Water Initiative All About Banning Mining
Michigan voters should not be fooled by the latest effort of environmental groups, called "Mi Water," that purportedly would regulate mining in the state. The ballot proposal does not regulate mining as much as it effectively bans future mining in Michigan.
The Mi Water proposal heaps numerous new requirements on the mining industry, including a ban on mining in areas less than 2,000 feet from a body of water (which, as it happens, describes most of the Upper Peninsula). Additionally, the proposal calls for numerous and cumbersome administrative requirements for assessments, notifications and permit reviews.
If the proposal does not kill mining by a thousand cuts with expensive and time-consuming bureaucratic processes, it definitely will drive a stake through the heart of future mining in ore-rich Michigan. The hand wielding that stake is the proposal's requirement that before a mine can be built it has to be shown that a similar mine in a similar environment elsewhere in the United States and Canada has not harmed the environment in the previous five years of operation - essentially a requirement to prove a negative.
Michigan legislators passed a 2004 sulfide mining law that brought together a coalition of environmental groups, mining interests and others that agreed to a set of regulations that many consider to be the toughest in the United States. One has to now wonder if environmental groups agreed to the legislation because they believed the mining industry could not comply with its strict requirements. The Kennecott Eagle nickel mine near Marquette, however, met those requirements and is moving forward, much to the dismay of environmental groups who were at the table when the sulfide mining law was crafted.
There is nothing more damaging to job creation in Michigan than regulatory uncertainty. The 2004 sulfide mining law was supposed to provide certainty. Mi Water is not only poor environmental policy, it further damages Michigan's reputation as a stable place to do business.
Current Michigan mining law protects the state's water resources and allows the mining industry to invest in the state, providing desperately needed jobs, especially in the U.P. where unemployment ranges from 10.3 percent to 23.8 percent. Hopefully, Michigan residents will see Mi Water for what is, an anti-development proposal that has little to do with protecting the environment.
Permission to reprint this blog post in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author (or authors) and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy are properly cited. Permission to reprint any comments below is granted only for those comments written by Mackinac Center policy staff.


















Whoopsie!
Hey Russ - too bad you posted this before you knew what the ballot was about. Your rhetoric might have meant more. . .
You say it "effectively bans future mining in Michigan."
If you had read it you would realize it is an amendment to Part 632, which you discuss, however briefly, above. It affects metallic sulfide mining, not all mining.
When the Government of Norway divested from Rio Tinto (Kennecott's parent company) last year, they were one of the companies largest investors. Noting that acid mine drainage is one of the most persistent environmental problems today (from metallic sulfide mining), Norway pulled its roughly $900 million, calling the company "grossly unethical."
You see, there is a difference in mining techniques. You should know that from heading the DEQ. Then again, you may have been too busy hiding Dow Chemical documents to focus much on metal mining.
Also, you say that Kennecott met Part 632 requirements. The State's rock mechanics expert, Sainsbury, called the project "technically antiquated, sloppy and equivalent to high school level work," among other things. The DEQ's coordinator for the review of the project said in court, and under oath, that neither he or the agency followed key components of the law when approving the application.
Did Kennecott meet the requirements or just get their application approved by an incompetent and obsequious state agency?
Sorry for the reality check.
Enjoyed the article.