Copper-mine meetings extracted opinion without polluting public discourse
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 at 2:06 pm
- 6 Comments
A massive proposal to mine for copper and other metals in Northern Minnesota underwent exactly the amount of public debate at two meetings last week that government agencies had planned for: none, according to Lake Superior Mining News. Citizens wishing to speak on PolyMet Mining’s plans did their business with a stenographer in a small room, while politicians backing the plan held forth in the main hall.
This is how the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) describes the project: “PolyMet Mining, Inc. proposes to develop an open pit mine and to refurbish and modify the former LTV Steel Mining taconite ore processing facility to extract copper metal and precipitates of nickel, cobalt and precious metals near Babbitt and Hoyt Lakes in northeastern Minnesota.”
The project promises 400 jobs lasting 20 years. The impact on the environment could be more permanent.
“It would be the largest single wetlands impact that the St. Paul office has permitted,” said U.S. Army Corps of Engineers project manager Jon Ahlness, according to the Tower Timberjay News. He was referring to the Corps’ St. Paul District, which covers 139,000 square miles including most of Minnesota, western Wisconsin, northeastern North Dakota, and small parts of South Dakota and Iowa.
The project has major political backing from U.S. Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken and U.S. Rep. Jim Oberstar, as well as state Sens. David Tomassoni and Tom Bakk and state Rep. Tom Rukavina, who gave speeches at the meetings. (Rukavina and Bakk are candidates for governor.)
PolyMet also enjoys paid help from people who have held state posts, including former state Pollution Control Agency (PCA) commissioner Brad Moore and former deputy PCA commissioner Ann Glumac.
But with that much political weight on one side, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Corps opted to hold the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) meetings without an exchange of views.
“To have a public meeting where the public doesn’t get to comment is really a boneheaded move,” Rukavina said, according to the Duluth News Tribune. The Timberjay News quoted Rukavina as telling the crowd in Aurora, ”That decision was a screw-up on somebody’s part. … If I was governor, people would have been able to talk tonight.”
Alan Muller, writing at the Twin Cities Daily Planet’s Free Speech Zone, names a couple responsible parties:
More and more, agencies tend to use consultants to structure meetings to get the results they want. The consultant in this case is Mariann Johnson of MT Johnson Associates of Minneapolis. Ms. Johnson works in the field of “conflict resolution.” She didn’t want to discuss details, but said “we proposed a number of options,” and the decision was made by senior DNR leadership. Maybe the clearest explanation came from Corps. project manager Jon Ahlness: “The purpose of the meetings is for the public to give comments to the agencies, not for the public to give comments to each other.”
The public comment period on PolyMet’s EIS ends Feb. 3; mining could begin within months.
6 Comments
Comment posted December 15, 2009 @ 4:43 pm
So Franken and Klobuchar have already made up their minds before hearing the public comments or public presentations? I wonder how many private meetings they’ve had with mining officials? No surprise Bakk supports this fiasco. That big-headed hack has always been willing to sell our resources down the river for a few jobs.
Comment posted December 16, 2009 @ 11:43 am
I enjoy electricity in my home, which is what copper wire transmitts. I also enjoy my pc, tv, car, frige, etc.If our enviromental agency approves the project it will go forward. The process is transparent and all information is open to those who want to veiw it.If you want to have a “dont mine in minnesota” protest you are free to do so just pick up your garbage when your done.
Comment posted December 19, 2009 @ 9:10 am
Franken and Klobuchar both support this proposed mine and are both democrats? Now, that’s interesting! Shows there is widespread support for mining in the Iron Range. I for one support the mine and support jobs in Minnesota along with adhering to Minnesota’s strict mining standards!
Comment posted January 12, 2010 @ 11:21 am
Copper Mining is NOT supported through-out Minnesota. It is ludicrous to think that the proposed Polymet Sulfur mine will improve Minnesota’s economy and have a neutral impact on Minnesota’s precious lake country. The Polymet DEIS states that water from waste rock piles will be polluted for up to 2,000 years (DEIS, Table 4.1-45). That would require continual purification for 100 generations. Think about that: two millennium of dirty water and financial responsibility for our kid’s, kid’s, kid’s, kid’s and so on. Say no to this recklessness. Call your Rep today and tell them to stop Polymet’s sulfur mine. It is bad economics and it is bad for Minnesota.
Comment posted May 13, 2010 @ 1:15 pm
It is my strong belief that the proposed mining would negatively impact current and future residents of NE MN. With the threat to the wetlands and water and the devastation of the lands by the mining itself, the health of the ecosystem, the stability of the real estate market (we strongly believe property values will be negatively impacted by the proposed mines) and the livelihoods of many of the people who live in the region who’s work is dependent upon a healthy ecosystem are threatened. We believe that the primary economic benefits will be to a small subset of the population and that the harm will be born by people separated both in distance and time from the proposed activities.
The water from the proposed mine and mines that are being explored in the region presently flows far from where the mining occurs. In some cases north and in others south to the St. Louis River and Lake Superior.
We are like the people who live and work near the Gulf of Mexico. Do we turn a blind eye and grasp for “Jobs Baby Jobs?” or do we soberly review the proposals and take seriously the threats to the ecosystem.
People all across Minnesota need to be very, very concerned, pollution doesn’t care what party you are from.
Is your legacy going to be that you stood up to protect the the land of sky blue waters?
Pingback posted June 23, 2010 @ 10:30 am
[...] Impact Statement last year. The copper mining plan had strong political support and the public was relegated to back rooms during supposedly public comment hearings. The PCA and DNR were ready to sign off on Polymet’s proposals early this year, when the [...]
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
