Sat Dec 1, 2012, 06:55 AM
Scuba (40,044 posts)
Wisconsin: Senate Dems try to head off next Republican mining bill
When they had full control of our State government, the Republicans tried to push through a mining bill that greatly reduced many of our State's environmental protections. When that effort was exposed, they tried to sneak through a bill that left the protections in place, but exempted Geobic Mining from those protections. That bill failed by a single vote.
But the Republicans are determined to let Geobic destroy our environment, and will try again in January, when they regain total control of the State government.
MUST. BE. STOPPED.
It's interesting when our legislature has so seriously drunk the "stop regulation" Kool-Aid that the folks you are trying to write the bills for think you went too far. Apparently even representatives of the mining industry think that Wisconsin law should not go out of its way to be in conflict with Federal regulations.
Honestly, if the Republicans are going to insist on reviving the mining bill in January, perhaps they could at least write a bill that would be workable this time around and that will not just embroil Wisconsin in continual conflicts and lawsuits. And maybe this time they could at least give a passing thought to environmental effects.
Madison - A former industry executive who heads the Wisconsin Mining Association told a Senate panel Thursday that an Assembly mining bill that nearly passed this year needs changes. Tim Sullivan declined to spell out many precise details, to the disappointment of Democrats. But he raised questions about making any modifications in Wisconsin law that would put the state at odds with federal agencies, which play key roles in mining regulation.
The Republican-backed Assembly bill would have made numerous changes to state law and was designed to help ease the way for Gogebic Taconite to construct a $1.5 billion iron ore mine in Ashland and Iron counties.
Sullivan appeared Thursday before the Senate Select Committee on Mining, which plans to offer an alternative to the mining bill that failed to clear the Senate by a single vote in March over worries that it rolled back environmental protections. Mining legislation was one of the top issues of the past session, with many lawmakers eager to advance a bill that would help create hundreds of jobs in an impoverished region of the north and thousands of jobs in indirect employment.
The Senate panel will provide an outline of an alternative to the rejected Assembly version on Dec. 6, and rush to advance a bill in the coming weeks before Republicans regain control of the Senate, said the committee chairman, Sen. Tim Cullen (D-Janesville).
(emphasis mine) Thanks Senate Dems!!!!!!!!!
4 replies, 933 views
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Wisconsin: Senate Dems try to head off next Republican mining bill (Original post)
Response to Scuba (Original post)
Sat Dec 1, 2012, 08:53 AM
madrchsod (58,160 posts)
1. where are the hunters,fisherman,and resort owners?
you would think these people would be very upset to see their livelihood ruined by an ore mine and it`s effects on the surrounding environment.
Response to Scuba (Original post)
Sun Dec 2, 2012, 12:28 PM
ewagner (17,683 posts)
3. I'm familiar with the area
where they want to put the mine....
The major risk is the sulfides in the waste from the iron ore.
At risk is the Bad River which empties into Lake Superior which, of course, is also at risk.
At risk also are the sloughs which are known for their wild rice harvest on the Bad River Reservation of Ojibwa Chippewas
Ashland and Iron Counties have been through the boom-and-bust cycles of resource exploitation for over a hundred years....
Iron Ore, White Pine, copper and Brownstone have all been exploited in the area and the cities of Ironwood, Mellen, Ashland, Hurley have all alternately boomed and busted with the price of the commodities du jour.
If the exploitation is going to take place there are some parameters that MUST BE MET:
1. It cannot permanently damage the natural resources of the region
2. It cannot adversely affect the livelihood or the traditions of the indigenous people of the area.
3. The local governments must be reimbursed for additional infrastructure and boom-growth that will take place.
4. A trust fund needs to be created to assure the viability of the communities after the boom ends.
I think there is more but it escapes me at the moment.