- From Washington to the state capitol in Madison and a closer
look at environmental news.
Wisconsin's effective 20-year moratorium on sulfide mining
could be lifted by the legislature,
which is on the road to passing a bill to do just that.
The Assembly passed the measure this week and the Senate is
expected to take it up next week.
So would opening up and easing regulations on gold,
silver and nickel mining result in an economic rush in the
state?
We asked the bill's chief sponsor,
Republican State Senator Tom Tiffany,
who joins us now from Rhinelander.
Senator, thanks for being here.
- It's good to be here, Frederica.
By the way, I want to give a shout out to my mom.
She's a regular listener of yours.
Hi, Mom. - Hi, Mom-- ah...Tiffany.
Well, first question to you.
What kind of companies want to invest
in sulfide mining in Wisconsin?
- So I think the initial interest
would be exploratory companies.
They've been very skeptical as we went through this process
because Wisconsin has been closed for business for mining
for the last 20 years.
But I think if we're able to pass this bill on Tuesday,
take up the bill the Assembly just passed last night as you
referred to, I think companies will look at coming to Wisconsin
initially to do exploratory work.
- Could we see a gold rush, in your mind,
in Wisconsin if this passes and is signed into law?
- No.
I think the law is so rigorous here in Wisconsin,
I don't think you'll see a gold rush.
But you're going to see companies that are interested.
Initially the exploratory companies.
And if they're able to find deposits -- and I believe they
will -- that are economically viable,
then you're going to see the mining companies follow them.
But we're looking at at least a couple years down the road
before we could see an active mine operate here in Wisconsin.
- Now, I don't have to tell you that there have been concerns
about the easing of environmental regulations that
are part of this bill.
Why ease those regulations?
- Actually, I don't view it as an easing.
In fact, if people read the analysis by the Legislative
Reference Bureau, they say this does not diminish our
environmental standards at all.
There are no changes in numeric environmental standards.
We want to maintain -- in fact, that was one of my goals along
with Representative Hutton, my coauthor,
is to maintain those high environmental standards here in
Wisconsin but to get rid of the mining moratorium and also make
sure that the financial assurance makes sense for the
long term here in Wisconsin.
- One part of this bill says a mining company would have to
show it is "capable" of running a mine that complies with
environmental laws and doesn't cause pollution.
Now capable is different than proving it,
as under current law.
These are pretty far apart.
But this effective moratorium is something that you want
to get rid of it because is it virtually impossible
to have that proof?
- Yeah. That's correct.
And some people have really honed in on that term "capable."
but if they read the statute further as it's written,
it goes beyond capable.
It says that the regulatory agency, in this case the DNR,
they have to make sure that it will happen,
not that it's just capable.
It has to be capable and it will happen in terms of the
regulations that need to be in place to make sure that we have
-- that a mining company complies with our high
environmental standards.
- Still, environmentalists describe sulfide mining as the
"most toxic industry in the united states with a global
track record of water pollution." How do you respond
to that?
- Oh, mining is a very intrusive activity.
There is no doubt about it.
That's why we have the most rigorous standards for any
industry here in Wisconsin, including if this bill passes,
we will have the toughest standards and the highest levels
of financial assurance will be required to protect the public
for the long term with this bill.
We understand that mining is--
that it needs to be highly regulated.
This bill continues to do that.
- In your bill, groundwater standards are changed,
providing that contamination enforcement doesn't apply below
a certain depth? Why not?
- Well, when you get down to certain depths, like below 1,
000 feet, that water's not potable.
So why insist that certain standards need to be met where
that water isn't even drinkable to begin with?
It's important just to make sure it doesn't get into the
groundwater that's further up.
We make sure that there's high standards for what we refer to
as the design management zone.
Outside of there, in other words, outside of the mine site,
any company that wants to operate here in Wisconsin,
they got to meet our standards, they cannot pollute our
groundwater.
- Describe for me what kinds of jobs you would expect this bill
to bring into Wisconsin.
- Look at examples in our neighboring states.
Governor Dayton over in Minnesota -- by the way,
a Democrat -- he just said we should open up the PolyMet mine
up in northern Minnesota.
That would be their first nonferrous mine,
1,000 direct and indirect jobs, $5 million impact annually.
Over in Michigan, they just opened the Eagle mine
a couple years ago.
They have 450 people working there with good, tough,
rigorous standards.
But it can put a lot of people to work and bring prosperity to
northern Wisconsin, where we've seen declining enrollment in our
schools.
We have a robust tourism industry.
We have a good forest products industry.
We would like to add that to the mix to have greater economic
growth, especially here in northern Wisconsin.
- All right, Senator Tom Tiffany, we leave it there.
Thanks very much.
- It's good to be here, Frederica.
- Senate Democrat on the Sporting Heritage,
Mining and Forestry Committee joins us now with his take on
the bill.
Senator Jon Erpenbach of Middleton joins us by phone.
Senator, thanks for doing so.
- My pleasure.
- So you will vote no on this bill.
Why?
- Well, I can't imagine a scenario at all, Fred,
where I'd vote yes on the legislation.
We are taking something that will definitely protect our
environment in northern Wisconsin where they want to do
the mine, with the "Prove it first" law,
essentially get rid of it.
So we are moving from where the mining company has to prove or
point to another example where there's a safe sulfide mine in
operation or has been closed down and isn't leaking and all
of that stuff, to essentially taking the word of the mining
company that it will be okay.
It really puts our environment at great risk.
- This proof that a mine won't pollute surface water in ten
years of operation or leave contaminants ten years after
closing, that requirement of current law as you just
expressed is essentially this 20-year moratorium.
But is it even possible to come by such proof anywhere
in the U.S. or Canada?
- Well, we should have to do that, don't you think?
At least we think so, those of us who are opposed to the
legislation.
If you want to dig into our soil and you want to remove toxic
materials, and if you want to process it on the site,
you should have to prove to us that there is a technology
available now that will do it in a safe manner.
If you can't prove that, you shouldn't be doing that.
You know, our environment generates a tremendous amount of
money for the state of Wisconsin as far as hunting, fishing,
tourism and all of that.
What we're doing right now for the sake of a handful of jobs is
the idea of just saying to the mining company, "Okay,
if you think this will work, go ahead and do it."
Our environment, you know, isn't this generation's.
We don't own it.
We pass it on to generations to come.
And if they can't prove that there is a very safe way
to do it, they shouldn't be doing it at all.
- Well, environmentally what do you envision if this kind of
mining for gold and copper and zinc and silver is more easily
allowed in the state?
- Well, again, it's a situation where if there's a safe way to
do it, I don't think anybody
would really have a problem with it.
Another aspect of this legislation that has a lot of us
upset is the idea that local control or local input doesn't
matter anymore.
I mean, there are a number, over 200 local officials,
50 environmental groups who are opposed to this,
yet they don't have a say in this whatsoever.
So the legislation doesn't take into account what local units of
government want to do.
The legislation doesn't take into account what environmental
groups want to do.
The legislation is so pro-mining,
it absolutely ignores what anybody in the area of the mine
wants to do.
- All of that aside, and not ignored,
but what about the potential jobs and markets that this could
create in northern Wisconsin?
- That's a whole other issue on the job sides of things.
For example, when they had the Flambeau mine back in the day up
there, it only produced 25 local jobs.
The concern about the mining jobs is that there will be a lot
of miners who will be coming in from out of state to take the
jobs because they have the experience,
they've done this before.
So that's a big concern, not only to those of us in the
Madison area who have to vote on this legislation,
but I also know the concern in northern Wisconsin,
the fact that there's no guarantee that the jobs will
come from folks up in northern Wisconsin,
even if we tried to build that into the legislation.
The author of the legislation wouldn't allow us to do it.
As far as the jobs are concerned,
that's a huge unanswered question.
If there was a guarantee, which there isn't,
I think some people might feel a little bit better about it.
But again, in the end there is no guarantee on jobs.
- Now, back to the environment piece.
Under provisions of this bill, there will be DNR oversight as I
read it, but it's streamlined and in some cases changes
language from requiring that the DNR must issue permits to the
DNR is authorized to impose conditions on such things as
high-capacity wells.
How significant in your mind are these diminutions of
environmental regulations?
- They're very, very significant.
The DNR should be in a position without any sort of
political influence, whatsoever, to do their job.
That's something Senate Democrats have been trying to
protect the DNR from Republican legislators on this particular
issue, the idea that the DNR goes to a high degree of
involvement and has to sign off on a lot of things to
in some circumstances within the legislation,
they'll let the mining company go ahead and do what they're
going to do and the DNR would sign off on it rather than the
DNR do what it's supposed to do.
So in the end, I wish the DNR had much more authority
over this process.
They won't.
If anything, I think they stand to lose quite a bit of their
authority and being in a position to say no when they
feel it's necessary to say no.
- All right. We leave it there.
Senator Jon Erpenbach, thanks for making time.
- All right. Thanks, Fred.