LANSING (AP)

A proposed Michigan ballot measure that would prohibit some types of mining and restrict others took a small step forward Wednesday.

The petition form submitted by a group called the Michigan Save Our Water Committee was approved by a state election board. The group would have to collect more than 300,000 valid signatures of Michigan voters to get its proposal on the statewide November 2010 ballot.

The group has not yet started collecting signatures but says it could begin that process by the end of the year.

Supporters say the ballot measure calls for tougher laws to protect the Great Lakes, inland lakes, rivers and the rest of the environment from contamination caused by some types of mining.

Opponents of the ballot proposal say it would cripple Michigan’s mining industry and severely damage the Upper Peninsula’s economy.

”The proposal winds up being a direct assault, a direct attack on the U.P.,” said Deb Muchmore, a spokeswoman for Citizens to Protect Michigan Jobs, a developing opposition group that is expected to soon include mining interests. ”It would be a job killer and an industry killer for that region of our state.”

The most publicized mining dispute in Michigan is related to Kennecott Eagle Minerals Co.’s plans to mine nickel and copper in the Upper Peninsula. But supporters of the ballot proposal say their effort is much broader.

”This is not about one mine,” said Maura Campbell, Michigan Save Our Water Committee spokeswoman. ”This is us looking down the road.”

The measure would prohibit uranium mining and processing until ”new rules” are established to ”protect against the special risks associated with those activities,” according to the petition language.

Sulfide and other types of mines would have to be located at least 2,000 feet away from any lake, river or stream unless it is proven the mining operation won’t hurt the water.

Companies seeking permits would have to do more studying of potential environmental impact.

The Michigan League of Conservation Voters has endorsed the proposal. Some other environmental groups have not yet taken a position on the measure.

Community Reaction to the Initiative announcement

John Pepin of the Mining Journal questions the community

MARQUETTE – Both proponents and opponents of a new mining and water-related ballot initiative are digging their heels in for what is expected to be a hard-fought, costly battle to win over Michigan’s voters.

The state Board of Canvassers approved a four-page petition form Wednesday from the Michigan Save Our Water Committee. The committee – whose honorary chairman is former Michigan Gov. William Milliken – now has six months to gather 304,000 signatures of registered voters to get the measure on the Nov. 2, 2010 ballot.

“We are just strengthening the law that’s in place with some straightforward common sense (rules),” said Duncan Campbell, treasurer of the Michigan Save Our Water Committee in Detroit. “We think this issue is so important we need to go before all of the voters of Michigan.”

The legislative initiative would amend Part 632 – the non-ferrous metallic mineral mining section of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act – which was enacted in 2004 to govern mining projects like the Kennecott Eagle Minerals Company site proposed for the Yellow Dog Plains in northern Marquette County.

Tougher restrictions – which some critics say are impossible to meet – would be added to the mining law, in an effort to protect Michigan’s water resources.

“This is not a regulatory measure, this is a prohibition,” said Lansing attorney Pete Ellsworth of the Detroit law firm Dickinson-Wright. “This is a measure that prohibits mining. I think that’s the only fair way of characterizing this.”

Ellsworth is offering election process and rules advice to a new Citizens to Protect Michigan Jobs Committee formed over the past couple of weeks to challenge the ballot initiative.

Ellsworth – who called the petition language “a lawyer’s field day” -said the provisions may prove to be unconstitutional. He said attorneys are still reviewing the numerous details of the proposal, but contends “the way the criteria is set up, it cannot be met.”

The initiative seeks to “prohibit uranium mining and processing until new rules have been established to protect against the special risks associated with those activities.” It would also “require a mining area to be located more than 2,000 feet away from any water body, unless it is proven that the mining operations will not cause any injury to groundwater or water bodies.”
A permit applicant would also be required to provide a regional groundwater and surface water analysis to enable an assessment of all potential impacts to those waters from the proposed mining project.

In a provision fashioned after a Wisconsin mining statute, applicants would also have to “show that another mine in the United States or Canada is similar to the applicant’s proposed mine in all relevant ways and operated for at least five years and has not harmed natural resources or caused any exceedance of applicable environmental criteria for at least 10 years after closure.”

The initiative would also “prescribe additional requirements for reporting, notification, permit review, permit amendments and enforcement.”

In Michigan, Kennecott’s proposed nickel and copper Eagle Mine is the first non-ferrous mining project to be permitted under Part 632, but it has not been built or operated, with legal and permit challenges still pending.

“You’ve got a call for regulation updates on a law that hasn’t been tested in terms of going into operation,” Ellsworth said.

Jon Cherry, general manager of Kennecott, said, “Kennecott is prepared to join others in fighting for the Upper Peninsula, and to protect the hundreds of jobs our company and its planned operations alone are set to create.”

“We’re still reviewing the proposal, but would initially observe that it is very misleading, with the sole intent of creating an outright prohibition of the mining industry in the U.P.,” Cherry said. “We don’t believe people will stand for that once they understand the true agenda of the proposal’s backers.”

And while some critics say the “Mi Water” ballot initiative is just the latest attempt to stop the Kennecott Eagle project, proponents say the scope of their amendments are also aimed at a much broader group of mining interests waiting for the outcome of Kennecott’s mining attempt – interests whose efforts could result in a new regional mining district in northern Michigan.

“There’s exploration across the U.P.,” said Kristi Mills, director of Save the Wild U.P. in Marquette. “The district is a concern, this mining district.”

Mills said the initiative would not affect the U.P.’s traditional iron mining operations, which Cliffs Natural Resources and other companies have undertaken for decades.

Employing technological advances, a good deal of resource exploration has been conducted in the U.P. over the past few years by several companies seeking gold, silver, copper and other minerals.

This may yield great potential for further development, which many people in the area see as an opportunity for a resurgence of mining jobs and economic prosperity.

“We could see a revival of mining across the Upper Peninsula not different than what it was, in terms of volume, dating back to the 1930s and 40s,” said Jon LaSalle of Marquette, chairman of the Citizens to Protect Michigan Jobs Committee.

“We stand to have a lot of jobs come out of the exploration and mining of those resources.

“This would really foreclose on the U.P.’s economic future if we were to say no to non-ferrous mining.”

Campbell said green jobs and sustainable jobs have been growing while mining and construction jobs have faltered.

“The problem with mining jobs are they are boom and bust and what’s left over is pollution for our children and our grandchildren,” Campbell said.

Babette Welch of Marquette has been working with Mi Water proponents to raise money to promote the ballot initiative. Alluding to Michigan’s recent successful “Pure Michigan” tourism advertising campaign, Welch said, “I’d like to change the concept of Michigan from being the rust belt to the water belt. I’m interested in preserving our water, having our pure Michigan with pure water.”

Many proponents of the ballot proposal contend clean water is essential to protect Michigan’s tourism industry. Welch said many of the images in the Pure Michigan campaign focused on the state’s beautiful water resources.

Mills said, “If we’re going to move forward into a more sustainable future, then we don’t need this type of mining that threatens our water.”

LaSalle said the U.P. cannot rely on tourism to provide jobs with health insurance, good wages and other benefits attractive enough to keep the region’s children working here after graduation from high school. He said 7 out of 10 people living here could not make a living from tourism.

“We all love to be tourists, but whether we should paint the U.P. into that economic corner, I doubt that,” LaSalle said.

Amy Clickner, chief executive officer of the Lake Superior Community Partnership in Marquette, agreed with LaSalle jobs are greatly important to the region, as is the environment.

“I don’t think it’s jobs at any cost,” Clickner said. “I don’t think there’s any group that thinks the environment is more important than those of us who live here, and to live here you have to have a job.”

On Oct. 3, the Upper Peninsula Association of County Commissioners adopted a resolution against the ballot initiative, with hopes of gaining the support of the state’s other 68 counties. Marquette County Board Chairman Gerald Corkin said the initiative would be detrimental to both the U.P. and Michigan. Corkin expressed concern about the location of the Mi Water campaign’s headquarters.

“It’s always a little scary when you’ve got a downstate group putting out a ballot initiative that mostly affects the U.P., but I guess that’s what we’re dealing with,” Corkin said.

Campbell said given the number of petition signatures needed, and the U.P.’s roughly 300,000 total population, the battle to put the proposal on the ballot must be fought from the Lower Peninsula where there are more people.

Campbell said that while the non-ferrous mining activities may be located in the U.P., the Great Lakes waters fed by the rivers and streams of the region reach the length of the state. Any pollution from mining activities could potentially impact the whole state.

“We all live downstream,” Campbell said.