« November 2007 | Main | January 2008 »
Letter to the editor from NW Indiana.
http://www.thetimesonline.com/articles/2007/12/22/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/doc625a91ed6a87105d862573b800749498.txt
After two years of near-paralysis in Wisconsin, political support for action on Great Lakes water conservation is beginning to build. That's good news. Even better news is that Wisconsin advocates are trying to go beyond the minimums of the flawed Great Lakes compact to show the other seven Great Lakes states what needs to be done to secure these Lakes for future generations.
Saugatuck Township on the Lake Michigan shoreline has deferred a decision on whether to rezone over 400 acres of spectacular beach, dunes and wetland owned by a private developer. For years, conservationists and the Michigan DNR worked to put together a package to buy the $40 million parcel, but were outdueled by the developer.
http://www.hollandsentinel.com/stories/122007/local_20071220004.shtml
It's time to reach back into Michigan conservation history. A spectacular state park, Porcupine Mountains, was condemned by the state during World War II when threatened with ruinous logging. The same needs to happen to Denison; it's the last chance we'll have to protect a park of this beauty and grandeur on southern Lake Michigan.
State leadership is needed.
More here:
Mine opponents sue MDEQ for issuing illegal permits
The MDEQ granted approval of all three permits to Kennecott Eagle Minerals Company on December 14, 2007. The contested case and lawsuit will focus directly on Michigan’s new nonferrous metallic mining law and the MDEQ’s failure to enforce the law and the prescribed standards and rules.
“Opponents of the mine have consistently fought the project because the construction and operation of the mine, as proposed, will result in the pollution of the environment and the destruction of natural resources in the Yellow Dog Plains due to scientific and engineering defects in the design of the mine. The contested case and lawsuit will address these issues, including the likelihood of subsidence of the mine, the probability of acid mine drainage, the irreversible impact of wetlands drawdown that far exceeds Kennecott’s assumptions, and the pollution of the groundwater and the air,” Halley said.
On January 10, Michigan Department of Natural Resources Director Humphries is expected to announce her decision on a Kennecott request to lease state land for the purpose of constructing surface facilities. If allowed by the DNR, Kennecott would be granted exclusive use of 120 acres of state property for a period of at least 40 years.
With the prospect of multiple sulfide mines looming, Halley said the state must be compelled to fully apply the legal standards to the first permit and has failed to do so.
“Setting a precedent that starts with defective, incomplete, inaccurate applications and ends with a dangerous new mine is not in the best interest of the people of Michigan, nor its environment. NWF and our allies are fully prepared to exhaust all options,” the attorney said. Halley said that additional legal measures are also being prepared and will be filed within days.
Has anyone considered Bart Stupak as a candidate for Michigan governor in 2010? He'd be only the second from the U.P. -- and one of the better conservationists.
For Immediate
Release
Contact: Nick Choate December 19,
2007
(202) 225-4735; (202) 374-4779 STUPAK STATEMENT ON DEQ APPROVAL OF KENNECOTT
MINE WASHINGTON – The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) announced Friday the final approval of permits for a sulfide mine
northwest of Marquette to be operated by Kennecott Minerals Company, a
subsidiary of Rio Tinto. The following statement may be attributed to
Congressman Bart Stupak (D-Menominee): "I am disappointed DEQ has decided to approve permits for Kennecott’s sulfide
mine in northwest Marquette County along the Yellow Dog River. Having had time
to thoroughly review the information, there are a number of concerns I have
which still need to be addressed. "I am not opposed to mining. I remain very supportive of mining in the U.P.
However, these permits represent the first time the state is allowing sulfide
mining. State officials must take their time and make sure sulfide mining is
safe. It is critical that comprehensive independent studies be completed before
additional permits are issued. Once permitted, I am fearful as many as six
additional sulfide mines will be allowed to operate on the shores of the Great
Lakes, jeopardizing the world’s largest body of fresh water. "DEQ has allowed their permits without requiring an Environmental Impact
Statement to be completed. I also believe comprehensive baseline hydrological
and geological studies should be conducted by an independent third party. While
DEQ has, as I have advocated, required Kennecott to provide a financial
assurance bond, I remain concerned that the negotiated agreement does not
provide enough funding and does not cover a long-enough period to address
potential contamination. Environmental damages often do not surface until years
after a mine is out of operation and can be costly for local and state
governments to clean up. Contaminated sites cost significantly more to clean-up
than the $17 million set aside for this project. With the seepage of kiln dust
into Lake Michigan at Bay Harbor, CMS estimates $93 million will be needed
to abate the environmental damage, and the ground water leakage has not
yet stopped. We must make sure the state and local community won’t be left with
an expensive clean-up years down the road. "I also have significant concerns, given the state of Michigan’s budgetary
situation, that DEQ will not have adequate resources to ensure Kennecott is
complying with all safety and environmental standards that it has promised to
meet. The proposed sulfide mine will require well-trained inspectors to enforce
air and water pollution control standards established in the permits. The
Kennecott Company, rather than the taxpayers, should be responsible for
providing the state with the funding needed for the inspectors. "The Kennecott Company has yet to prove the sulfide mine will not degrade the
community, watershed, air quality or ecology of the area. While the DEQ permits
have been approved, additional permits are required by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. I will
continue to urge EPA and DNR to thoroughly review this proposed sulfide
mine." # # #
If we're going to have pork, some of it might as well be used for good conservation purposes, like land acquisition for Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. It's one of the most remarkable national parks in America, with pieces of habitat and scenery scattered like seeds across the northwest Indiana lakeshore amidst smokestacks and cottages. The story of how it came to be conserved is one of the most inspiring in the Great Lakes region. Still, it's hard not to wonder what the landscape would look like if the original vision of an uninterrupted 25-mile Sand Dunes National Park (reaching back in time before World War I) had been fulfilled.
http://www.chestertontribune.com/Northwest%20Indiana/12198%20visclosky_secures_funding_for_na.htm
The stagnant weather is trapping a soup of air pollution in the
Twin Cities, prompting state air-quality officials to warn Wednesday
that it was approaching the "unhealthy for all" status. In the second
day of the alert, a swath of the state from Rochester to Detroit Lakes
was classified "unhealthy for sensitive individuals."
http://www.startribune.com/local/12645481.html
At 10 p.m. Wednesday CST the Twin Cities air quality index reading was 141, toward the upper end of the 'unhealthy for sensitive groups' range. A reading of 151 or higher is considered unhealthy for all.
Current readings here:
National air quality forecast Thursday/Friday here:
Minnesota's environmental agency urges:
- reduced driving and idling
- postponing wood fires to reduce smoke
- reduced electricity usage
Another good reason to pursue more efficient and renewable electricity policies.
A kind reader has pointed out the following sentence in the Rio Tinto release below:
"Our focus is on six further adjacent prospects that may have the potential to extend significantly the mine life at current planned production rates."
The reader adds: There
are at least six other major foreign mining companies with substantial
land holdings that are yet to be heard from. Uranium is next, and the
state is just as unprepared for that as it was for sulfide mining,
which means the mining companies will get to help write the rules.
Is this the legacy of the current Administration in Michigan?
Michigan's new nonferrous metallic mining statute is "considered one of the most stringent in the nation." Who said that? An environmental agency? No, the multinational corporation that just got permits under this rigorous law to exploit metals in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, putting a remarkable coldwater stream and ecosystem at risk. Could there be a more credible source? This release contains the offending quote.
Download Rio_Tinto_to_enter_nickel_market_with__300_million_Eagle_mine_commitment-1.pdf
This Wisconsin law seems a tad more stringent, since no company has yet met its standard:
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/es/science/crandon/review/moratorium.htm
Adopting a style of research that has proved controversial in other states, Minnesota health officials are poised to test for arsenic in 100 children and for chemicals formerly made by 3M in 200 adults.
The 2008 studies will be part of a $2 million experiment in biomonitoring, which collects human tissue, hair, blood or urine to look for harmful contaminants.
[snip]
But Brase worries that if a person is identified as exposed to chemicals, it might be blown out of proportion or misused in some other way. "If you come out with a study and 80 percent of children have some arsenic levels, that could incite the public to unnecessary concern and could push a policy agenda that may limit progress in this country," she said.
It could. Or it might lead to justified anger and policy reform to reduce chemical trespass into the bodies of children and other citizens. The day we "get used to" arsenic and even more troubling industrial/product chemicals in our bodies is the day we have lost our way.
The article appears to blur "biomonitoring" -- testing of human beings to determine what chemical substances have already invaded our bodies without our consent -- with the Bush EPA's desire expose children deliberately to pesticides to see what happens. There's a big difference.
http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/12534756.html?page=2&c=y
