A world-class threat to our water
by Greg Seitz Friends of the Boundary Waters WildernessThe sulfide mining industry argues that if its mining is not done in our state, it will be done elsewhere. Such an argument misses the point. Minnesota should not engage in a race to the bottom, loosening safeguards and letting industry have its way with our clean water. While we certainly should not hide our polluting industries in Third World countries, we ought to demand that if they operate here in Minnesota, they operate with the very highest level of protections for our water and our tax dollars.
Unless we fix our laws, mining companies will be free to leave behind massive toxic messes, requiring decade upon decade of expensive water treatment. This has already occurred at the only location in the state where these ores have previously been disturbed: at the Dunka Mine outside Babbitt. To this day, the waters of Birch Lake are being contaminated with mercury and other toxins from one pile of waste rock dug up there by an iron mining company.
In our neighboring states, strict laws have been passed to ensure this form of mining is done right. Wisconsin’s “Prove It First” law simply asks that mining companies point to a mine that has operated for 10 years without polluting, and a mine that has been closed for 10 years without polluting. No company has yet been able to point to such a mine.
In South Dakota, standards for where mines can be situated in regards to water and other natural resources have also prevented additional mining proposals. If you talk to people in either state, you’ll find that it was not their intention to ban mining, but to make sure it was done right. But mining companies decided they could not prove they wouldn’t pollute, or didn’t want to bear the expense of mining safely, and instead set their sights on Minnesota, where our laws are weaker and they can mine on the cheap.
We owe it to our kids and grandkids to take a close look at what sulfide mining companies are proposing to do in our region, and make sure we don’t stand by while they bring Third World practices to our first-class lake country.
Links:
- A page from the Wisconsin DNR about the state’s “Prove It First” law
- History of mining laws in South Dakota from the state’s Department of Environment and Natural Resources
- Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness’ sulfide mining resources
April 21st, 2009 at 9:05 pm
well said!
April 21st, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Greg – first, it’s non-ferrous. We are not mining sulfides in Minneosta.
This is not “a race to the bottom.” This is about the products all of us use every day. Cell phones, computers, and all the alternative energy that all of us want in the future. Wind turbines, hybrid cars, catalytic converters, and solar. The need for base and precious metals keeps growing both domestically and globally.
No one is “loosening safeguards.” Minneaota has some of the toughest environmental standards anywhere. When companies operate in Minnesota they will do so wiith the highest level of protection for our water and environment. No one is asking for less regulation.
Our laws do not need fixing. They are solid and put in place with all stakeholders participating, including environmental groups.
I am not sure if your comment about toxic waste is mis-information or lack of information. In the case of PolyMet, for example, the ph of their waste, untreated (and they will treat it), will be somewhere between milk and beer. Hardly toixic waste!
As for the Dunka, this is proof that the waste material can be controlled. The reclaimation IS working.
Your next reference is Wisconsin. All you have to do is go to the Wisconsin DNR website and see that they describe the Flambeau as a succesful non-ferrous operation and a successful closure.
From there you go to South Dakota. The type of mining there is not even the type of mining that is being proposed in Minnesota.
Next, we do not have “weak laws.” In fact, other states like Michigan have looked toward Minnesota as an example when they adopted legislation in recent years.
As far as mining on the “cheap,” there is nothing cheap about it. PolyMet Minnig, for example, is looking at $100 million of environmental related expenditures for a $600 million capital project.
Yes, we do owe it to our grandchildren to protect our water and environment. Those of us who actually are from northeastern Minnesota, in my case third generation Ranger, care as much for the environment as anyone. We live it every day! Oh yes, we also want our grandchildren to have a chance to have a good paying job, live in the region and raise a family, if that is their choice.
Frank Ongaro
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:45 am
Frank – Happy Earth Day! And congratulations, I’m pretty sure your response was longer than my original post.
I’ll try to be brief but I doubt I’ll succeed… Obviously, we disagree about Minnesota’s laws. The laws as written:
1.) Would allow mines that would require perpetual treatment to prevent pollution. Hence, making it possible to leave behind toxic messes for decades.
2.) Lack transparency. Financial assurance could be reduced or eliminated by the DNR without any obligation to inform the public, much less give concerned citizens an opportunity to comment.
Those are two pretty big holes in the existing regulations.
As for your assurance that PolyMet’s waste runoff will be “somewhere between milk and beer,” that’s exactly the kind of rosy prediction that mining companies have made time and time again, and they’ve created terrible water pollution anyway. Seventy-six percent of mines like those being proposed in Minnesota created pollution despite predicting they would not (source). I’m not sure why Minnesotans are supposed to accept at face value promises from PolyMet or anybody else when the industry has such a terrible track record of broken promises.
As for Dunka…
– The rock is producing pollution. That seems tricky considering the fact that PolyMet’s waste (from the same formation) is supposed to be so benign.
– The site is operating under a DNR variance to mining regulations. This doesn’t give me a lot of confidence that our “strong mining laws” can be adequately enforced when variances can be easily acquired.
– Reclamation in this case means a wetland and dilution. In other words, some of the pollution is being stored in a wetland (pray for any duck that lands on it looking for food), and water quality standards are being met by mixing the polluted runoff with clean water, thereby lessening the percentage of pollution, but not affecting the overall quantity being dumped into Birch Lake. If reclamation is working, why are mercury levels in Birch Lake’s fish elevated? When will treatment no longer be necessary? Will the mining company be around that long?
I didn’t say anything about Flambeau, but since you brought it up… It seems like if Flambeau is so successful, other mining companies would be pointing to it as an example so they can get their permits in Wisconsin. Maybe they’re not because levels of toxins being released from the site are vastly higher than what was predicted (in 1990). For example: post-mining concentrations were higher than predictions by up to “45 times for copper, 70 times for manganese, 30 times for iron, and 1.25 times for sulfate” (source).
How is South Dakota not the type of mining that is being proposed in Minnesota? Yes, it was gold mining, but gold will be mined by PolyMet (and perhaps others). And even so, gold mining and the mining being proposed here both deal with sulfide ores… Copper and nickel are bonded to the sulfides (which makes “sulfide mining” a fairly accurate label, by the way), and gold happens to exist in rock with lots of sulfides. The ultimate problem is the same: sulfuric acid and heavy metal leaching. And didn’t South Dakota’s Gilt Edge Mine have rock with sulfide content very similar to what we have here in Minnesota and still cause pollution severe enough to reduce the waters of a nearby creek to a pH of 2.1, killing all the fish?
Greg Seitz