Minneapolis Star Tribune, Dec. 16
Victory for environmentalists and BWCA eventually could backfire
For more than a century, mining firms have beaten back attempts to reform an obsolete 1872 law that was designed to spur settlement in Western states but instead has long maximized industry profits from public lands.
It’s rare for environmental advocacy groups to notch a victory against this wealthy special interest. Yet this week, the Campaign to Save the Boundary Waters led by Becky Rom of northern Minnesota did just that. On Thursday, two federal agencies announced a “withhold” on the renewal of mineral leases sought by Chilean-owned Twin Metals Minnesota on federal land close to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCA). Federal officials also went far beyond protecting those parcels and have applied to create a new 234,000-acre mining-free buffer zone in the region for the next 20 years.
It is a stunning achievement for Rom, an attorney who grew up near Ely and led the charge to block Twin Metals’ lease renewal. But caution is warranted in assessing this accomplishment. How Rom and her group accomplished their goal may have unintended negative consequences - ones that could potentially leave the BWCA and other environmental jewels more vulnerable to political pressure from industry in the future, especially under President-elect Donald Trump.
To be clear, the Star Tribune Editorial Board has long shared Rom’s doubts that copper mining - the Twin Metals project’s main focus - can be done safely and responsibly just a few miles from the BWCA. This type of hard-rock mining can result in acid drainage into nearby waterways. In addition, the mining industry has an atrocious environmental track record.
Where we respectfully part ways with the Save the Boundary Waters group is where and how a decision is made on the project’s fate.
Our view is that a consistent, data-based regulatory framework offers the best assurances that science, not politics, will dictate the outcome. The traditional process by which projects like Twin Metals are weighed kicks into high gear when formal plans for a specific site, along with detailed pollution mitigation plans, can be analyzed. This intensive environmental review is usually a multiyear process involving multiple state and federal agencies. For example, the review process for PolyMet, another proposed copper mine in northeastern Minnesota, has taken more than eight years.
In contrast, the strategy employed by Rom’s group relied on pressuring the Obama administration to dig up an additional hurdle for the project at a far earlier stage in the project - renewal of the mineral leases sought by Twin Metals, a process that typically has been routine.
The decision to block the lease was not based on deep evaluations of detailed plans for Twin Metals operation or pollution mitigation. The reason: The project isn’t far enough along yet for these plans to be that detailed. Instead, federal officials made generalized assumptions from scientific literature about the project and its location.
While this strategy yielded a worthy result - protecting the BWCA - it nevertheless created a precedent for political interference in this review and other mining projects’ evaluations. That works with an environmentally conscious President Obama in the White House. It may backfire with a more industry-friendly President Trump.
Federal officials declined to comment on whether the Trump administration could overturn the recent decision. But experts contacted by an editorial writer agreed that it could be done, though it might take some time. A spokesman for Rom’s group said Thursday that the group is hopeful this won’t occur, pointing out that Trump’s sons are conservationists and that the president-elect’s pick to head the Department of Interior has publicly recognized the need to protect unique natural resources.
At the same time, Twin Metals’ Chilean parent company, Antofagasta, invested about $350 million into this venture. Its billionaire owners, the Luksic family, won’t simply accept this outcome. It’s naive to think they won’t find a sympathetic ear in the U.S. billionaire soon settling in the White House.
___
St. Cloud Times, Dec. 17
Make time to review EQB’s environmental report card
Whether it is enduring below-zero temperatures and bitter windchill readings or hunting and fishing in the state’s abundant woods and lakes, Minnesotans have always had a close connection to the environment.
Let’s face facts: Our climate and environment have an impact on our health, safety, businesses, free time and overall quality of life in Minnesota.
Because of the impact on our lives, knowing what’s ahead in our environment should be a priority for all Minnesotans. A draft of a report card on the environment prepared by the state Environmental Quality Board contains information that could be considered a wake-up call for residents.
For example the report card states:
- Minnesotans need to prepare for an increase in “mega-rains.”
- The state also faces a greater spread of tick-borne illnesses, including Lyme disease.
The draft report makes for important reading: https://bit.ly/2hoYdos
The report card is divided into water, land, air, energy and climate. Each area is rated good, OK or poor with green, yellow and red colors. The report spells out certain indicators that must be tracked to see the impact on those species by changes in climate or the environment.
We know the debate will continue on “climate change.” While we aren’t in a position to provide answers on that divisive issue, we can say that for whatever reasons, the impact on these “canaries in the coal mine” has to be tracked. Answers must be found when there are sharp declines or increases in key indicators.
For example, the state’s pheasant population is declining and the amount of nitrates in the state’s water is increasing. Both deserve attention and plans to address the concerns.
Another key concern is that, according to the report card, the state’s climate is warming. Greenhouse gas emissions are increasing with an impact on health and climate. Another item is the decline in the state’s cisco fish population. Walleye and trout rely on cisco as a key part of their food supply. The decline in cisco is linked to increased temperatures, according to the report.
The EQB draft report card makes the point that so many of these key indicators can be affected by other segments of the environment.
The next important step in the EQB process is a discussion of the final version of the report card Dec. 21. After that meeting, there is the Minnesota Environmental Congress, a one-day event on Feb. 3 in the Continuing Education and Conference Center at the University of Minnesota’s St. Paul campus, 1890 Buford Avenue, St. Paul.
The report card is in an easy-to-read and understandable format. The EQB deserves credit for making the draft report so accessible to citizens. While many will have various takes on the causes for the changes in the state’s key environmental metrics, everyone needs to pay attention and help find solutions.
___
The Free Press of Mankato, Dec. 18
Special session: Politics trumped reasonable agreements
It’s not likely Minnesota taxpayers could follow the political theatrics of the last few days between Gov. Mark Dayton and GOP House Speaker Kurt Daudt on a special session, but even if they could, the scenario falls short of even mediocre governance.
Unfortunately for all Minnesotans, negotiations between Dayton and Daudt broke down Friday. There will be no special session. We give Dayton credit for trying to lead the charge for a special session that, with tax and bonding bills and relief from health insurance rates, would benefit Minnesotans around the state.
We give Speaker Daudt some credit for going along and a willingness to let the experts of his caucus work with Dayton’s commissioners to hammer out the details. Agreement on these critical issues seemed very close at one point.
But as letters between Daudt and Dayton were exchanged, the tone seemed to deteriorate to adversarial. Dayton described Daudt as out of the loop as he was attending a national legislative conference in the Virgin Islands. Incidentally, so was DFL Senate Majority Leader Tom Bakk.
Daudt accused Dayton of changing details of bonding and the tax bills, saying that was outside of what the two parties and their surrogates had agreed to at a meeting Dec. 2. Dayton disagreed with that assessment.
Dayton says he hasn’t heard from Daudt for weeks and more than one source says there’s been a lull in Daudt speaking about proposals to House GOP bonding committee chair Paul Torkelson. One DFLer told The Free Press Torkelson seemed open to a bonding compromise, but apparently Daudt wasn’t available to discuss it for several weeks and Torkelson had no authority to negotiate. Daudt denies that’s the case.
Dayton could have gotten agreement had he not added so many new proposals to the bonding plan that was passed by a bipartisan Legislature last year. Daudt seemed to be disagreeing on points that were minor enough to be negotiated or fixed later.
Both parties say their experts have been working diligently to come to agreement over the last several days and weeks. And now, it seems, to no avail.
Dayton, Daudt and new House Minority Leader Melissa Hortman have launched a bit of a blame game on both sides. Again, it’s difficult for taxpayers to see who is at fault, and that exercise might be fruitless anyway.
The next best hope was for all parties to agree to a special session soon to deal with just the health insurance rate issue, where there seems to be a little more agreement and less animosity. But that’s not going to happen either.
We ask an important question of both sides: “How will Minnesotans lose if you accept your opponents’ proposal as is?”
The correct answer is: “They wouldn’t.” Everyone would win. But now, it appears, everyone will lose.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.