Dayton’s due diligence

According to Gov. Mark Dayton, his decision on whether Polymet’s proposed copper-nickel mine will ultimately be permitted will be the “most momentous, difficult and consequential decision” he makes as governor.

But more than just recognizing the significance of the issue, Dayton wants facts. That’s why he is visiting two sulfide-based mine sites suggested to him by supporters as well as opponents of the proposed mining operation. He’s also asking the Legislature to approve a financial study of PolyMet and its backers to determine their financial viability to deliver such a major project. We give the governor credit for such due diligence, and urge legislators to support the inquiry.

Accompanying the governor on his mine visits will be DNR Commissioner Tom Landwehr, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Commissioner John Linc Stine, Deputy Chief of Staff Joanna Dornfeld and DNR Mine Permitting and Coordination Supervisor Michael Lillegren.

On Oct. 27, Dayton visited the Gilt Edge Mine in South Dakota’s Black Hills. The mine there churned out gold and silver off and on for more than a century until the most recent owner declared bankruptcy and closed it in 1999. It’s now a contaminated Superfund site that has already cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars to clean up with no end in sight.

On Thursday, Dayton is scheduled to tour a brand new copper-nickel mine in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. The Eagle Mine is expected to operate for eight or nine years before its high-grade deposit is played out. According to its reclamation plan, the underground mine will be filled in and the 130-acre above ground facilities will be removed and the site re-vegetated. No long-term water treatment will be necessary.

It should be noted that neither of these mines is a good comparison for what PolyMet is proposing. PolyMet’s proposed NorthMet Mine would dwarf either the Gilt Edge or the Eagle Mine.

Yet some of the differences are useful as well. For instance, the Eagle Mine plan calls for returning the area affected by the mining operations to its natural state once mining is concluded sometime in the early 2020s. Doing so will presumably eliminate the need for ongoing water treatment because any remaining waste rock at the site will be placed back underground.

PolyMet’s plan falls far short of this kind of reclamation. Instead, the company proposes to leave a vast waste rock pile above ground permanently. It would also leave some mine pits in place. As a result, the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact statement found that a water treatment plant will need to continue operation at the site for centuries in order to meet water quality standards.

Gov. Dayton should be asking why Minnesota doesn’t require full reclamation, like Michigan. Certainly, given the scale of the PolyMet proposal, the cost of full reclamation would be quite high, and that might make the project less profitable. Yet if the project isn’t economically viable without full reclamation, it should not be up to Minnesota’s environment, or the taxpayers, to subsidize it.

Regardless of how he decides in the end, it should be encouraging to Minnesotans that the governor has taken such a keen interest in the issue. While the final decision to issue a permit to mine is, by statute, up to the Commissioner of the DNR, Gov. Dayton noted that the commissioner works for him, and he plans to be closely involved in the decision.

As for now, the jury is still out on whether the PolyMet project will move ahead. Proponents of the project tout the jobs it will create in an economically depressed region while opponents warn about potential water pollution and other environmental risks. It’s reassuring that Dayton fully understands the stakes at play and is seeking as much credible information as possible before arriving at a decision. That’s the mark of a good leader.