County Board should be on record backing nonferrous mining in region.
Editorial - Mesabi Daily News 12/15/11
Five commissioners wimp out on resolution; Nelson, Forsman stand firm.
The St. Louis County Board on Tuesday was comprised of two steadfast commissioners and five wimps when it came to an issue
of mining job creation in northeastern Minnesota.
It was an absolute shameful act on Tuesday when only two certain votes — Commissioners Keith Nelson of Fayal Township and Mike Forsman of Ely — could be found for a resolution in support of copper/nickel/precious minerals mining on the Iron Range.
The PolyMet project, currently in the final stage of the Environmental Impact Statement process, and other ventures such as Twin Metals would create several thousand permanent jobs and thousands more in construction work and spin-off employment.
Yet five of the commissioners, in varying degrees, displayed negligence regarding the need for jobs that these mining projects will bring to St. Louis County.
There is absolutely nothing surprising about the anti-mining and
anti-Range sentiment of Commissioners Peg Sweeney, Steve O’Neill and Frank Jewell. They show their true colors in that regard often. They love the resources and dollars that flow from the Iron Range to Duluth, but when it comes to really showing support for the Range they are usually Missing in Action.
Commissioner Chris Dahlberg of Duluth, in a post-meeting interview, said he was supportive of mining, but then hedged. He said such “opinion” resolutions placed before the board distract from what should be the government body’s focus.
Huh? A resolution in a support of a project that would bring jobs and revenue to the county is not something that should be part of the board’s focus? Come on commissioner, if you’re for mining as you say, then vote for it.
Then there’s Commissioner Steve Raukar from — HIBBING ON THE
IRON RANGE. Certainly he must be someone who understands the
importance of mining and the jobs it produces to the Iron Range specifically and the county in general and would back this resolution? Well, guess again. Raukar, in a post-meeting interview, said the nonferrous mining resolution is “not a time-sensitive issue” and such mining is regulated by the state
and federal agencies and a consensus of the board was that more dialogue is needed.
Ruakar must have gotten an A-plus in “Bureaucracy 101.” That is the most evasive bureaucratic answer on the issue possible.
Not “time-sensitive”? It’s only the biggest jobs issue that’s been facing the county for some time and is at a critical crossroads when it comes to public support. And it’s an issue many
other elected government bodies across the Range have backed with
resolutions of support. More dialogue needed? This thing has been dialogued to death.
Come on commissioner, take a firm stand one way or another. Waffles are good for breakfast; but waffling is a sorry trait in an elected official.
Let’s be clear here and cut through the usual unfounded hysteria raised by preservationists who oppose nonferrous mining, no matter:
• The safeguards in place for the project.
• The strict state and federal regulations that must be met.
• The modern era technological improvements that have advanced
nonferrous mining when it comes to environmental impacts.
• The great need for the minerals in the United States.
• The great need for the jobs that will be created.
• That the minerals will be mined elsewhere in the world in a terribly environmentally-unfriendly manner.
• That the so-called “Green Economy” they worship is reliant on
the very minerals that would be mined in the projects they oppose.
• That those in opposition devour the same minerals in so many items of their daily lives, ranging from catalytic converters in the vehicles they drive to computers that are their lifeline to work and social venues to medical devices that make their lives
more comfortable or may even mean the difference between life and death.
Bottom line: A resolution like this carries the most necessary and proper stipulation that support of nonferrous mining is contingent on the project(s) meeting state and federal standards.
Commissioner Nelson deserves high praise for drafting and seeking support for this resolution. And we are pleased to see that Commissioner Forsman will put the issue back on the table at a
County Board meeting in Ely next week.
We encourage a strong showing by pro-nonferrous mining people at that meeting — let all board members and everyone in the county know that Duluth does not dictate to the Iron Range; nor do its officials determine policy for the entire county. And if Commissioner Dahlberg supports mining as he says, then his
vote should be in favor of the resolution. And Commissioner Raukar
should have a hearty morning dish of waffles for breakfast to fortify himself and then join his fellow Iron Range commissioners in support of it.
A 4-3 vote would put the County Board on record supporting more jobs and tax revenues for the region, and that would be good policy for St. Louis County.
