Mining voices: Lawmakers sift through varied opinions

By Ryan Ekvall | Wisconsin Reporter

MADISON — The battle over contentious legislation that would pave the way for an open-pit iron ore mine in the state drew a variety of different voices and varied opinions to a meeting Friday at the Joint Finance Committee.

“The short-term impact (of the mine in northern Wisconsin) will be an estimated net gain of over 3,000 jobs, over $20 million in state and local tax revenue and $2 billion in economic impact,” Sen. Pam Galloway, R–Wausau, said in her opening testimony.

Among the varied voices:

The authors of Senate Bill 488, the companion to Assembly Bill 426; the bills would streamline the permit process for mining in Wisconsin.
The state Department of Natural Resources, the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians.
Bill Williams, CEO of Gogebic Taconite LLC, the company that says it would build a $1.5-billion mine and create hundreds of jobs, if only it could count on a streamlined permitting process.
The Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, the industry advocate pushing hard for a fast-tracked mining bill.
The League of Conservation Voters and the Wisconsin Wildlife Foundation, environmental groups that say the mining bills, as written, are bad for the Northland's pristine air and water.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Professors from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Residents from across the state on both sides of the issue.

Among the major concerns expressed during the hearing:

Water and air quality should the mine become operational.
The timeline that the DNR could approve a permit.
The impact on taxpayers if a permit is denied.
The benefit for taxpayers should a mine become operational and profitable.

At the end of impassioned testimony, Mary Jo Walters of Madison quoted deceased folk singer Utah Phillips to show her contempt for the mining bill: "The Earth is not dying. It is being killed and the people killing it have names and addresses."

Clean Water

State Sen. Lena Taylor, D -Milwaukee, poured a glass of water, trying to drive home her concerns about the environmental impact of the proposal.

“We’re going directly to the thing which we all should be concerned about, because our children need it, we need it, it’s part of what makes us human, and so I am very concerned about the quality of our water,” she said.

Representatives from the Department of Natural Resources, or DNR, however, testified that quality of water and air would continue to be held to high standards under new legislation.

“The department would require demonstration that obstinate water quality standards could be met," said Ann Coakley, director of the DNR's Bureau of Waste and Materials Management. "The department would require ongoing environmental monitoring. We would only permit a mine that can meet Wisconsin’s environmental standards and routine surveillance of mining operations."

Joseph Skulan, a researcher and curator at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said the sheer volume of shale, a fine grain sedimentary rock, packed with sulfuric acid, defies Coakley's claims.

"I’ve been listening to the testimony today, and through this whole process I’ve been surprised that in a scientific issue there’s been so little science discussed," Skulan said. "We don’t know what is under the ground here. This is a mixed sulfide oxide mine. … I just don’t know how there’s any hope of managing any runoff.”

Permit timeline

Republican lawmakers said the goal is to give iron ore mining companies wanting to invest in Wisconsin certainty in the regulatory process.

"Any applicant that wants to do business in Wisconsin … needs certainty," said Rep. Thomas Tiffany, R-Hazelhurst. "And that's what you'll see. …It puts timelines in place. And they're reasonable timelines for both an applicant and for our regulatory agencies to be able to make an informed decision. … It honors Wisconsin's high environmental standards."

Williams, the Gogebic Taconite chief executive, said the proposed law is workable.

“What you’ve got right now is a good basic law that can be worked with by the industry and the regulators,” Williams said.

But others said the 360-day permitting timeline in SB 488 is unattainable, and would create more delay and confusion.

“Three-hundred-sixty days is somebody’s pipe dream,” said state Sen. Bob Jauch, D-Poplar, who represents the district where the proposed mine would operate.

“What has troubled me … what you have here is people who love the land and want to be good stewards (of its resources), those who say, 'We support mining but take the time to do it right," Jauch said. "Don’t do this in 360 days, because it can’t be done in 360 days."

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Rebecca Grasser said the average time to complete an environmental impact statement, or EIS, for an iron ore mine in Minnesota was between two and four years, which did not include a year or two more of preparation before the EIS process.

Scott Manley, environmental policy director at Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, said the 360-day clock wouldn't start ticking until the mining company submits an application the DNR deems complete. He said the Corps of Engineers already operates under a 360-day timeline in Wisconsin for the permitting of power plants.

Jauch and state Sen. Dale Schultz, R-Richland Center, a moderate who has voiced concerns about the GOP-led bill, will host a public hearing Saturday in Platteville.

Republican leadership has said it wants to see a bill passed by the middle of next month, the end of the current session.