Riled Rangers: DFLers from northeastern Minnesota move to block environmental legislation

Asked whether legislation affecting a favored northeast Minnesota industry can pass the Legislature if Iron Range DFLers are solidly against it, the Range delegation’s dean, Sen. Tom Bakk of Cook, smiled broadly and confidently. 
“Unlikely,” Bakk said.  “They’re up against some pretty tough timber.”
Added Sen. Tom Saxhaug of Grand Rapids: “We know what to do.”

Their disaffection was directed at bills introduced last week to require mining companies to financially assure payment for reclamation and environmental damage from sulfide copper-nickel mining, even if problems show up long after operations have ended or companies quit for reasons including bankruptcy. The bills also require companies to fully treat potentially harmful sulfur-water drainage during mine operations so no further treatment is required after shutdown.   
Companies would have to show the money before they could start to mine, and while exact costs aren’t known because “nonferrous” sulfide mining hasn’t been tried in Minnesota, varying estimates put the tab at $70 million to $150 million added to investor liability. 
“This would make copper-nickel mining in Minnesota impossible,” said Rep. Tom Anzelc, DFL-Balsam Township in Itasca County.

Rep. Tom Anzelc
Rep. Tom Anzelc

“Not just for sulfide mining,” added Sen. David Tomassoni, DFL-Chisholm.  “This would also cripple iron mining on parts of the Range.” 
Asked whether he thought the bill would kill a major new industry and jobs that go with it, Tomassoni snapped: “Yes.”
Prolonged debate
And so the first gauntlets fell at the Capitol on a DFL wedge issue pitting Iron Rangers against what Rep. Tom Rukavina, DFL-Virginia, called “my liberal friends in the Twin Cities who want their windmills and electric cars and solar panels but don’t want the mines that produce the metals these projects need.”
Anzelc and Rukavina said they’d be more explicit with their views would it not be for what Rukavina said is a “deep respect” on the Range for the bill’s House author, veteran Rep. Alice Hausman, DFL-St. Paul. 
The Senate author is Sen. Jim Carlson, DFL-Eagan, a freshman who has garnered respect among lawmakers.

Sen. Jim Carlson
Sen. Jim Carlson

Decorum aside, if the long-anticipated mining bills show traction in the Legislature observers see a prolonged debate taking on the still-simmering rancor of famous 1980s knockdowns over federal wilderness protections for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area (BWCA).  
And the history with wilderness will be on the minds of some because the Minneapolis-based Friends of the BWCA is a principal advocate for the legislation, along with the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy (MCEA) in St. Paul. 
In talks with reporters last week, Carlson said that public concern about the potential for environmental degradation from sulfide mining is strong, and not just in the Twin Cities. 
“If this mining can’t be done right, the public may push to do what was done in Wisconsin and place a moratorium on sulfide mining,” Carlson said.  “This bill is not anti-mining, and it should be viewed as finding a way for mining to proceed.”
Later, Carlson was seen huddling with Bakk at the Capitol. Carlson has said that he’s open to discussions about how the bill’s requirements may be done without excessive investor burden. 
Mary Marrow, an MCEA attorney, said she’s surprised over the negative reaction to the bill.
Marrow said the financial assurance requirements are in effect in several states, including Montana, New Mexico and South Dakota.  Also, she said, the water-treatment provision is actually more flexible than a similar requirement in Michigan law. 
Still, the Range’s economy is troubled.  The timber industry has been battered for years with a falloff in residential construction and more recently there have been painful layoffs in the taconite industry in response to dampened demand for iron.

Sen. Tom Baak
Sen. Tom Baak

Bakk said he just learned that Essar Steel of India couldn’t get all the financing it needs for a $2 billion project near Nashwauk, and that Minntac at Mountain Iron had just announced  worker layoffs.  
Industry problems
Regardless of what happens to the Carlson and Hausman bills at the 2009 Legislature, the copper-nickel industry is facing several problems of its own. 
For one, the price of copper has plummeted from a high of $4 per pound last July to less than $1.50.  Local mining experts have said that the price must remain above $1 for a mine to be economically viable. 
The first sulfide mine slated to open in the state would be by Polymet, whose open-pit mine would be in the area of the old LTV taconite mine between Hoyt Lakes and Babbitt.  The $600 million mine would employ some 400 workers, the company has said.
Polymet officials had expected the mine would be open by now, but prolonged delays have occurred in the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) headed by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). 
That EIS has been in development for over three years and a preliminary draft is now being circulated to state agencies, mining interests and advocacy groups.   
Last year, the MCEA said that if the EIS doesn’t fully examine an underground mining option that the group would legally challenge the document. 
Marrow said her review of the circulating draft is that the underground option has not been fully examined and, she said, the document itself “needs a lot of work.” 
That could add up to still more delay, especially if MCEA moves ahead with a lawsuit on the underground-options issue.   
Of the several companies in the queue for permits to mine in Minnesota’s expansive Duluth complex, Polymet’s application has proceeded the farthest and it appears that the company is financially set to get through the EIS process due to a cash infusion from a marketing agreement with commodities-supplier giant Glencore. 
Bakk and the Iron Range delegation, together with the mining industry, said they believe that there are adequate state laws in place.
“We don’t need more laws and regulations,” said Frank Ongaro of the mining advocacy group MiningMinnesota, who called the new legislation unnecessary.
Ongaro’s position has been echoed by the DNR and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, but advocacy groups don’t agree. 
In testimony on the sulfide mining issue a year ago, witnesses recounted a list of examples where similar mines in North America, notably in Montana and Colorado, were closed and the states were left with cost of cleanup that ran into the hundreds of millions of dollars. 
“The taxpayers don’t want that to happen here, and taxpayers shouldn’t be left holding the bag,” Carlson said.  
Ron Way covers the environment and energy issues. He can be reached at rway [at] minnpost [dot] com.

You can also learn about all our free newsletter options.

Comments (6)

  1. Submitted by T J Simplot on 03/06/2009 - 12:13 pm.

    HEADLINE CHECK: What is a “DLFer”?

  2. Submitted by Bernice Vetsch on 03/06/2009 - 02:20 pm.

    A moratium on this mining sounds good to me. These legislators, well aware of how badly jobs are needed in northern Minnesota, see the mines as opportunities for employment. That is, however, extremely shortsighted.

    If these mines are allowed to proceed without environmental impact studies and oversight, and they then pollute the streams and rivers and groundwater of northern Minnesota, will these legislators be willing to explain to their constituents why all the tourism went away? And why they and their children are getting sick from toxins in the water and soil?

    And can the mining companies legally be held to account for unleashing any toxins if we give them permission to proceed without an EIS?

    Better safe than sorry is, more truly than ever, true in this situation.

  3. Submitted by Lance Groth on 03/06/2009 - 03:16 pm.

    The advocacy groups are right to insist on caution and a thorough EIS.

    Since sulfide mining has produced water pollution problems in Montana and Colorado; and Montana, New Mexico and South Dakota (hardly hotbeds of liberal environmentalism) have seen fit to insist on clean-up related financial assurances; and Wisconsin has imposed a moratorium on sulfide mining – clearly the technique is problematic and requires very close scrutiny – and financial assurances – before it is attempted in Minnesota. If at all.

    Being concerned about preserving the environmental quality of the northern Minnesota wilderness, our state’s crown jewel, does not make one anti-jobs, anti-mining, nor an extremist. And having dealt with far too many slick salesman types in my time, any time someone is eager to get you to sign on the bottom line without reading the paperwork is the very time to be extra cautious and skeptical. They’re usually hiding something.

  4. Submitted by Joe Musich on 03/06/2009 - 08:40 pm.

    Jeez ! This article leaves the impression that everyone on da range is upset over the sulfide mining issue. When I read the Timberjay at :

    the impression changes. These old classmates of mine have their intrests but none of them seems to be working in a mine. This whole experience is so remindful of the efforts to lock up the BWCA area from further human development a century ago it stinks.See Minnesota History of the Land And now the sons of miners who suffered in those mines want to continue the experience for others at what cost ? So much investment for whom ? Is it all really about jobs ? Does the return warrant the expense including the social costs. Would it be cheaper to just give the worker the money and preserve the land ? I ain’t USSteel or anyother mining company that’s going to pay for shoring up Highway 169 outside of Chisholm folks. It’s all the taxpayers. I don’t belive for a minute that this could not happen again despite the promises of my old classmates.

  5. Submitted by Nelson Twig on 03/07/2009 - 08:28 am.

    TJ, DFL is Dem, Farmer, Labor Party.

    The MN DNR, the US Army Corp of Engineers, the US Forest Service, the US EPA, and the MN EPA all have worked with Polymet for the last 10 years on this project. Each of those agencies (and others) are reviewing the Draft EIS (that Polymet, not taxpayers paid for) and will decide if the mining process is safe. These agencies are staffed by experts, real blue collar people doing the work without agendas. They work, live and enjoy the outdoors and will safeguard the environment.

    The place that Polymet will mine is an old open pit mine, not some pristine area. A big hole in the ground that was mined for 50 years, go to the polymet mining website for pictures. Additional land set aside as federal wildlife will be given to Polymet in a land swap that the DNR is hoping will happen. The land the State would get is much better land than the land Polymet will receive.

    The MCEA and Friends of BWCA have good intentions, but they are wrong on this issue. The idea of imposing a fee BEFORE mining starts would kill the project. I agree that taxpayers should not pay for a possible future cleanup, however a better way would be to get say $5 million before mining starts and them put a fee on every ton to allow the cleanup fund to build over time. Then after the 20 years of mining, the $100 million would be there.

    Don’t kill the mine because you don’t like it. Work the issues, not agendas.

  6. Submitted by Steve Titterud on 03/08/2009 - 12:02 pm.

    This issue is about integrity in accounting for real-world, actual costs – or at the least, potential costs, as proven in other states.

    If a business plan is profitable ONLY IF you ignore certain expenses or potential expenses, it is not a valid business plan, IMO.

    If this mining business plan can work ONLY by ignoring the potential expenses denoted by Mr. Groth above in several other states, then it should not get a dime of public support.

    On the other hand, if some kind of bond or securitization cannot be accomplished AGAINST the risk of this plan due to the reluctance of investors, then I would conclude the risk is too high, higher than its proponents would have us believe.

    Insure against the obvious risk, and the plan will be acceptable to most Minnesotans.

    We require our insurance companies to post reserves against risk of loss for the protection of consumers, why not mining companies as well, for the protection of MN taxpayers?

    If you don’t want to insure against the risk of loss, then take this phoney-baloney accounting to some other place, and make your money off THEIR natural resources.

Leave a Reply