By JON SAARI

POSTED: October 29, 2009

The recent Mining Journal editorial (October 21) on the proposed statewide ballot initiative for November 2010 was generally factual and fair-minded. It argued the importance of clean water as well as jobs, of tourism and recreation as well as mining; and it urged U.P. residents to study the issues and ask tough questions.

Only in its conclusion was the editorial mean-spirited and misleading, in claiming that the REAL issue is about a group of people who want to prohibit all mining in Michigan by any means and are using the water angle to dupe voters.

I resist being pigeonholed into some secret cabal. My interests in the issue of mining and water protection are multiple, like those of most people. I am the grandson of a Finnish immigrant miner, the nephew of a union negotiator, a professional historian, a believer in regional land protection, and a supporter of this ballot initiative.

Is it vain to hope that the statewide discussion of this ballot initiative over the next year will remain civil and issue-focused? That it will not degenerate into name-calling, emotional slogans, and charges of conspiratorial scheming by corporate or environmental elites? That we can all acknowledge and respect that U.P. residents (whether Yoopers or transplants, retirees or young workers) have differences in values and perceptions about our region’s history, current state, and future prospects?

Let this be an issue-oriented debate, and let the people indeed make up their own minds and vote on this ballot initiative.

That said, I see four important questions that the ballot initiative highlights:

Is all mining the same, as the Mining Journal editorial assumes, or are there important differences among the types of mining? The ballot initiative is quite specific about amending Part 632 on Nonferrous Metallic Mineral Mining; it separates out sulfide and uranium ores because of their water-destroying potential. It does not impact the traditional mining of iron oxide ores in the Upper Peninsula.

Should there be site-specific criteria that make sulfide and uranium mining more difficult in water-rich environments? Part 632, unamended, assumes that the permitting process will take care of protecting sensitive sites. But what if the ore body is right under a river, and there are serious questions of mine stability and collapse? Or a world-class natural area of headwater streams like the Michigamme Highlands would be threatened by a new industrial mining zone? The ballot initiative raises the bar on water protection by placing a buffer zone around water bodies.

Should an independent hydrological assessment of the water resources be required in any permit application to mine sulfide and/or uranium ores? This seems like a no-brainer, and has been recommended in the past by reputable observers. It is not, however, required by Part 632.

Given that all mines pollute, should not prospective mining companies be asked to demonstrate that somewhere in North America, under similar environmental conditions, a successful minimally polluting mine has existed and been closed? This provision is similar to Wisconsin law, which resulted from a 20-year struggle to develop reasonable and protective legislation for sulfide mining.

The big question in most people’s minds is whether sulfide and uranium mining can be done safely. Proponents of the ballot initiative ask us to err on the side of caution in answering this question. Too much is potentially at risk long-term with a new industrial mining zone in our valuable and irreplaceable Great Lakes watershed. We have forums – our State permitting and enforcement agencies as well as the courts – for weighing and deciding these questions, but ultimately stronger legislation and a vigilant citizenry might be our best protection.

We do not want to wake up one day to discover that our short-term employment gains have left us poorer overall. “Currently” we need these jobs, argues the Mining Journal editorial, but when the mines are gone, as they inevitably will be sooner or later, what will we be left with? Will we still enjoy the hunting and fishing, the berry picking and recreating and emotional healing that the wild lands and waters provide for us today?

Editor’s note: Jon Saari is president of the Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition, which has endorsed the ballot initiative.