March 6, 2012
Madison – The state Senate rejected mining legislation on Tuesday, prompting a prominent mining company to say it was abandoning a project after months of often bitter debate that pitted conflicting claims of economic development against environmental protection.
“Senate rejection of the mining reforms . . . sends a clear message that Wisconsin will not welcome iron mining. We get the message,” said a statement from Bill Williams, president of Gogebic Taconite LLC. “(We are) ending plans to invest in a Wisconsin mine.”
Top Republican leaders said they considered the measure dead. At stake were an estimated 600 to 700 jobs at a large open pit mine in northern Wisconsin.
Bob Seitz, a lobbyist representing Gogebic, said: “This isn’t an attempt to negotiate anything because that’s done.”
He said that the company made numerous concessions, and wasn’t willing to go any further.
“We let something slip away,” said Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald (R-Horicon).
His comments came shortly after Sen. Dale Schultz (R-Richland Center) voted with all Democrats to reject the bill, 17-16.
Schultz has consistently opposed drafts of the mining bill written by his fellow Republicans, yet leaders continued to seek support from him and a handful of Democrats.
Leaders have the ability to revive the bill this week or next if they can find one more vote. But Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) made clear just how tough it would be to approve a bill before the session ends March 15.
“This elusive seventeenth vote now is going to become more and more difficult to find,” he said.
If no mining bill passes before the end of the regular session, Gov. Scott Walker might call a special session on mining, said Walker spokesman Cullen Werwie.
But Scott Fitzgerald said it would be hard to secure votes at that stage because recall campaigns against him and three other Senate Republicans will be gearing up. That could further politicize an already contentious issue, he said.
Schultz and Sen. Bob Jauch (D-Poplar) have their own version of the bill, but Scott Fitzgerald said he did not believe it could get through the Assembly.
“The Assembly is not going to move that far,” Fitzgerald said, adding that Republicans in that house believe they have already given up much.
Jauch, whose district includes the proposed mine site in Ashland and Iron counties, said lawmakers needed to find a way to regulate mining so it could bring in jobs while protecting environmentally sensitive areas.
“You cannot have responsible mining if you have irresponsible mining legislation,” he said.
Vote applauded
Environmental groups greeted the vote enthusiastically.
“Today’s vote is a victory for Wisconsin families and clean drinking water,” said Anne Sayers, program director for the Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters. “This bill was filled with some of the worst conservation rollbacks in recent memory.”
But James Buchen of Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, the state’s largest business lobby, expressed disappointment and saw little chance the bill could be revived in the current climate.
“It’s a missed opportunity for the folks in northern Wisconsin to have an economically secure future,” he said.
Mining has received little attention in recent years – there is no large metallic or iron ore mine in operation in Wisconsin today.
But that changed after Gogebic Taconite proposed constructing a $1.5 billion iron ore mine that would employ 600 to 700 workers.
The company is headquartered in Hurley and owned by a Florida-based company that has extensive holdings of coal in Illinois and Appalachia.
Gogebic put its plan on hold during the middle of last year after concluding Wisconsin needed to make changes in the way iron ore mines are regulated.
Gogebic president Williams said before the vote he wanted changes in the law so his company and others could have a set time frame for knowing whether they could get the necessary permits. Otherwise, their efforts could be tied up for years without knowing whether they could proceed with mining, he said.
“What we’re asking for is make a decision, be it yes or be it no,” he said.
He said his firm has invested more than $3 million in its efforts in Wisconsin. The company may look to start a mine in another state, he said.
A week ago, in an email, Williams said Gogebic did some mineral exploration in Michigan last summer and has discussed mining with officials in that state.
Kennan Wood, executive director of the Wisconsin Mining Association, said Gogebic needs changes in the law, or it will leave the state.
“They are not going to continue to invest in Wisconsin if we can’t pass reasonable mining legislation that provides the guidelines necessary for them to move forward,” Wood said.
While some mine supporters said they still hoped to reach a deal, other backers said that was not possible.
“Some continue to say they’re willing to negotiate; they are not,” said a statement from Rep. Robin Vos (R-Rochester). “Some say they’re for mining and jobs; they are not. Today’s vote in the Senate proves it.”
Republicans argued that iron ore mining is safer than other forms of metallic mines and could operate under a more flexible set of regulations.
That was the intent of both Republicans and many Democrats, but Republicans pushed harder to ease restrictions.
Mining has been a top goal of Walker and Republicans who have a majority in the Legislature. They see mining as central to a pro-economic development agenda.
Key areas of disagreement that have proved to be the mining bill’s undoing include:
Exemptions for compliance from various regulations that govern groundwater, surface water and management of waste.
A quasi-judicial process known as a contested case hearing. An Assembly version eliminated the process entirely, and a measure pushed by Republicans included the hearings, but only after an environmental review was completed by the Department of Natural Resources. Democrats and environmentalists have argued that the current system gives the public its best opportunity to weigh in on a case and question expert testimony under oath.
Deadlines for the DNR to make a decision. All the options would provide more certainty than the current law’s open-ended system. Democrats opposed an Assembly version of 360 days, which they said was too short. An alternative by Republicans leaders stretched out the period to potentially 630 days. That option, too, couldn’t get support.
Milwaukee Journal Sentinal
By Patrick Marley and Lee Bergquist of the Journal Sentinel
Jason Stein of the Journal Sentinel staff contributed to this report.