The revelations that northeastern Minnesota legislators pressured the Dayton administration to forestall a recommendation to affirm the state’s strict sulfate limits for discharges into wild rice waters should concern everyone in our region— regardless of their views on mining.

And yes, this issue is ultimately about mining, as legislators have made abundantly clear in their protests to the governor and the commissioner of the Pollution Control Agency.

Contrary to the hyperbolic claims of legislators, enforcement of the rule isn’t going to shut down the mining industry in Minnesota. Virtually every mine operating on the Iron Range is in violation of one or more pollution standards, and it hasn’t resulted in the closure of one of them, nor will it. While Minnesota has relatively strict pollution regulations, it has a far more forgiving record when it comes to enforcement. When companies violate the state’s pollution standards— as happens routinely— regulators work with the companies, often for years, to develop plans to improve the quality of their discharges.

Enforcement of the wild rice standards would be handled in exactly the same manner. How many mines, or other pollution dischargers, might be affected really isn’t known at this point, but it’s probably a lot fewer than opponents of the rule suggest. For one thing, the rule only applies to waters involved in wild rice production. That’s not really well defined right now, so expect years of discussion, and possibly even litigation, on that point alone. And even if a company is found to be discharging into wild rice waters, the MPCA will need to undertake more analysis to determine if other factors in the receiving waters will mitigate the impact of the sulfate. The MPCA’s research has demonstrated that the interactions between sulfates, wild rice, and the affected aquatic environment are complex and vary substantially from location to location. One thing is almost certain— the rule will be enforced on a case-by-case basis. Regulators aren’t going to enforce the standard if there’s no reason to believe it will provide actual benefit. That’s probably going to exempt many dischargers in the region.

While potential new industrial dischargers, such as PolyMet, would likely be subject to the new rule, the company has already indicated it can comply with all of the state’s pollution standards, including the sulfate limit for wild rice. Why would anyone argue for weakening a standard a company has already stated it’s prepared to meet? It makes our legislators look silly.

Indeed, by resorting to political strong-arming of Gov. Dayton, Iron Range legislators do more harm than good to the prospect of new mining projects. For years, supporters of mining expansion, whether in the taconite industry or copper-nickel, have argued that Minnesota’s relatively strict environmental rules make this a place where mining will be done right. But if enforcement of those rules is going to be determined by Iron Range power politics, rather than science, Minnesota might as well be Texas.

The revelations on this subject, which appeared in the Star Tribune recently, must have warmed the hearts of environmentalists opposed to new mining projects in the region. For years, they’ve argued that Minnesota’s pollution standards may look good on paper, but aren’t really up for the job of protecting Minnesota’s environment from large industrial polluters, because there’s no political will to bring violators to heel. Iron Range legislators just helped them make their case.