(The following article by Peter Harriman was posted on the Sioux Falls Argus Leader website on March 9.)
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. — When the Dakota Minnesota & Eastern Railroad applied for a $2.3 billion federal loan, Rep. Tim Walz, D-Minn., opposed it as economically unwise. He introduced legislation calling on Congress to directly sign off on any federal loan of $1 billion or more.
Now, after the Federal Railroad Administration turned down the DM&E’s application March 5, Walz is co-sponsoring another bill that would give rather than lend money to railroads.
The bill would establish a grant program for freight railroads to improve their lines, and the DM&E could qualify for the money. The proposed improvements include upgrading track to handle 286,000-pound rail cars, which the DM&E wants to do.
The Progress Act would be much smaller – $350 million in annual grants – than the Rail Rehabilitation and Infrastructure Financing program through which the DM&E has already secured a $233 million loan and through which it sought the additional $2.3 billion. That program has loaning authority of $35 billion.
Walz said the Progress Act “would initiate a major national effort – in the spirit of the famed ‘Manhattan Project’ – to make our nation energy independent and advance our economic, national and environmental security.”
The proposed legislation may be viewed with interest in Rochester, Minn. The Mayo Clinic in Rochester – in Walz’s district – has been a major foe of the DM&E’s expansion plans.
Mayo officials do not want to see high speed coal trains on the DM&E tracks near clinic buildings, and Jeffrey Korsmo, chief administrative officer of the Mayo Clinic, said other products the DM&E hauls, such as anhydrous ammonia or ethanol, might create a safety hazard for Mayo patients if a train derails near the clinic. Walz has supported Mayo concerns.
Walz spokesman Meredith Salsbery insists Walz’s enthusiasm for a railroad grant program is no paradox and does not undercut his position that any DM&E track improvements mitigate Mayo Clinic safety issues. Passage of the Progress Act remains hypothetical, she said, and it is even less likely that if the bill becomes law the DM&E could secure a grant to improve its tracks through Rochester without Mayo leaders approving the project.
“When it comes to Rochester and mitigation, his position has not changed,” Salsbery said.
Chris Gade, Mayo spokes-man, said Mayo Clinic officials have not scrutinized the Progress Act. However, “from our perspective, we feel whatever solution is ultimately arrived at, our patients, community and staff need to be protected. Whatever proposals come forward, we remain vigilant to ensure those needs are met.
“We have never been opposed to railroad expansion. Our concern from the outset is its potential for causing harm to our patients, staff and community and the reluctance of the DM&E to address those concerns.”