star tribune editorial
Feb 14, 2010 (Star Tribune - McClatchy-Tribune Information Services via COMTEX) -- From President Obama to Gov. Tim Pawlenty, politicians everywhere have made jobs a top priority. A controversial mining bill will soon test how serious Minnesota legislators are about putting people back to work.
The bill -- championed by Alice Hausman, DFL-St. Paul, in the House, and Jim Carlson, DFL-Eagan, in the Senate -- deals with a controversial new type of mine on the Iron Range. Called nonferrous or sulfide mining, it extracts from the region's ancient rocks metals vital to today's technology: copper, nickel and palladium. The Hausman and Carlson bill would unnecessarily tighten key financial requirements for these new mines and significantly delay one of the first projects, the PolyMet mine near Babbitt.
There's a lot of heated rhetoric and little middle ground when it comes to nonferrous mining. Despite advances in mining technology, many environmentalists speak of these operations in apocalyptic terms, believing that acid runoff will destroy northern Minnesota's wilderness, Lake Superior and the beloved Boundary Waters Canoe Area.
Proponents of nonferrous mining are just as passionate. Those on the Iron Range believe it's the economic salvation of this depressed region, as well as a state plagued with high unemployment. If the $600 million PolyMet project gets a permit, more mining projects are likely to follow, bringing hundreds, if not thousands, of good-paying jobs with them.
Unfortunately, both sides fall prey to this false conclusion: that it's a choice between jobs or the environment. The reality, at least when it comes to the Hausman and Carlson bill, is that there's an opportunity here to strike a balance between the state's environmental and economic needs.
Legislators contemplating the bill should come to this pragmatic conclusion: The bill isn't needed. The additional safeguards it calls for to ensure mining companies can't shed environmental cleanup costs through bankruptcy are a delaying tactic proposed by environmental advocates. The state already has strong regulations in place that deal with this -- regulations that were put in place in the 1990s with input from environmentalists, regulators and legislators.
Minnesota's regulations already require the coverage and assure that these funds are bankruptcy-proof. The requirements are reviewed annually and adjusted if necessary.
Changes proposed by environmentalists include specifying acceptable forms of financial assurance (cash or bonds, for example), moving up the timetable for providing financial assurance details and making financial assurance adjustments more public. Good changes, yes. But essential? No, not in Minnesota, a state with a long history of tough regulators, tough environmental laws and vigilant advocates. That's also the conclusion of many political leaders, including the Iron Range's congressman, Democratic Rep. James Oberstar, whose credibility on environmental issues is underscored by his leadership on strengthening the federal Clean Water Act.
Changing the rules could delay PolyMet by one to two years as bureaucrats shuffle through the lengthy rulemaking process. Local venture capitalists say the delay could also put a chill on investors' willingness to fund other new mines. The reality is that Minnesota needs the jobs these projects will bring. Leaving already solid financial assurance regulations in place strikes a balance between the state's economic and environmental needs. More challenges yet lie ahead for PolyMet, which deserves the scrutiny it's getting, but this is one hurdle that shouldn't slow it down.
To see more of the Star Tribune or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to
https://www.startribune.co.il. Copyright (c) 2010, Star Tribune, Minneapolis
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services. For reprints, email
tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax
to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave.,
Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.