It is good to see someone is looking out for public interest and not just allowing the status quo to be what is running our Government.

Thank you Mark

Seems to me this is yet another example of Representative Buesgens putting his agenda ahead of what was decided by the majority of voters. The referendum passed. It included spending for the arts. To say that he wants to introduce legislation in an effort to repeal what was decided upon through a democratic process is preposterous.

Let's just look at one aspect of the environment - water. Then let's just look specifically at Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act of 1972. This requires states to assess all surface waters for impairments and to take steps to prevent degradation of surface waters or to clean them up whether they are fully functioning or imparied.

These waters are a public benefit - fishing, hunting, swimming, boating, etc. We can all utilize these waters and should all assume a level of responsibility for their well being.

Is it fair to require that known issues be put off until tomorrow as costs increase and levels of enjoyment decrease? Someone will eventually have to pay for it. Lagoon Lake is a good example. The lake was eutrophied as a result of increased levels of phosphorous deposition. This results in the cyanobacteria blooms that occured every July and August. It provided that wonderful aroma and led to the decline of sport fish population and the increase of rough fish population.

Had their been the foresight to leave buffers, to treat stormwater and to minimize the application of feritilizers onto lawns in the past the quality of that lake wouldn't have been nearly as degraded as it was. Further, had no steps been taken to remedy the situation when it was(unfortunately the situation is not remedied because their are still no buffers or stormwater treatment) the cost of that project would have continued to grow.

Is the dissemination of funds flawed? Yes. But I defy you to find a perfect system and I challenge you to decide who's priorities should we use to decide what is and isn't important to fund.

Since Rep. Buesgens was re-elected in November, it would seem he represents the majority of voters in his district. One of his often-expressed concerns is that government tends to take what may start out as a plan for a beautiful horse, run it through a whole bunch of committees, and end up with a camel.

How is a metropolitan dog park a clean air and water issue for the state. Or is it an "arts" thing? Ditto the hotel windows. Especially the hotel windows.

The original bill was a nice idea, but it's off its' mark now. Just like the lottery that was supposed to fund conservation issues. And just like the license plate debacle that is supposed to fund conservation issues.

Judging from the number of programs aimed at our wildlife and water quality, you'd think Minnesota was some sort of Eden for fish, game, conservationists, and hunters. In actual fact, hunters and people concerned with conservation are cash cows for the state. Every new program simply creates a new layer of bureaucracy that doesn't accomplish what the original program set out to do, but does accomplish a lot of studies, reports, research, and paperwork.

If memory serves me, the State of Minnesota is the largest employer in the state. Sometimes it seems like you and I are just here to feed the machine.

If we wait to see what will happen, won't it then be too late? or cause more issues that could be avoided? I am just guessing it would, but I could be wrong.

Not being confrontational, but I usually like to swerve before crashing into a tree, if I see the tree and there is no way to avoid it that is.