World-class mining regulations? Really?

One mine could pollute Lake Superior. Another could pollute the Boundary Waters. Does Minnesota have a justifiable way to say one is more or less worthy of protection? How could the state better address whether the degree of protection required should be the same for each mine and water body?Before you try to answer, there are a couple of fairly recent quotations about Minnesota's mining regulations / rules we'd like you to think about. The first is from a MinnPost article on why the legislature, and the Department of Natural Resources, are so hesitant to make any modifications to the state's requirements for permitting mines, especially copper-nickel mines.

does the Boundary Waters deserve more protection?

Photo by J. Harrington

Landwehr told MinnPost last month that while state pollution and permitting standards are strong, they aren’t tough enough for Twin Metals, which is located in the BWCA’s watershed. He described the permitting as “very prescriptive” and said the Boundary Waters campaign might propose changes to the process next year after building “a grassroots support base.”

Richards, the current DNR official, said “Minnesota’s environmental review and permitting laws provide for a comprehensive and rigorous review of any proposed mining project” that is “supported by an extraordinary level of scientific analysis of each specific proposal.”

does a Lake Superior deserve more protection?

Photo by J. Harrington

Landwehr, in a prior MinnPost article about Minnesota's mine permitting:

Well, I think the permitting process is rigorous. I think the standards are higher in Minnesota than they are elsewhere. That does not mean “no degradation.” And that’s the important distinction I want to make as we’re talking about the Boundary Waters. The state standards actually anticipate some degradation. So for instance, a (wild rice) sulfate standardof 10 parts per million, it’s not zero parts per million. It’s 10 parts per million. So if you’re putting it into an environment that’s ambient at zero, you are agreeing to degradation. But that’s what the state law permits. And so yes, I believe, relative to others states, Minnesota has got some of the most rigorous and comprehensive, environmental laws. That doesn’t mean that the project has no impact.

And the other thing I’d point out is that the state permitting process … relates to environmental impact. So it doesn’t look at economic, it doesn’t look at cultural, it doesn’t look at quality of life. It’s a very narrow prescriptive. It doesn’t look at health. You know, there was a lot of debate about “should we do a health impact analysis in this project?” That’s not what the law provides for; it provides just for an environmental review. And so I would assert that’s not the full range of issues that ought to be considered when you’re looking at something that’s so existentially different from what you’ve got in the environment up in the Boundary Waters. 

We have, over the years, expressed our reservations about whether Minnesota's mining regulations are sufficient to protect our environment. The former commissioner of MNDNR expressed similar concerns after he accepted employment to help protect the Boundary Waters from copper-nickel mining and its effects. What he hadn't done, while serving as commissioner, is suggest a solution.

Minnesota needn't, by itself, create its own new set of rules on mining. It might, however, want to consider taking the lead in convening a national or international conference to examine if the laws and regulations at the federal level and in the various states that permit mining consistently meet currently meet international best practices. After all, mining is a significant part of the global economy. We suspect, as you might have guessed, there's room for improvement in Minnesota's approach. We'll write about why we have those suspicions in future postings. For now, we're aware of several proposed mines that could use the best possible regulatory framework, if they're permitted to operate at all. They include:

• PolyMet and any expansion
• Twin Metals and any related mining activity
• Pebble Mine (Alaska)
• Black Butte (Montana)

We're unaware that there's a responsible basis in Minnesota for currently declaring an area off limits to mining, but know there's an international approach on how to do so. We're also tired and frustrated at watching the amount of effort that has been expended battling, site by site, issue by issue, court case by court case, the inadequacy of how mining activity is governed in the US, especially in Minnesota, while the international mining community continues to prepare and slowly implement procedures and requirements that would, if followed, help mining make a more significant contribution to sustainable development. Do we think that could happen overnight? No. Do we believe it could be accomplished with zero mistakes or mishaps? No. But, we ask, if the best time to improve mining regulations and governance was 20 years ago, when's the second best time?

Childhood

By Margaret Walker

When I was a child I knew red miners

dressed raggedly and wearing carbide lamps.

I saw them come down red hills to their camps

dyed with red dust from old Ishkooda mines.

Night after night I met them on the roads,

or on the streets in town I caught their glance;

the swing of dinner buckets in their hands,

and grumbling undermining all their words.

I also lived in low cotton country

where moonlight hovered over ripe haystacks,

or stumps of trees, and croppers’ rotting shacks

with famine, terror, flood, and plague near by;

where sentiment and hatred still held sway

and only bitter land was washed away.

********************************************
Thanks for visiting. Come again when you can.
Please be kind to each other while you can.