Damakant Jayshi
Supervisors and residents opposed to a proposal that would allow exploratory sulfide drilling in Marathon County withdrew their resolution Tuesday in order to rewrite its language and intent.
Tuesday brought sharp debate at the Environmental Resources Committee meeting over potential mining at Easton Reef Deposit. Much of the conversation centered on the resolution, prepared by residents, that said Marathon County opposes the current state permitting process for metallic sulfide mining in Wisconsin, including metallic mineral exploration and to repeal Wisconsin Act 134 that ended a moratorium law that had imposed stringent conditions on companies seeking to explore the state for minerals. The resolution, on page 52 of the meeting packet, expressed concerns over environmental damage and contamination of drinking water and impact on property value, among others.
Committee members in favor of the drilling cited the potential for positive economic development, and their belief in the company’s commitment to take safeguards against pollution and concerns over upstaging state-level elected officials. Those opposed to the proposal raised concerns over contamination of groundwater and the environment, said that any job gain would last only for a short term because mining would stop after some years. They also cited the need for the county to decide its own affairs, including ensuring clean water.
Green Light Metals, Inc., a Canada-based company, has secured a statewide license for exploration from the state’s Department of Natural Resources. Its application for drilling is still pending with Marathon County’s Conservation, Planning and Zoning department. Green Light says the fears over contamination are unfounded. It is exploring the potential for an open-pit gold mine.
All five residents who spoke during the public comments period of the Environmental Resources Committee meeting on Tuesday opposed the company’s plan and asked the committee to deny the drilling request. Some residents reminded committee members about the county’s comprehensive plan that commits to protecting clean water. Some residents who oppose the proposed drilling have attended several meetings so far, asking elected officials each time to reject the drilling request.
They also said their resolution will actually help the county reclaim its authority over mining matters that was taken away by the passage of WI Act 134. They submitted documents, including resolutions from two Indian tribes, Ho Chunk Nation and the Menominee Nation, and a “petition with 500 signatures” opposing the drilling request. The Ho Chunk Nation tribe has opposed the proposed drilling.
On Tuesday, those residents saw support from Supervisor Jean Maszk. The Dist. 26 supervisor, who is not a member of ER Committee, requested County Board Chair Kurt Gibbs to place the draft resolution on the agenda. Marathon County board rule 3(b) allows any county supervisor to have an item placed on any committee agenda by requesting the chair of the County Board who then refers the matter to the appropriate committee.
“I have no clue what the next step will be,” Maszk told Wausau Pilot & Review after she decided to withdraw the resolution. “In speaking with the authors of the resolution, I get the idea that they would like to step back for a little bit and regroup. I agree.”
At the meeting, she said it was a good conversation and a good start to reclaiming local control. She also said she would approach state legislators.
Maszk also accused committee Chair Jacob Langenhahn of lacking professionalism. “Instead of being a leader and facilitating a meeting, giving guidance as to a more proper procedure, it was more of an attack.”
Langenhahn, however, challenged that characterization. He said that he ensures that the committee meetings are conducted in an orderly fashion.
“I have the highest respect for meeting decorum, and it is something I take pride in,” the committee chair told this newspaper. He also provided a link to the committee meeting video for anyone interested in reviewing it.
During the meeting, Langenhahn posed a series of questions to Maszk, including whether she approached anyone at the state legislature. At one point he said she was speculating over environmental and water pollution that would be caused by drilling for which permit was yet to be issued. He went on to ask: “Would it be fair to say if a mining operation…did not pollute that you’d also have to recognize the potential economic boost that it could have to the region if it were to operate effectively?”
Supervisor Maszk did not accept that contention, saying “mining will pollute, no matter what. Period.”
Another supervisor, Tony Sherfinski, also spoke about jobs and the economic gain that could happen due to the drilling in the county and said the resolution was headed in the opposite direction. Maszk replied that any jobs gain due to mining would be temporary since “mining is a short-term thing.”
Supervisor David Oberbeck spoke against the drilling proposal, saying it will contaminate water. He disagreed with Langenhahn and some other committee members who said that the resolution was a result of politics. He added that the state of Wisconsin has a great resource – water – which is worth more than gold. The Dist. 9 supervisor also pointed out that they were an “environmental resources” committee and not a Metallic Mining Committee.
But Board Chair Gibbs expressed some caution about the resolution.
The way the resolution is currently written, he pointed out, it contradicts the county’s own ordinance. That means the county would either have to recognize that the resolution contradicted their current ordinance or repeal the ordinance. “If we repeal our ordinance then we will have nothing that we would be able to do in any sulfide potential mine that may come about, if it comes about,” Gibbs said.
He added there has been proof that sulfide mine can be done responsibly. He cited the Flambeau mine, which was operational between 1993 an 1997.
However, that “success” is highly disputed, with reports about high levels of toxic pollutants found in water samples on the site, a lawsuit against the Flambeau Mining Company for allegedly violating the Clean Water Act, and a tributary of the Flambeau River, Stream ‘C’, described as “impaired waters.”
At the meeting, chair Langenhahn raised the prospect of “jeopardizing local control” if the resolution goes to the state. Later he said,”we have a very small window right now in regards to the monitoring of the operation,” adding “we can’t go more than what the state has and we can’t preempt the state.”
When asked to clarify whether he meant the passing of the resolution or the denial of the permit to the company, would invite such a consequence Langenhahn said, “I think there may be a misunderstanding as to what I said. My comment was in regard to our ability to preempt the state. We cannot have stricter regulations than what the state standards are.”
Committee member Marilyn Bhend, who represents the Towns & Villages Association, also said the county cannot be more restrictive than the state and suggested approaching the state Legislature instead.
When asked whether the county would lose oversight authority if it asked for reinstatement of moratorium on metallic mining, Corporation Counsel Michael Puerner said that he is not aware of any legal authority that would trigger a county to lose its own legal authority to monitor or regulate under these circumstances.
“The discussion at the (ER Committee) meeting involved political pressures but did not reference any specific legal barrier,” Puerner said. “I do not believe that the submission of such a request to the state legislature would legally impair the county’s ability to regulate under its existing ordinance. If the legislature were to make changes to state law, the county would be limited to regulating in a manner consistent with, and not more restrictive than, state law as written.”
Puener also said that unless the company’s application is incomplete or in violation of state law, it cannot be denied a permit.
Since Supervisor Maszk said she would work on the resolution, no action was taken on it.
[To watch the meeting video, click here. The discussion on the resolution begins at the 1:27:57 mark. Residents who addressed the committee during public spoke at the beginning of the meeting.]
