lot of them are really wild rivers out west where they have rafting trips and things. But there are some like the middle fork of the Salmon River in Idaho where you literally have to have a reservation.History They have concessionaires that are licensed to take people on the river, and that's how you go.

But goodness, here you've got hundreds of Oralmillions of dollars of investment in boats and resources and restaurants and all these facilities that live off the river. It would beSociety awfully hard to turn that around and say that you would have to have a license to operate here. I don't think that's been done in either state. Minnesota and Wisconsin, let's face it, have a veryIssues long tradition of inviting people to come with open arms to enjoy the water resources that are so abundant. You would really be going in the other direction.

MR: Yes, it certainly would. I thinkHistorical of Lake Minnetonka, where they keep saying that people are going to stop using it, yet now you can walk from boat to boat.

JH: Well, we've looked at the Lake Minnetonka situation, and they've looked at the Saint Croix. We have tried to sort some of these things out. They are instituting some things at Lake Minnetonka that we have not yet come to Environmentalon the Saint Croix. They have some speed limits. We're talking about speedMinnesota limits in certain areas. You really would hope that people would realize the need to be courteous and respectful. But you don't have to have a license to drive a boat. You can go out and spend a quarter of a million of dollars on a cruiser, and then get in without ever having a lesson and just drive it wherever--go to New Orleans, if you want to. All you can hope is that they know what they're doing and that they don't wreck their investment or hurt anyone.Minnesota

MR: That's really one of the last bastions of that--people have to have a license to drive and a license to fly a plane. That's one of the last refuges where people can exercise that sort of freedom.

JH: Well, it is, and quite frankly, some of the things that are being done are just abuse of the freedom--like drinking and boating. Because of some of the sad experiences on the Saint Croix, frankly as much as anything, Senator Bill Diessner of Afton was the chief author of the so-called drunken boater bill. It has now passed the Minnesota

25

legislature, and it is also going into effect in Wisconsin. For the Boundary Commission and the managing agencies--the DNR's--that was a goal. That was a need they saw many years ago. It wasn't just unique to the Saint Croix, but maybe the problem was more obvious on the Saint Croix. Hopefully, the awareness and alertness of people who are out there and their goodwill towards one another will be enhanced by the reduction of alcohol abuse.

MR: Isn't there a problem with enforcement on the Saint CroixProject islands, also? Haven't there been some rather rowdy incidents?

JH: Yes. We've had some very wild reports and some very disturbing reports. Some of these areas are unclaimed. There is a big sandbar island north of Hudson that technically belongs to the Chicago Northwestern Railroad. It's right offshore from theirHistory depot there in the middle of the river. Certain groups discovered that island, and they traipsed in there over the railroad property to the point where the railroad had to put up gates, post signs, get guards, and so on. It just became totally out of control. Of course,Oral railroads are very reluctant to have people on their property anyway, for obvious reasons. It took extreme measures for them to control that.Society Right now, yes, the Hudson Islands are kind of a no-man's land, if you will.

We keep bringing it up for discussion.Issues In fact, I recommended at a recent meeting we had that the city of North Hudson and Saint Croix County could enter into a joint powers agreement. Perhaps among these entities they could figure out a way to patrol that area. If they get enough force out there, they could settleHistorical all these things down. There were some horrible incidents on the Upper Saint Croix where people got killed. Tickets would be sold and there would be thousands of people. High school kids were roaming out there to the point where they ended up having a vigilante group form. Four wheel drive clubs took over and tried to control the area. The sheriffs had to organize posses. It was just sad--very, very sad. Environmental MR: It wasn't very scenic.Minnesota

JH: Well, it was probably interesting to watch if you wanted to study mob psychology. But those kind of things in an area as beautiful and as popular and useful to so many people as the Saint Croix, they just don't fit. By a gift of one of the former mill operators who owned land across the river, Stillwater was given the shoreline on the other sideMinnesota in Wisconsin. It was to be protected forever as their vision of the other shore. They used to have one of their main swimming beaches over there, just south of the highway bridge. Well, they couldn't control it. It was just enough outside of their jurisdiction, and of course, Saint Croix County didn't want to be responsible for it, and so they just closed it. They barricaded it off, and there it sits. But I think things have improved. Over time, many people who sought that kind of uncontrolled and unthinking behavior have found some other place to do it. We still get some episodes that flare up, and it makes it very, very difficult for the riverway law enforcement people and very, very difficult for the people who want to be out there enjoying

26

themselves.

MR: How do you find the cooperation among the Park Service and the DNR's to be?

JH: Basically, they're good partners. You're always dealing with people, and the people who have been responsible for carrying out the riverway program have been pretty top-notch folks. The land acquisition people have been especially diplomatic. You canProject really scare people to death if you come in and just say, "Well, we're going to buy you out now. Here's the paper. Sign here." They've had some real gentlemen, I must say, in that office and still do.

Certainly in some respects, as I said before, there are times when we may wish we had a stronger presence of the government.History There are a lot of people who are new to the valley who weren't around ten years ago when all this designation occurred and the ordinances were adopted and the regulations were put into effect. There is a continuing need to conduct education and awareness. We need toOral reach out as people in government to the landowners who are there--who are not being bought out, who may have an easement or zoning which Societygoverns how they use their property. Basically, they're custodians of the river just as much as the government is. We have to help them understand what these goals are and to help them feel Issuesgood about it. Every so often, somebody grabs a chainsaw and mows down their whole bank to get a view, and then they get jumped by the government. Maybe they didn't know any better. Maybe they did. Historical By and large, it was the people of the valley who originally--probably out of the ardent effort they made over the power plant--who steeled themselves for the long haul and just made it their cause. The government was their instrument, as it ought to be in this country, to carry out the will of the people. So when that law was passed, especially for the Lower Saint Croix, it was really a victory for the public who had alreadyEnvironmental spoken for the river and said that this was a very, very special andMinnesota worthwhile place to preserve. I'd say it was probably a classic example of the government responding to the will of the public.

It made our job very easy, because in some cases people feel like they have a divine right to own property and keep it forever and will it to their kids. But it's not a divine right. We're here for a short time. We'reMinnesota stewards of what we have. And while we may have a deed that says we own it, we don't own it when we're gone. So we can only claim it for a temporary use.

MR: You've talked about the Saint Croix, but I understand that the Boundary Area Commission has some oversight on the Mississippi, as well.

JH: We oversee any waters or lands that form the legal border between Minnesota and Wisconsin. The border is over 400 miles long--one of the longest interstate borders in the United States. A lot of the border

27

is made up of Lake Superior, and we're not really involved up there. There are other arrangements in that area. It's basically the Saint Croix and the Mississippi, which forms a border of 266 miles. Yes, there's 138 miles of Mississippi River from the Saint Croix confluence south. That's running below Hastings to the Iowa border.

The Mississippi is America's premiere multi-purpose river. Our area, thank God, is still diverse enough--although it's been dammed for fifty years for navigation--that it has a lot of natural qualitiesProject and opportunities that really make it worth special attention. Fortunately, again through a lot of cooperative effort, Congress has now enacted, and the President has signed, the Upper Mississippi River Management act of 1986. Over the next ten years, we in the Boundary Commission expect that there could be as much as a hundred million dollars worth of improvement and monitoring work goingHistory on just in our area of the river alone.

MR: What are some of the elements of that bill? Oral JH: It originated again out of a big political dispute over--this time it was the construction of a major new navigationSociety lock and dam down in Illinois and Missouri--Lock and Dam 26. In 1974, twenty-one western railroads and several national environmental groups brought about litigation on this issue, feelingIssues that this was an unwarranted intrusion on not only their economic well- being, but on the social well-being of the environment of the river. The traffic growth that could come from that lock could really overwhelm the other viable uses of the resource. Historical

So this bill is a kind of out-of-court settlement that Congress ordered. It is to be done through a master planning process with all of the actors--the Corps of Engineers, the Fish and Wildlife Service, some other federal agencies, and the states. It is intended to establish the issue once and for all. The law can be amended, of course, but for theEnvironmental foreseeable futu re, it is now declared to be a nationally significant Minnesotanavigation system and a nationally significant ecosystem, and it shall be managed as such for its several purposes. That is the preamble to this act. Then it sets forth some goals and objectives. It completes the project in Illinois and Missouri for navigation. At the same time, it applies about two hundred million dollars over a ten year period to enhance fish and wildlife habitat, which is abundant, especially up in our end of the river. It will improveMinnesota recreation facilities, setting up a permanent monitoring system to keep a pulse of the river and to determine where the best investments can be. That is a very, very major step and probably unprecedented in large river management unless you go to a more totalitarian regime.

But where it is a true multi-state resource, I guess I'd say I'm proud to be from Minnesota. We've got over 700 miles of the Mississippi in Minnesota--one-fourth of its life. So I really expect that while it doesn't cover that whole stretch, we can really benefit up here at the headwaters--both Minnesota and Wisconsin--from this federal commitment.

28

I can see a lot of areas that are really degrading, not just from the impact of navigation, but from excessive sedimentation, from watersheding inflow, and so on. They will become measurably better--noticeably better--in large scale proportions in the next ten years. Part of that is recovering for past neglect, and part of it is anticipating what's going to happen if we don't do something to protect it. So it's a catch-up program and a protection against future losses program. Project Navigation will always be here. It's been part of this river for 200 years. It's how most people got to Minnesota, including my great-grandfather. So that'll never change. It's there to stay. But thanks to some really enlightened leadership in the Corps of Engineers, which to some might sound odd, it can be managed in a balanced way. It really can. History

MR: The Corps of Engineers has had a reputation as being constantly pro-development, especially where the Mississippi is concerned. Have you found a change of attitude in the Corps overOral the years?

JH: Very definitely, and the change has come fromSociety the people who cared enough to really support a concerted effort to work through their members of Congress. We happen to be the agency that actually put it together, starting in 1974 withIssues people from our area like Representative Al Quie in the First District and Wisconsin Representative Vernon Thomson from the Third District. They were willing to stick their necks out to get the Corps of Engineers some new authority and some new funding toHistorical try some different mechanisms and some different techniques. The Corps, goodness, has all the talent they need to figure out ways to do things. Once Congress expressed itself, based on the input from the concerned public--the Corps of Engineers, of all the federal agencies, knows how to respond to congressional orders. They work for the Congress. Everything they do is by congressional authority and specific authorization. So once Congress wanted anotherEnvironmental look at this, the Corps of Engineers did 180 degrees and said, "Terrific.Minnesota We're really happy to do this, and we'll do our best." And they really have.

MR: Perhaps the source of their poor reputation is not the fault of the Corps itself, but some of the congressional mandates it has had to carry out.

JH: Minnesota Well, there is a running debate--and it still goes on--as to who is more responsible. Does Congress respond to the Corps, which wants to keep busy and build things, or does the Corps respond to what some people would cynically call self-serving congressional interests wanting projects for their own areas? I've been down in Oklahoma at their state capitol and seen the life-sized portrait of Senator Robert Kerr standing there with all these water projects on the map. I don't know if it was Senator Kerr or if it was the Corps of Engineers that helped the state of Oklahoma, but they're competing with our farmers who don't have the reservoirs up here to spray the wheat fields with water when they get dry. I have mixed feelings about that.

29

Fortunately, we are in a water rich area. When it comes to water projects in our area, it's more of a stewardship kind of thing than a remodeling kind of thing. If you go one state west, you've got all these reservoirs on the Missouri River. Well, they couldn't get along the way they are now living without them. They would like to sell some of the water to other people, which we object to because it takes water out of the lower end of the Mississippi. Project No, I think frankly that the Corps of Engineers in this area really had some enlightened individuals. They were in a creative era there where they were really seeking new ways of doing things. Congress basically had given them just a very simple one sentence instruction without a whole lot of constraints. I remember just driving around the Saint Croix Valley with Al Quie's staff aide one day Historywhen we wrote that thing. Congress said, "Well, this is kind of unusual. These things don't usually happen. We need something in the law that says what to do here. One sentence. That's fine." Oral And the Corps had all kinds of freedom. There were a lot of young guys in the Corps who had come out of the Earth SocietyDay era. They weren't just engineers, you know. They were socially conscious people, and they thought it was kind of fun. Some of the old-timers, who had been there forty years were saying, "I stillIssues sign the work orders here." That's all they knew how to do. They got scared. But when they gave these young guys an opportunity to really go at it, it was exciting to watch. It's been exciting to see the changes. And now they're actually carrying them out--millions Historicalof dollars worth of work.

MR: Like the Weaver Bottoms project.

JH: Weaver Bottoms is the first big project, yes. It hopefully will be the proof of our ability as stewards to stablize and improve an area well enough so that it will have a long term multi-purpose use. You're not going to stop Environmentalgeologic history. Eventually the river will fill up with sediment like all Minnesotarivers do, unless we have the flood of the eons or another ice age or something like that. In the span of history, we're just a blink, but we're here for that blink, and we've got to do our best.

MR: There is some concern that use of the Mississippi is tilting too much to the recreational side. I was talking to somebody who runs a bargeMinnesota operation on the Mississippi, and they were concerned that the river was becoming so pretty that it was interfering with the barges there. Is that a problem--balancing conflicting interests on the Mississippi?

JH: Well, it's true. When you get to large boat recreational boating, you really don't dare go outside of that marked channel. It looks like a very big river, but in a lot of areas it's not very deep. A lot of that river used to be forest, so when they put the dams in for navigation and raised those pools, they may have only raised them about six feet. There are still stumps there where the forest used to be.

30

If you get in there, you could really get into trouble. So there are times on weekends especially--with nice weather--where the locks are choked with recreational boaters. You get a barge tow in there with fifteen barges and it takes them an hour and a half to get through, these boaters get excited. They get agitated, and they go to their congressman.

Certainly many of the old-timers on the river have seen recreational use increase, but that is really a social change. We have Projectmore free time. We have more disposable income. We have more toys and more horsepower and more people. Look at our population. It stands to reason that over time, given these trends, it will seem as if industry is being run off the river. In some respects, they claim a priority right to the river, and in fact, it is maintained for commercial navigation as a priority. When you go to a lock--HistoryI believe the rules are still the same--if you have a barge tow and you're within a certain distance from the lock, you get that lock period--partly because you can't stop. I mean, it would take you over a mile to stop that thing. Sometimes these recreational boaters will tryOral to zing in there and claim the lock ahead of them, and that's dangerous if nothing else. Society Yes, there are some disputes or contests, let's say. But the modern day operators on the river, people who have a world view of things, are more tolerant. They realize the politicalIssues impact of hordes of boaters. I've heard them speak in these meetings and say, "Now wait a minute, fellows. We really can't take on these people. They've got clout." So there really needs to be a tolerance and an understanding that for nothing else, by sheer size alone, theHistorical towboats will always dominate. They will always dominate, and people just have to give them leeway. That's all there is to it.

I have some very good friends in the barging and towing industry, and they have been resisting this multiple-use concept, feeling that any gain for somebody else is a net loss for them. I don't really buy that. They have beenEnvironmental promoting some really negative feelings in their own literature about Minnesotaany expenditures to improve the environment, figuring that somehow that's going to come on their bill. As it turns out, at least in the policies that have been established and the programs that have been undertaken so far, none of those projects has required use of the Inland Waterway Trust Fund, which is where the fees go for the towboat fuel tax. Only new construction of waterway facilities themselves like the lock at Alton have drawn from that fund. So Minnesotaliterally it has not cost them. Figuratively or psychologically or sentimentally, it may have cost them, because somehow they feel it all balances out in the end.

I've heard people quoted on the radio--leading officials in agriculture--claiming that it costs them twenty-five cents a bushel more because of environmental work on the Mississippi River, and that's false. It's not correct. The Corps may be spending more money, but it's not costing the farmer. It is directly billed back through the system to the producer or even to the operator that hauls it. There was an expectation at first when they levied the tax but did not allocate

31

it that it was going to include all these things. The fact is that same law that the President signed that includes the Upper Mississippi determined that it would not include at this point any operation or maintenance or any new projects related to the Upper Mississippi program. So hopefully now that that is officially settled, some of this clamour will subside, and there can be a more cooperative spirit.

I think one of the secrets of the success of the Boundary Area Commission, and I learned it when I worked with the Saint PaulProject Chamber of Commerce in the sixties--is that you have to get the people who are interested enough to sit down in the same room and focus on an issue that's bigger than they are. If they can agree to try to work together toward that larger-than-they-are goal, and if you give them a chance to help you write the program, they'll support it. Once they have had a part in it, even if they disagree or even if they don'tHistory get everything they want, they will learn that it's bigger than they are, and they have to share the program. They have to share the responsibility.

That's how a lot of noble things in this lifeOral get done. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and you get enough parts together, and the synergistic effect of those people Societyworking together can produce great things. If you are dealing with something as big as the Mississippi River, you just have to have all the people there. You can't just do it with the Corps. TheIssues Corps isn't even big enough to do it. You have to have the Fish and Wildlife Service involved, and you have to have the full faith and credit of the states. Together they can do it, and they are. Historical MR: What has been the impact of NSP? Have they been cooperative with local government?

JH: In terms of the generating facilities on the river, they only have two major ones in our area--Prairie Island and the King Plant. They have several smaller facilities at Red Wing. I think Winona is closed now. They have theEnvironmental Prince Island plant at LaCrosse. During the great environmental awarenessMinnesota campaign of the seventies, they got a lot of religion, as evidenced by their donation of land on the Saint Croix, for example. They have some very enlightened leadership. As with other human endeavors, when some of these great mountain top events slide down the other slope, the attitudes slide with it. The powerline routing issues and some of these tremendously politically volatile things just sharpened people. Basically, Northern States Power, as utilitiesMinnesota go, is a pretty solid citizen. They have genuinely tried in many respects to advance the well being of the area they serve in many, many ways. They have been pretty cooperative with the Red Wing community. Of course, Red Wing annexed Prairie Island flat. They got a nice benefit there.

I was on those power plant siting task forces years ago too, and it was a straightline projection as to what they were going to need in the way of generating capacity. Well, it hasn't proven itself to be true, and I'm not saying we told you so. The population has sloped off, and energy efficiency has really increased, much more than anyone could

32

have guessed. I think they're big enough and savvy enough so that they can ride that out.

We still notice at times that there are little surprise things that pop up with them. I just hope that the process is well enough established so that if they are going to engage in significant new endeavors, that it comes out early enough and forthrightly enough so we can all deal with it. I don't expect that it would be otherwise, but there were times in the powerline rerouting thing where that was an issue.Project Even now they would love to put a powerline across the Saint Croix at Saint Croix Falls. Frankly, their rationale for it is faulty. They have not proven the necessity for it, and they need to prove it.

MR: That would be a pretty tough struggle to convince the public. History JH: One would think, but I don't know who's developing their rationale. It might be some consulting engineer in Ohio. Overall, they have an effective governmental affairs program. They used to come to all of our meetings. Now they come when Oralthere's something on the agenda that intrigues them, like when we talked about nuclear fuel shipments recently. They are telling us as muchSociety as they want us to know so we cannot get too anxious about life. A lot of these things are based on risk. It's a risk to run a train down the track and not have it fall in the river with anhydrousIssues ammonia, just as it is a risk to run a barge on the river with anhydrous ammonia. The river is a big transportation corridor--highways, railroads, and barge lines. Pipelines cross it all over the place. It's vulnerable. So hopefully everybody understands that and is Historicalwilling to go the extra mile to prevent accidents.

MR: One of the major tasks of the commission is to serve as a facilitator between the two state governments. What was its role when Wisconsin was suing Minnesota over the sewage issue? Earlier in the interview, you had briefly mentioned that you were able to bring the two sides together.Environmental Minnesota JH: Well, yes. But they wanted to get together. Governor Perpich and some of his top administrators were secretly glad that Wisconsin was putting the pressure on. From the standpoint of the permitees--namely, the Waste Control Commission and the three cities involved--the task was to get the political pressure built up.

Frankly,Minnesota we didn't know there was going to be a lawsuit, but we had already had meetings with the legislators. Everybody was ready to go. I think it was the day after we met with Governor Perpich in May of 1984 that Wisconsin announced their suit. And it was the day after that when Governor Perpich was canoeing the Saint Croix River on his annual canoe day. He couldn't help but depart from his prepared remarks--as he sometimes does--and he said, "I hope we lose that lawsuit. It's wrong what we're doing. We've got to take care of it." Later on, he just made the grand statement that he wanted it taken care of in five years, when Saint Paul was saying it was going to take thirty-five to forty.

33

That was a pleasant accommodation, I think, between the two governors. There was some firing for effect, as they would say in the Army, and frankly, some grandstanding on the part of the Wisconsin Attorney General. I can say that now that he is no longer in office. But that's the legal system. I'm not saying it was wrong or irreverent or anything else, but it was overdramatized a bit. Because once the two governors met each other at a prearranged meeting, immediately they were talking about working this out. They had asked me to Projectsit in on that meeting, anticipating that they would want to launch some kind of a mechanism. Sure enough, they turned it over to me and asked me to arrange a meeting for them in July on the Mississippi. So at that July meeting, everything was worked out. There were folksingers and flags and sternwheel paddleboats. Everybody celebrated, and the governors annouced that they were going to take care of the Historyproblem. And they did. The law was passed raising the cigarette tax four cents, and I'm paying my $32 a year for ten years in my Saint Paul homestead, and the problem is being solved. Oral MR: The unique aspect of this was that these two states really do have a commitment to the river. Society

JH: Well, they created the compact that set up the commission. It wasn't the other way around. I amIssues a champion of advertising that, because I'm not the commission. The commission isn't even really the instrument here. It is the two state governments which have the power under their constitutions and under the federal system to do more than anybody else--more than even the federalHistorical government. If they want to take over these rivers, they can. They have concurrent jurisdiction. Of course, they cannot interfere with commerce. Wisconsin wanted to ban single hull barges to prevent oil spills, and the federal Attorney General said, "I'm sorry, you can't do that." They could require towboats to have holding tanks for their toilets, but they couldn't interfere with commerce. So there are limits, but I am so proud of our states for havingEnvironmental taken the initiative. Although the commission may have been created in aMinnesota moment of passion over the power plant, they have been good neighbors ever since.

I was asked to write an article for the Wisconsin Natural Resources Magazine some years ago, and the editor wanted me to have an adversarial slant. I didn't mind the idea of writing, because I like to write, but I felt funny about having to conjure up some animosity. The Minnesotatitle was "Man on a Barbed Wire Fence"--like there was this never-to-be-crossed barrier between the two states. Then in the article I went on to identify, having gotten everybody's attention, all of the ways that these barriers are being done away. These rivers are being dealt with as rivers. Some of the administrators have had a problem with that, because their jurisdiction ends at the river, and they never quite get to that center line where the two jurisdictions meet. So they abandon ship when you get to the shoreline.

By and large, the original goodwill and zeal of the leadership has continued. I have worked for eleven governors in the two states in the

34

last eighteen years. Obviously, there have been some higher points than others along the way. But I have never felt that the two states had anything but the best common interests at heart. Their lifestyles, geography, and ethnic make-up is very similar. If anything, Wisconsin has had a public trust ethic going all the way back to people like Aldo Leopold and John Muir and Gaylord Nelson. These are people who set the pace for environmental stewardship and raised consciousness worldwide in many ways. Minnesota happens to be the nearest neighbor with a similar attitude toward life which can benefit from that attitudeProject and share the resources most directly and intimately. Look at Illinois. Illinois sued Wisconsin over sewage in Lake Michigan and won. Milwaukee is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to clean up their river. So Minnesotans like to remind Wisconsin of those cases when they come to court once in awhile. History But it's an instrumentality. You said earlier that there weren't too many precedents for this, and I guess that's really true. We've looked around, and except for some very isolated examples--there is a commission to oversee the falls of the OhioOral River --there aren't too many of these outfits working. Certainly if there are, there aren't too many that succeed like ours has. But it's theSociety states that make it work.

MR: Thank you, Mr. Harrison. Issues

Historical

Environmental Minnesota

Minnesota