Political dispute intensifies over potential pollution from copper-nickel mining
Courtesy of the Minnesota Historical Society. A mine near Biwabik, circa 1900.
By Ron Way | Monday, Oct. 6, 2008
As the date nears for a long-anticipated release of perhaps the most important environmental document in Minnesota’s mining history, political wrangling has stepped up over concerns about the effects of copper-nickel mining on ground and surface water in a region world famous for the quality of its forested lakes and streams.
The latest flare-up grew out of a seemingly benign request by State Sen. Ellen Anderson, DFL-St. Paul, for an independent review of whether state laws and regulations are sufficient to ensure that a major new industry — potentially worth hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of jobs — will protect water from sulfides and other toxics brought up with every ounce of copper, nickel, palladium, gold and trace minerals buried in the ancient lava rock of Minnesota’s Arrowhead.
Anderson, who chairs the Senate Environment Finance Division, requested $150,000 from the “emerging issues account” of the Legislative Citizens Committee on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR) for a review of state laws with a report to be made to her committee and the House counterpart, chaired by Rep. Jean Wagenius, DFL-Minneapolis.
But while there was some initial support for Anderson’s request by LCCMR members, the opposing response from Iron Range legislators was fast and, to Anderson, a bit more furious than she expected. State Rep. Tom Rukavina, DFL-Virginia, said in a letter the day after Anderson made the study request that Anderson was attempting an “11th hour … end run around the process” for reviewing potential effects of the planned mining.
Ron Way, a former reporter for several Midwest newspapers, covers the environment and energy issues. He can be reached at rway [at] minnpost [dot] com.