Sulfide Mining
Ever since the possibility of sulfide mining on the Yellow Dog Plains became public, I have closely followed and studied this complex and controversial issue.

I testified in Lansing, attended meetings where the sulfide mining law was written up, then attended over a dozen day-long meetings where the rules were hammered out. I submitted over 100 pages of commentary to the DEQ, in which I detailed my many concerns about what I had observed with my own eyes and ears.

The following are a few of these observations, my personal opinion, in no particular order.

There were glaring weaknesses in the rules process due to the lack of experts present. Bonding was also a problem…this is the financial security should something go wrong. Mining standards were applied inconsistently or hypocritically. The area judged to be affected by the mine was covered insufficiently, and the group was warned to this effect. Finally, the true costs to the public in totality of this mine are very incomplete, and the DEQ’s response is that this is beyond their “purview” (their word).

Moreover, a defeatist attitude or negative philosophy existed at rules regarding the overall protection of our natural resources, which stemmed from a consistent misinterpretation of and fear from a lawsuit on “taking” that cost the state of Michigan 80 million dollars while Engler was governor. This led to a form of intimidation or restriction of free thought and action.

We are told that theoretically, sulfide mining can be done in a totally safe way: this means absolutely no pollution at all (although they argue about the word pollution). OK then, let the theoretical be proven in the real world--this is what the state of Wisconsin effectively says with their sulfide mining moratorium law, after 20 years of debate and direct experience with a sulfide mine. And no real-world sulfide mine has yet proven to be pollution-free.

Interestingly enough, absolutely safe, zero-level pollution standards should apply to the Yellow Dog and Salmon Trout Rivers: these streams possess water of such high purity that to merely remediate them to drinking water standards after removing most of the mining pollutants will be a direct loss and degradation of water quality. But this purity question remained unresolved during the rules sessions--I suspect industry knew it would kill the deal if the superlative water quality were held to be a sticking point.

Finally, I cannot help but wonder if the water quality in the Yellow Dog Plains area has not already been undermined (no pun intended) by industry’s many exploratory mining tests. Ask yourself, WHY.

This sulfide mine cannot go on the Yellow Dog Plains… it will pollute (this is just one reason). I will submit corrective amendments to the law.