The hidden danger in the Mining Bill version 2013

Tomorrow, Wednesday January 23 at 9:00 AM, Room 411 South at the Wisconsin State Capitol will be the only scheduled hearing  (for now) on the new Mining Bill.  The hearing takes place before a joint committee, and will undoubtedly be contentious. One of the greatest miscarriages of justice in this process has been the omission of participation, and lack of  recognition of the Bad River Nation and the impact on this legally sovereign entity.

This is intentional, as there is a hidden danger in the new Mining Bill which has received little attention in the press. The result, if this bill is passed, will be a bad law – which is what happens when corporate influence holds outsized sway over a legislative body. The only jobs that will be created if this bill passes will be for attorneys, and rightly so. The current bill has language that will virtually deregulate one of the greatest hazards to freshwater and the Great Lakes – sulfide ore. The passage of this bill could lead to mining activity that would turn surface water into acidic runoff, ruining the environment in one of the greatest freshwater basins on earth.

Senate/Assembly Bill 1, page 3 contains the Legislative Reference Bureau’s analysis of the change in “sulfide ore” regulation:

Current law prohibits DNR from issuing a permit for metallic mining in a sulfide ore body (a mineral deposit in which metals are mixed with sulfide minerals) unless it finds, based on information provided by the applicant, that two conditions are satisfiedUnder the bill, these conditions on issuing a permit for metallic mining in a sulfide ore body do not apply to issuing a permit for iron mining.

The expedited release of sulfide ore deposits into surface water, and the damage it causes has been well documented over several decades:

The acidic discharge and metal-laden leachate from mining activities is known as acid mine drainage (“AMD”)…AMD is one of the most damaging and widespread pollutants associated with the mining industry throughout the world.  As of 1997, over 60 mines or mineral processing plants were on CERCLA’s National Priorities List, indicating contamination so severe that it requires federally-funded cleanup. (S.R. Jennings, D.R. Neuman, and P.S. Blicker (2008). “Acid Mine Drainage and Effects on Fish Health and Ecology: A Review”. Reclamation Research Group Publication, Bozeman, MT for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anhorage Field Office. Available online at

Among some legislators associated with this bill, there is confusion regarding iron ore mining and sulfides. This confusion has been propagated by GTAC, in the hopes of keeping the facts (and legislators) in the dark. Part of the confusion is based on facts regarding iron ore mining:

It is important at the outset to clarify some common confusion surrounding sulfide mining and to distinguish it from other traditional forms of mining in the region. While iron mining has a long history and still continues in the upper Midwest, it does not involve the mining
or disturbance of sulfide ores. Iron is generally mined out of an iron oxide ore, not an iron sulfide ore, and iron oxide ores do not degrade and toxify the same way that sulfide ores do. (Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, “Great Lakes: Basic Information.”

The Penokee Range Taconite is unique, however. A report issued by the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) and scientists at Michigan Tech in March, 2012 draws the distinction:

This issue can be confusing because iron sulfides (e.g., pyrite, iron disulfide) are among the most prevalent of sulfide ores, so they are often the leading causes of acid mine drainage (“AMD”) in a sulfide mining operation. This does not, however, mean that iron mines are always associated with sulfurous AMD. In fact, the presence of sulfur in an iron ore is considered a weakening factor, rendering the ore undesirable for iron extraction. Iron sulfides are simply a common byproduct of the extraction of other metals from sulfide ore bodies. 

A taconite mine that disturbs sulfide ore bodies, on the other hand, would present the same hazards as non-ferrous metallic mines. The Gogebic Taconite mine under development in northern Wisconsin is an example of a taconite mine that may disturb sulfide minerals.

A recent article published by The Wisconsin Academy titled “Ironwood: The Rocks of the Penokee Range” confirms and details the unique geological features of the formation:

Figure 2. Block diagram showing the Ironwood Formation and adjacent bedrock layers. The view is looking toward the west (from U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1730)

Geologist Tom Fitz details the composition of the “Tyler Formation;” the large, wedge-shaped layer above the “Iron-Formation” layer (see figure, above).

There is also pyrite present in the Tyler Formation, some of which would end up in the tailings as well. When pulverized and put in contact with oxygen and water at the Earth’s surface, pyrite and other sulfide minerals can undergo chemical reactions that create sulfuric acid. This acid can leach harmful metals and compounds that end up in groundwater and surface water.

It is also possible that sulfate ions released during the weathering of pyrite would affect the growth of wild rice and other elements of the sensitive ecosystem found downstream from the mine. 

 The legislation passed in January 2012 by the Wisconsin State Assembly would have decreased the rigor required in scientific studies regarding potential impacts, making assessment of potential damages difficult. At the same time it would weaken many environmental regulations that protect the Bad River and its tributaries from significant water quality changes.

THAT is the hidden danger in the current Mining Bill. The authors have created a special exception for Iron Mining, taking away the regulations and processes that will protect the surface water and Lake Superior watershed from the harmful sulfides created from extracting iron ore through a heavily pyrite layer. The waste runoff created from destruction and disposal of the sulfide ore will have a longterm impact on regional water quality:

Figure 4. Map of the Bad River Watershed showing the location of the iron ore and the Bad River Reservation

The major corporate entities poised to benefit from the bill have intentionally perpetrated a fraud in this bill, and it endangers the very lifeblood of North Central Wisconsin – the water. The reason? They cannot mine the ore because of the low price of iron, and make millions of dollars in profit unless they are able to pollute the water – and they know it. THAT is why they created this provision in the bill. From the NWF Mining Study cited above:

Wisconsin’s sulfide mining law has perhaps the greatest regulatory scope of any of the
U.S. jurisdictions surveyed…Notably, state agencies are charged with the essential task of completing the environmental review for the project in the application phase, rather than the permittee. Special attention is paid to siting criteria and water quality, and the financial assurance mechanisms are written to ensure that any necessary cleanup will be fully funded by the permittee.

If you wanted to make a quick, multi-million dollar deal on a mine, this is how you would do it.

For the record, this has NOTHING to do with creating jobs. It’s about creating a “boom” economy in North Central Wisconsin, so a few people can make a quick buck.

Who cleans up when the bubble bursts, as it always does?


Scott Walker has Failed Wisconsin…Part 2

Two readers of Scott Walker has Failed Wisconsin…Part1 (“CG in WI”, and “Melissa”) suggested two topics with tremendous potential impact on this and future generations – and can be connected in one blog…The Environment, and Privatization of State Power Plants.  Unbelievably, from the land of Aldo Leopold, Gaylord Nelson, and a little bit of John Muir, comes the story of Scott Walker and the Charter Street Power Plant. A tale of environmental apathy, corporatic politics, and political greed. Scott Walker has failed Wisconsin in environmental stewardship and responsible resource management.

On November 21, 2007 The Western District Federal Court issued summary judgement in Sierra Club v. Michael Morgan and Jay Ehrfurth. In brief, the judgement found the state in violation of the EPA Clean Air Act at the Charter Street Power Plant on the UW-Madison campus. The State of Wisconsin was ordered to submit and execute a plan to reduce emissions by15% at the coal-fired power plant. Under a settlement reached by the Doyle Administration, the state received approval for a plan submitted in 2009, and subsequently funded in the 2009-2011 biennial budget to the tune of over $200 million. This plan design would put Wisconsin at the leading edge of using native biomass resources to generate power at the Charter Street Power Plant, bring emissions in line with Clean Air Act standards, and create hundreds of green jobs.

One of Scott Walker’s earliest decisions as Governor was to announce his abandonment of the 2009 design to utilize native biomass, and instead pursue a cheaper plan to convert to natural gas. This plan does not comply with the judgement and subsequent settlement in Sierra Club v. Morgan and Ehrfurth, and potentially exposes the state to new action in Federal Court. In addition, and more dubiously, opens the door for privatization of state power plants through Administrative Rule already in place. Scott Walker has willfully ignored environmental standards, and a court order to further his political career and line the coffers of his supporters – in this case, most likely Koch Industries.

An email obtained by Badger Democracy from Scott Walker’s office indicates the early concern and colluding going on in mid-January. The Walker Administration had been approached by the law firm of Foley and Lardner (who has significant ties to the Walker people – Legal Counsel Brian Hagedorn is an alumnus of F&L) with an offer of 30 free minutes of consulting time to “pick their brains” regarding strategy in the Charter Street Plant case.  Some important points of note here – acceptance of this offer could be considered an ethics violation. Also, the individual making the request from Foley and Lardner is Ray Carey  – a prolific lobbyist in Madison, most notably for Koch Industries. The very same Koch Industries positioning themselves with Scott Walker (as one of his primary donors) to receive no-bid contracts for control of state power plants. Badger Democracy has been unable to confirm whether this meeting “officially” took place. In a phone interview today (August 30), Ray Carey stated that he has “no knowledge of this meeting taking place.” He also stated that the inquiry was made “to see if any opportunity existed to do business with the state.” An interesting comment considering Koch Industries would benefit greatly from the abandonment of biomass, and conversion to natural gas (should the state choose to privatize with Koch). Neither DOA or DOJ have any record of any such consultation taking place. It is unlikely any official comment or record of any meeting such as this would be credible, as it is an ethically and politically charged situation.

A little over 6 months later, on July 27, 2011, The Sierra Club has filed a Notice of Termination of Non-Consent Decree in United States District Court in “Sierra Club v. Mike Huebsch et al.” For now, the Department of Justice is representing the Department of Administration. It could be determined the DOJ has a legal conflict in so much as it must enforce the law, and the DOA is in violation of Federal Law (Clean Air Act). If this is the case, and DOJ withdraws, would Foley and Lardner be awarded the lucrative state legal contract?  No doubt, Scott Walker knew what his actions would bring in Court. He is likely counting on what his actions will bring politically and financially – more control and Koch money. Never mind the State of Wisconsin’s people and environment. Never mind the green jobs. Never mind the Koch Corporate profiteers circling like vultures around Wisconsin’s resources. Never mind the hundreds of thousands of dollars to be spent defending this irresponsible decision. And never mind over a century of responsible environmental stewardship and leadership.

Scott Walker has failed to lead Wisconsin ethically and responsibly in environmental stewardship and energy resources – which will cost the people of Wisconsin millions of dollars in revenue, hundreds of jobs, and priceless natural resources for future generations. For this, he deserves to be recalled.