Market News |
Lawmakers, group debate merits of reforming state’s mining laws |
 |
 |
Nature's State
Two Democratic lawmakers said Friday that mining laws in Minnesota and Michigan provide more protections for the environment than proposed legislation in Wisconsin, even though Republicans had contended that the neighboring states have better mining laws on their books. A Republican leader and a state business group on Friday dismissed the claims of the Democrats and reiterated their belief that an Assembly mining bill will provide much-needed reform to the state's mining laws. The back-and-forth comes as an Assembly committee decided this week to conduct a second hearing Wednesday in Hurley on a Republican-backed bill that rolls back some environmental protections while giving mining companies more regulatory certainty over the permitting process. AB 426 was introduced in December after months of behind-the-scenes discussions. It was prompted after Hurley-based Gogebic Taconite said it was putting plans for a $1.5 billion iron ore mine on hold until Wisconsin advanced numerous changes in mining regulations that would speed up the environmental review process. "It's ridiculous for the proponents of this bad strip mine bill to point to other states as examples of why we need to change our mining laws when in fact Michigan and Minnesota's laws are much more protective of our shared environmental resources," Rep. Brett Hulsey (D-Madison) said in a statement. Hulsey and Rep. Louis Molepske (D-Stevens Point) released documents Friday from the nonpartisan Legislative Council, showing that in many circumstances, the Assem bly bill would have weaker safeguards and fewer opportunities for public involvement than the other two states. However, a memo from a Legislative Council lawyer, not initially released by the lawmakers, says mining permits are structured differently in each state. "For that reason, comparisons may be of limited utility in some instances," wrote attorney Anna Henning. Nevertheless, Hulsey said Minnesota and Michigan appear to have more safeguards built into their mining bills and have processes for the public to contest a permit before it goes to court. They also don't have laws that presume a mining permit is approved if the Department of Natural Resources doesn't meet a deadline. Scott Manley of the Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce took issue with the accuracy of the Legislative Council report. His group wants the elimination of contested case hearings because it needlessly slows the regulatory process. There were indications on Friday that the mining bill is likely to see changes. John Jagler, spokesman for Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald (R-Horicon), said the bill would be amended as the public continues to weigh in. Sen. Neal Kedzie (R-Elkhorn) agreed with that assessment. Kedzie, who chairs a Senate mining committee, said the Senate version of a mining bill will be different from the Assembly's and will address some of the concerns raised by environmentalists. For example, Kedzie said his committee will try to resolve objections over Assembly Republicans' efforts to remove a procedure known as a contested case hearing, which allows residents to challenge a mining permit. The bottom line, though, is that Wisconsin needs to change mining laws, Fitzgerald said. He noted that a report by the Canadian-based Fraser Institute ranked Wisconsin in last place in the United States in regulatory certainty related to mining. "There is no question this bill will speed up and clarify Wisconsin's archaic mining permitting process," Fitzgerald said in a statement. Authors: mining - Yahoo! News Search Results |
Your link to Wisconsin's land, air and water resources