Tag Archives: Legal/Legislative

Attorney General Is Asked to Honor His Pledge

Posted on by

For Immediate Release, June 30, 2011

Contacts:   Jack Parker (Jack Parker and Associates; jprockdoctor@gmail.com)

Laura Gauger (218-724-3004; kettu2010@callta.com)

Attorney General Is Asked to Honor His Pledge

LANSING, Michigan – Michigan’s new Attorney General, Bill Schuette, formerly senior counsel at Warner, Norcross and Judd (the Michigan law firm providing legal counsel to Kennecott Minerals), has announced on his web page his top priorities.  Probably the most exciting is his Public Integrity Unit, which is already in business.

 

The pledge of the Unit is “To uncover and prosecute crimes at all levels of state and local government.”

 

“Yikes! A dream come true,” said Laura Gauger, a conservationist who recently met with EPA officials to discuss the Eagle Project, a new mine proposed by Kennecott Minerals for Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.

 

On June 15th a small group of individuals mailed to Schuette’s office a letter and a document within which was assembled clear evidence that mining experts hired to evaluate the 2006 application for permits to mine at the Kennecott Eagle project agreed that the document was incomplete and inadequate, and constituted endangerment of life, property and environment.

 

“It should, therefore, have been rejected by the regulating agency, MDEQ. There is no doubt,” said Jack Parker, the mining engineer who authored the report sent to Schuette.

 

Dr. David Sainsbury, hired by the DEQ to evaluate the application, characterized the analysis of mine stability in the application as “technically antiquated, sloppy and equivalent to high school level work” and “not considered to be defensible.” But, as Parker pointed out, “MDEQ ignored the conclusions and recommendations of their own expert and those of other experts, and accepted the application. They went on to issue all permits demanded by Kennecott, regardless of protests by public and by experts. Kennecott has been conducting construction activities ever since, illegally but with the consent of MDEQ.”

 

He added, “Federal Agencies claim that they have no jurisdiction over permitting activities because they are covered by state law, mainly Part 632. So they stand by, mute.”

 

Said Gauger, “MDEQ, the regulating agency, has failed to administer Michigan law and has aided and abetted Kennecott in their activities – therefore the matter goes up to the Attorney General.”

 

The letter and document ask the AG to investigate and to uncover the criminal activities and prosecute them, beginning with revocation of all permits and agreements. Schuette wrote the pledge that appears on his web page. Citizens are simply asking him to honor it.

 

To date (June 30th) there has been no response – zero.   “Even common courtesy seems to have fallen by the wayside,” said Gauger. “Will some responsible person downstate please nudge the AG’s elbow and show him his pledge? A gentle reminder …”

Said Parker, “We await the Attorney General’s response.  Delay means that Kennecott gets the green light to continue showing contempt for the law.”

Water and the Public Trust

Posted on by

Posted: April 12, 2010

ONLINE COMMENTARY – Detroit Free Press

Water and the public trust

BY JAMES OLSON

The future of Michigan’s economy and quality of life, like that of other Great Lakes states and provinces, hinges on our ability to preserve the integrity of one-fifth of the world’s fresh surface water as a public trust — that is, publicly controlled and held by government for the benefit of all citizens, not for the possession, ownership, or control to benefit the few.

The public trust not only creates a right in the public as beneficiaries of this trust, but also imposes a duty on the state as trustee for citizens. This duty prohibits the sale, alienation or subordination of water to private interests for private gain. It protects everyone’s use of water, such as drinking, growing crops, swimming, boating, navigation, fishing, hunting, canoeing, kayaking, wildlife, education, research, and manufacturing products or generating electricity.

It does not mean the public can trespass or take over private rights in land, including the right to use water to farm, manufacture or recreate. The public trust is a critical boundary that protects all water users and the economy, especially the economy of farmers, forestry, industry and utilities, fishing and tourism, all of whom share these waters with the public and other landowners and the needs of the environment.

If public trust principles are not reaffirmed (these principles have been around for more than 2,000 years), then the water commons that supports all life and economy here will be diminished in flow, level and quality, and claimed by special or foreign interests under international treaties such as NAFTA. That’s the danger if a limit is not placed on the sale or export of water out of our watersheds and the Great Lakes Basin.

In other words, industries and the jobs they produce, like farming — Michigan’s second largest industry — will be forced to compete with the infinite demand for water anywhere in the country, continent or the world. Imagine owning land and depending on water, and suddenly having to compete with those willing to pay more money for the water than we can afford for growing our food, and watching it being sold and drained from beneath our feet gallon by gallon.

This is why everyone in Michigan, regardless of political persuasion, should support the passage by the Legislature of state Rep. Dan Scripps’ proposed public trust bill (House Bill 5319).

In less than 30 years, half the world’s population will be without safe drinking water if current water waste and pollution are not curbed. Recent U.N. and business surveys demonstrate that world demand for freshwater will outstrip supply by more than 30%.

Why would Michigan leave itself open for the rest of the world to press a finger on the map, buy land, and come here and ship the water somewhere else?

There will be naysayers, like those falsely claiming that they own groundwater or have a private property right to sell water for any reason at any price without regard to the effect on a neighbor, a lake or stream, or the public. But these claims are misplaced.

There is only a right to use water in connection with use of land or needs of a community in a watershed or basin. No one person or landowner owns the water any more than the air, the Great Lakes, a river, or the fish, nor should we ever recognize such right.

Landowners, farmers and businesses enjoy the right to use the water without diminishing or selling it off at the expense of everyone who shares the use of the water commons.

House Bill 5319 declares water a public trust, imposes a duty on the state and government, as the trustee, to protect water and related natural resources, and prohibits the government or anyone from violating the public trust principles. Water cannot be sold for a private purpose and profit as if water were a product or commodity; it cannot be transferred or diverted if it impairs the use or common rights of the public in water, or is used to subsidize a few at the expense of all.

The bill also grants each citizen the right to bring a lawsuit in the courts if the government or another violates the public trust duty and principles. What good is a public trust or right, if citizens cannot enforce it when government violates its public trust duty? If citizens can act, we will maintain public control, respect private use, and prohibit the private abuse or export of freshwater, basic to the survival of all of us.

James Olson is a Traverse City attorney.

Additional Documents

Public Trust Press Release World Water Day event

Public Trust Bill ACTION ALERT 3-19-2010- final (2) (2)

Public Trust Bill Action Alert


Article available on http://www.freep.com/article/201004120300/OPINION05/100409057

TAKE ACTION: Help Stop New Kennecott Exploration

Posted on by

Proposed Mineral LeaseRecently the DNRE announced a public comment period for leasing over 4000 acres of mineral rights to Kennecott for further exploration. The exploration would take place in Southern Marquette County, Northern Dickinson County, and Southern Houghton County.

New Sulfide Mining Exploration

Proposed Mineral Lease Will Affect

Marquette County:

  • T43n-R25w Sec. 18 & 19
  • T43n-R26w Sec. 1, 6-10, 14, & 18

Dickinson County:

  • T43n-R27w Sec. 1, 3, 4-6, 9, & 13

Houghton County:

  • T47n-R36w Sec. 16

Public Comment Should Be Sent To:

Tom Hoane
FMD DNRE
P.O. Box 30452
Lansing, MI
48909-7952

Gov. Granholm Announces Interim Director for Department of Environmental Quality

Posted on by

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 22, 2009
Contact: Liz Boyd
517-335-6397

LANSING – Governor Jennifer M. Granholm today announced that Jim Sygo will serve as interim director of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) beginning January 5, 2010, following Director Steven Chester’s announcement today that he will leave his post on January 4. Sygo currently serves as deputy director for the DEQ.

“As we continue to prepare for the new department of Natural Resources and Environment, we need continued leadership, and Jim is in an excellent position to spearhead the department,” Granholm said.

In announcing Sygo as interim director of the department, Governor Granholm offered praise for Chester’s commitment to Michigan’s proud traditions of environmental stewardship during his tenure as director.

“Steve Chester believes in the premise that improving our environment goes hand-in-hand with improving our economy,” Granholm said. “He has fought for the ideals that so many Michigan citizens believe in: clean air, healthy forests, and unparalleled water resources, all of which help to define who we are as a people and who we are as a state.”

“On a personal level, I am indebted to Steve for his service,” Granholm added. “As one of my original Cabinet members, he has stood with us to serve the people of this great state during a time of economic upheaval and uncertainty. He has been both counselor and friend, and I will miss him as he begins to write the next chapter in his personal career.”

Director Chester will be leaving to return to the practice of law, specializing in environmental counseling and litigation. Director Chester has served as head of the DEQ since 2003 and has overseen numerous reforms of the department’s operations that have streamlined services and made it one of the most efficient and effective environmental agencies in the nation. Chester also championed significant changes to Michigan’s environmental laws that will ensure Michigan’s natural resources will remain protected for generations to come.

Granholm’s appointment of Jim Sygo to serve as interim director will be in effect through January 17, 2010, when Executive Order 2009-45 will combine the operations of the DEQ and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) within the newly created Department of Natural Resources and Environment (DNRE). The governor stated she will appoint a permanent director of that new department at a later date.

Mining company surrenders claim to native land in $5-million settlement, opening Ontario’s far north

Posted on by

TORONTO — From Tuesday’s Globe and Mail Published on Tuesday, Dec. 15, 2009

The Ontario government is signaling that the province’s far north is open to business with the settlement of a lawsuit pitting a tiny exploration company against a native band.

The government announced yesterday that it will pay Platinex Inc. $5-million to surrender its exploration claims near Big Trout Lake in Northern Ontario. Platinex has also agreed to drop its lawsuit against the province and Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug First Nation, a fly-in community 600 kilometres north of Thunder Bay that vowed to stop the company from drilling for platinum on its traditional lands.

The settlement comes just as pressure is growing to open up the northern wilderness. Fast-growing, emerging countries such as China and India are helping to drive up commodity prices, and that has led to unprecedented exploration in Ontario. The number of exploration claims in the Ring of Fire, a mining exploration area in the James Bay Lowlands of Northern Ontario, has more than doubled to 8,200 over the past two years.

The settlement lifts the uncertainty that has hung over those proposals.
“There’s no question that finding a resolution to this very, very difficult situation brings closure to a chapter that certainly in the history of the province is a relief for almost everyone,” Michael Gravelle, Minister of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry, said in an interview yesterday.

Anna Baggio, director of conservation land-use planning with Wildlands League, an environmental group working with the community known as KI, said she is relieved at the settlement, but has mixed feelings about the money Platinex will receive.
“Nobody likes to see bad behaviour rewarded,” she said yesterday.

KI chief Donny Morris and five other residents were sentenced to six months in jail last year for disobeying a court order to allow the Toronto-based company to explore on their territory. After they served almost 10 weeks, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in May, 2008, that the sentences were too harsh and reduced them to time served.

Christopher Reid, a lawyer representing KI, said the dispute could have been avoided if the government had negotiated a land-use plan with the community.
“KI never wanted taxpayers to have to pick up the tab for this,” he said.

The province has since reformed the province’s mining rules, but the portion that would introduce a new mechanism for addressing disputes has not yet been proclaimed into law.
Ms. Baggio said the rapid increase in mining activity is turning the boreal forest into a “wild west free for all,” where exploration is taking precedence over protecting a region that has remained virtually undisturbed by human activity since the glaciers retreated.

While the Ontario government has declared a huge swath of land in the boreal forest off limits to industrial development, it has not yet drawn the boundaries for the areas to be protected.

Western Shoshone Prevail at Ninth Circuit Court on Mining Sacred Land

Posted on by

Posted by Ahni on December 6, 2009

In a major ruling last week, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals blocked construction of the largest open pit gold mine in the United States, Barrick Gold’s Cortez Hills gold mine.
Reversing a January 2009 ruling by the U.S. District Court, the Ninth Circuit concluded that enjoining the mine was in the public interest because of the “irreparable environmental harm threatened by this massive project.”
In part, the mine would:
* Disturb (devastate) 6,792 acres of land, including a heap leach and waste rock facilities covering much of the Horse Canyon pass just south of Tenabo, and extending east into Grass Valley
* Pump groundwater from around the pit with an average dewatering rate of approximately 1.8 billion gallons per year for ten years to keep it dry for mining
* Create a drop in the water table of 1,600 feet surrounding the pit, decreasing to 10 feet at 3-4 mile radius of the pit
* Potentially impact the 50 springs and seeps in the project area with 28 in the Horse Canyon area; however, according to the BLM draft analysis none of the 28 springs are expected to be impacted.
The Ninth Circuit Court also found that the Plaintiffs—the South Fork Band Council of Western Shoshone, the Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians, the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe, the Western Shoshone Defense Project, and Great Basin Resource Watch (GBRW)—would likely succeed in their claims that the US Bureau of Land Management (BLM) violated public land laws and environmental laws when it approved the project one year ago.
“We are pleased with the Ninth Circuit’s ruling,” says Larson Bill, a Tribal Council Member from the South Fork Band Council and Te-Moak Tribe. “This is a result of Western Shoshone people remaining committed to protecting our land and environment. It is unfortunate that the company decided to push this forward without addressing all concerns, especially those of the Shoshone people.”
In addition to the environment, Barrick Gold’s project would severely undermine the Shoshone’s culture and Spiritual practices.
Located in the traditional territory of the Shoshone Nation, Mount Tenabo is ” considered a traditional locus of power and source of life, and figures in creation stories and world renewal,” notes one report by BLM. “As the tallest mountain in the area – the most likely to capture snow and generate water to grow pinon and nourish life – it is literally a life-giver. Water is to earth what blood is to the body, and these subterranean waterways are likened to the earth’s arteries and veins”
It is also paramount to Shoshone creation stories, Spirit life, and several medicinal and ceremonial plants. The region is still used regularly by the Shoshone for medicine gathering, hunting rituals, fasting and other spiritual practices.
In their appeal, the plaintiffs argued that Barrick Gold’s mine would violate the Western Shoshone’s religious rights and “permanently eliminate” their religious and cultural uses in and around the site.
Unfortunately, the Ninth Circuit deferred to the U.S. District Court’s decision, which found the mine would not cause a “substantial burden” to the Shoshone’s religious experience because they would continue to have access to the top of Mount Tenabo.
During the court’s proceedings, “Barrick and the BLM argue(d) that archaeological surveys prove the mine site is not a sacred site and while there is evidence of religious activity at the top of Mount Tenabo, at the White Cliffs and in Horse Canyon, none appears where the open-pit mine is being developed,” explains Amy Corbin, in her 2007/09 report on Mount Tenabo for the Sacred Lands Film Project.
However, “paying attention only to archeological sites — excavating them and then conveying artifacts to museums or universities — is not the same as protecting living spiritual practices, of which there are often not material traces” she continues. The decision itself “points clearly to the fact that the current U.S. religious freedom laws do not take into account the practices of land-based spirituality.”
Nevertheless, with the Ninth Circuit’s injunction, there’s a small chance the region can still be safeguarded for future generations.
That is, providing the US Government can put Barrick Gold in its place. Just one day after the ruling, the company announced that it will not cease construction of the gold mine.

For more information on the Cortez Hills Project, Mount Tenabo, and the legal challenge go to www.gbrw.org and www.wsdp.org. The Ninth Circuit Decision can be downloaded at: http://www.gbrw.org/images/stories/publications/tenabo/Ninth_Circuit_injunction_ruling_12-3-09.pdf

Ballot Initiative Needed

Posted on by

Chuck Glossenger, Big Bay
POSTED: December 5, 2009

To the Mining Journal editor:

In a recent statement, local politicians Sen. Mike Prusi, D-Ishpeming, Sen. Jason Allen, R-Traverse City, Rep. Mike Lahti D-Hancock, Rep. Steve Lindberg, D-Marquette, and Rep. Judy Nerat, D-Wallace, accused sponsors of a proposed 2010 ballot measure on mining of talking about uranium mining in order to scare people and destroy the mining industry.
This irresponsible statement tells us more about politicians than the group, Save Our Water, and the ballot initiative. Everyone in Marquette County who has followed the mining controversy knows in 2003 local mining groups were telling anyone with ears that Michigan didn’t have regulations covering sulfide mining or underground mining.
Then Gov. Granholm created a mining work group to create new legislation. The playing field wasn’t even from the beginning, as the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality told the group that a Wisconsin-type mining law wouldn’t even be discussed.
If Michigan’s new mining laws had a regulation that a sulfide mine had to be at least 2,000 feet from a body of water, we wouldn’t need a ballot initiative. If Michigan’s new mining laws had a regulation requiring an example of another sulfide mine that operated and closed without polluting, we wouldn’t need a ballot initiative.
Why do I as a homeowner have to be so many feet from water to build a house or put in a septic field and a mining corporation doesn’t have such a restriction?
When a group of politicians get together from supposedly different parties and recite the same mantra, it tells us there is only one party in America and that’s the Corporate Party. Both Republicans and Democrats are conduits for that party.
Have you ever wondered why the wealthiest 5 percent of our nation controls 95 percent of everything? By controlling politicians to secure the legislation they want with exemptions, loopholes and financial breaks. The top U.S. corporations know this and contribute equally to Democrats and Republicans. Currently there are 250 former congressman and senior government officials who are active lobbyists.
A recent report from the Center for Responsive Politics describing the wealth of members of Congress indicates that 237 members of Congress currently are millionaires. That’s 44 percent of the body – compared to about 1 percent of Americans over all.
The time for a legitimate second party is now, and without one we will never have anything resembling a green economy.

Lawmakers downplay possibility of U.P. uranium mining

Posted on by

But mining company spent more than $700,000 on U.P. uranium exploration in 2009

By Michigan Messenger’s: Eartha Jane Melzer 11/13/09 2:12 PM

http://michiganmessenger.com/30150/lawmakers-downplay-possibility-of-u-p-uranium-mining

Upper Peninsula lawmakers are railing against a ballot measure to create standards for uranium mining, claiming that no uranium ore has been discovered in Michigan. However, a Canadian uranium mining company says it’s found uranium in the U.P., scientists have warned that its uranium exploration could harm groundwater, and the Western Upper Peninsula Health Department is warning that residential wells in several counties already have elevated levels of the radioactive metal.

In a statement this week, Sen. Mike Prusi (D-Ishpeming), Sen. Jason Allen (R-Traverse City), Rep. Mike Lahti (D-Hancock), Rep. Steve Lindberg (D-Marquette) and Rep. Judy Nerat (D-Wallace) accused sponsors of a proposed 2010 ballot measure on mining of talking about uranium mining in order to scare people and destroy the mining industry.

“No ‘uranium mining’ activity has ever existed,” the lawmakers stated, “nor has any uranium ore been discovered, in our state.”

However, according to a July 2009 financial report from Bitterroot Resources Ltd., a 17-hole uranium exploration drilling program concluded last December “identified several areas which warrant additional exploration.” The company said it spent $717,403 on Michigan uranium exploration in the first nine months of 2009.

On the sections of the company website devoted to its Upper Peninsula uranium exploration Bitterroot states that early drilling “encountered a 0.6-metre interval containing 75 ppm U, including two 0.12-metre intervals containing more than 100 ppm U. These intervals are significant as they confirm that uranium-bearing fluids have been mobile within the Jacobsville Basin.”

The presence of uranium in this area is also known to local health officials. The Western Upper Peninsula Health Department has issued a uranium advisory.

“Scattered drinking water sources in the Western Upper Peninsula have been found to contain uranium in amounts that exceed the federal Maximum Contaminant Level,” the health department states. “The source of the uranium may be the shale deposits that run inconsistently through the Jacobsville Sandstone formation. Water supplies with radioactivity have been found in Baraga, Gogebic, Houghton, Keweenaw, and Ontonagon Counties.”

The department states that uranium-laced water may be associated with kidney damage and cancer and that people with wells constructed in the Jacobsville Sandstone formation should have their water tested for uranium.

Last year the National Forest Service granted permits for uranium exploration in the Ottawa National Forest and spokeswoman Lee Ann Atkinson told Michigan Messenger at the time that 50 test wells were authorized.

During the public comment period on this uranium exploration proposal by Trans Superior Resources, a subsidiary of Bitterroot Resources Ltd., Todd Warner, natural resources director for the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, noted that the company’s plan to bury drill cuttings on Forest Service land could result in radioactive compounds leaching into area groundwater.

“If a uranium ore body is disturbed in its natural geological setting, radium and polonium will inevitably be released into our environment,” Warner wrote in comments entered into the record. “The Forest Service has not noted that any additional or added precautions or testing is being required due to the potential or likely presence of uranium, radium, polonium and other radioactive elements.”

Because of the risk of chemical reactions that can cause minerals to contaminate the water supply, metallic mining requires permits from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, said Hal Fitch, director of the agency’s Office of Geological Survey. But due to what Fitch called “a weakness in the statute,” exploratory mineral wells in the rocky western half of the Upper Peninsula are exempt from permit requirements.

In the case of the uranium test wells in the national forests, the DEQ will visit and observe operations after being voluntarily contacted by the mining company, Fitch said.

The Michigan Save Our Water Committee says U.P. lawmakers are mischaracterizing their proposed ballot initiative.

“We are not talking about banning future uranium mining,” said spokesman Duncan Campbell. “We don’t have any regulations covering uranium, all we are asking that we have some regulations to cover uranium.”

Read more!

Houghton Mining Gazette writer, Kurt Hauglie covers the issue:

http://www.mininggazette.com/page/content.detail/id/507472.html

Gail Griffith responds to Shawn Carlson Letter to Mining Journal Editor:

No U.P Uranium?

In a recent letter to the Mining Journal titled “No U.P. Uranium”, there is a statement:  “There is no uranium ore anywhere in the state of Michigan.” The important word here is “ore”, which is defined as a naturally occurring material that can be profitably mined. This does not mean that there is no uranium in the state of Michigan. It means that no one has yet found of a profitable ore body.

The evidence for the presence  of uranium in the U.P. is strong.  The Western Upper Peninsula Health Department has issued an advisory for people with water wells in the Jacobsville sandstone formation in the Keweenaw Peninsula to have their water tested for uranium, because a 2003 study by a group at Michigan Tech found that about 25% of 300 wells tested in the area had levels of uranium  above what is considered safe by the national Environmental Protection Agency.

Since 2003, Bitterroot Resources has been exploring for uranium in the Ottawa State Forest in the Jacobsville sandstone.  In 2007, they found small amounts of uranium in drill cores.  Cameco, a Canadian company that is  one of the world’s biggest uranium suppliers, has given Bitterroot $1.7 million to do further exploration on the site.  New drilling was done in 2008, and the results are now being evaluated for follow-up.  Given that uranium prices have gone down from a peak of $140/lb. in 2004 to about $45/lb. today, even if this uranium body is large or rich, it may not be profitable now, but may well be later.

Mining for uranium is currently done by an process called in-situ leaching (ISL). This method does’t bring any ore to the surface, but rather pumps chemically-treated water into and through the ore body to dissolve the uranium and brings it to the surface, where it is extracted.  Treated water is pumped back in to dissolve more uranium.  The question is, where does the water come from, and where does it go?

Uranium deposits suitable for ISL are found  in permeable sand or sandstone that must be protected above and below by impermeable rock, and which are below the water table. This means that if there is any connection or leakage into any other water source, that water will be contaminated with uranium.   Further, the water used in the ISL process can’t be effectively restored to natural groundwater purity.

Michigan’s new Nonferrous Metallic Mineral Mining law.was written to deal with the threat of pollution by metallic sulfide ores and wastes that can create acidic, metal- laden water that must be carefully purified before being  released into the environment.  During the rule-making process, it was pointed out that uranium is a nonferrous metal, and could be mined under these rules, even though there were no provisions for the special precautions needed for radioactive materials.  The response by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality was that, yes, the “rules would apply to uranium mining, however, if uranium mining appears imminent, then the DEQ will review these rules for their adequacy to regulate such mining and determine revisions that may be needed”.

Part of the proposed  MIWater Ballot Initiative language speaks to this issue by  prohibiting uranium mining until new rules have been established.  It is clear that such rules are needed now, and a vote for the initiative would ensure this.  It’s all about our  water.

Gail Griffith
Retired Professor of Chemistry
Northern Michigan University

No U.P. uranium

To the Journal editor:
We’ve all heard the arguments. “Michigan must preserve its proud mining heritage.” Then the counter: “Our environment must be protected from sulfide and uranium mining.” And so the tired argument trudges on, the latest installment of which being known as the MiWater Ballot Initiative. An argument with no clear victors, perhaps for good reason – both sides have some fair points: mining is a valuable industry, but the environment is important, too. If only there were a tie-breaker, something to tip the scales and guide the undecided. Well perhaps there is – the issue of education.

One of the goals of the MiWater Ballot Initiative is to restrict “uranium mining” in Michigan, in response to local activists’ proclamations that “uranium ore” has already been found and that mining could be imminent; one popular calendar says uranium mining has already been proposed and another Web site calls it planned. The problem is, none of that is true.
As contributor to the “Mineralogy of Michigan” textbook and recipient of the Friends of Mineralogy award for a study of Michigan uranium, I present my knowledge as authoritative, so here are the scientific facts.

There is no uranium ore anywhere in the state of Michigan. And since there is no uranium ore, there are neither proposed uranium mines, nor planned uranium mines; statements to the contrary are absurd.

Yes, there has been uranium exploration throughout Michigan since about 1949, but this work has found squat; in the words of one geologist, “If you took all of Michigan’s uranium and threw in 50 cents, you’d have enough to buy a cup of coffee.” Michigan simply lacks mineable uranium deposits, and the finest mineralogists alive today (e.g., George Robinson, Michigan Tech University) do not believe any will be found – ever.

One of the concerns of environmental activism is the lack of credible scientific information within these groups, as exposed in a recent Newsweek article (April 2008). And that’s a problem. At a time when the greatest questions facing us globally (climate change), nationally (energy independence) and locally (mining) all involve science, we owe it to our children to teach real science – not pseudoscience.

I therefore ask readers to oppose this new ballot initiative. Supporting it isn’t necessarily a vote to protect Michigan water; that remains to be seen. But it is a vote against the integrity of science education. And that’s unacceptable because it damages us all.

Shawn M. Carlson
Adjunct Instructor
Northern Michigan University
Marquette

Wetlands program saved, but state budget cuts expected

Posted on by

October 1, 2009

James Clift, 517-256-0553

Lansing — The legislature will return to Lansing today to put the final touches on a bill that will keep Michigan’s wetlands program running at the state level for an additional three years.  Proposals had been made to send the program back to the federal government to operate on a limited basis.

Environmental groups applaud the efforts of the legislature to protect these critical resources. Wetlands protect neighborhoods from flooding, cleanse water before it reaches lakes and streams, safeguard the purity of well water and provide vital habitat for fish and other water-dependent wildlife.

“Keeping the program in Michigan is certainly an environmental issue, but it is also a very pressing economic issue,” said Grenetta Thomassey, policy director at Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council. “Sen. Patty Birkholz, Rep. Rebekah Warren, and Rep. Dan Scripps all understood that and worked tirelessly to help keep the needed perspective.  Relinquishing the program would have meant unacceptable work-related delays as our state climbs out of the recession, in addition to increasing the likelihood of damaging environmental violations.  And keeping the program here, and funded, keeps our prospects much higher for being eligible for Great Lakes Restoration funding from the federal government which will also create jobs as it restores wetlands and provides clean water infrastructure.”

Unfortunately, the retention of the wetland program is the only good news for natural resources in a budget deal that includes drastic reductions in general fund support for Michigan’s public health, water protection and natural resources management. In the case of the Department of Environmental Quality the cuts amount to a 39% reduction in general funds for program designed to protect public health. We believe the legislature must explore more thoroughly options that increase revenues, either through the elimination of outdated tax breaks or new sources.

MEC President Chris Kolb noted that the budget does not give away Michigan’s wetland protection program to the federal government – a positive and important development. But he said even that silver lining is not enough to outweigh the damage that draconian budget cuts will have.