PolyMet's chickens return to roost

If you read these postings, even irregularly, you may have noticed we have definite opinions about how Minnesota regulates mining permits. We are not impressed. Neither is the Minnesota Court of Appeals. Today that court decided to remand several critical permits back to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources with a requirement the Department hold a contested case hearing:

D E C I S I O N 

     The DNR’s decision to transfer the existing permit for the LTVSMC tailings basin was not arbitrary and capricious, and we affirm that decision. The DNR’s decision to deny a contested-case hearing in relation to the NorthMet project was based on errors of law and unsupported by substantial evidence, and the DNR also erred by failing to include a definite term in the NorthMet permit to mine. For these reasons, we reverse the DNR’s decisions granting the permit to mine and dam-safety  permits for the NorthMet project, and we  remand for the DNR to hold a contested-case hearing. 

     Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. 

In the interests of full disclosure, we've made a number of contributions to several of the parties who challenged the contested permits in court. We're also quite mindful of Yogi Berra's observation that "It ain't over 'til it's over." A contested case hearing like this in an election year? Be still my beating heart!

St. Louis River, Jay Cooke State Park, between PolyMet and Lake Superior

Photo by J. Harrington

Candidly, and because we've become a curmudgeon, and because we liked the world better when we could have a modicum of faith in our government, we find it more than mildly ironic the decision was handed down the same day the MinnPost published an interview with Governor Walz that covered, inter alia, this:

MP: Governors I think are expected — maybe because they want to be — to be the state’s number one cheerleader. And you’ve certainly been accused of that. But there is something I’ve noticed in this state is this devotion to Minnesota exceptionalism. And I’m wondering if that can sometimes be a hindrance to reform in criminal justice or other things. A lot of people seem to start with the point of view that Minnesota does everything best, so why would we want to change anything?

TW: That is a great question. And I think an astute observation. I am very proud … and in many ways we are exceptional because the outcomes show us that. But I think there is a little bit of resting on our laurels. At one point in time on criminal justice reform, I would tell you this, we probably were seen as a leader. Now we’re lagging behind. think there’s a tendency that we’re getting a little bit more complacent on that, where other states are moving on certain issues and we’re not quite there yet. In that regard, I was pretty glad to see that we actually did move out ahead on things like wage theft and worker protection this year. We kind of led the nation. But your premise is right. I do think there is a little bit of a tendency to believe that. And the thing for me is that I think that exceptionalism led us to be complacent in state government because we did deliver services probably better than anyone else and in some cases that’s not true anymore and we need to face that and address it.  (emphasis added)

Anatomy of a leap into the void

BY MIROSLAV HOLUB

A.    Use of the lift

       going up

       is permitted, provided

B.    Use of the lift

       going down

       is not permitted, provided

C.    Use of the lift

       going up is

D.    Use of the lift

       going down is not

E.    Use of the lift

       going up

F.    Use of the lift

       going

G.    Use of the lift

H.    Is      Is not

I.    Use

J.    U--

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