As Minnesotans, we are all proud of
the many economic strengths of our great state. From our diverse mix of
industries, to our highly skilled and hard-working workforce, to our
extensive natural resources, we have many assets that have sustained our
state’s strong position economically. Included in this is the
historically prominent iron mining industry that has played a vital role
in the state’s prosperity for more than 130 years.
Today
five iron mines are up and running on the Iron Range, which is
wonderful. But the cyclical nature of global markets is a constant
reality of life for families and businesses in the region. They know
today’s relative prosperity is fragile, which is why they have worked so
hard to diversify their economy.
In
recent years, many have focused their hopes on efforts to establish a
copper-nickel mining industry as a companion to iron mining. Surveys
suggest deposits in the Duluth Complex southeast of Ely are the world’s
largest undeveloped source of these strategically vital minerals.
That’s
why a decision by two federal agencies on Dec. 15, 2016, were met with
great dismay across the region. On that day, the U.S. Forest Service and
Bureau of Land Management dealt two sharp blows to regional economic
and job creation efforts supported by a broad coalition of labor,
industry and community members.
First,
the agencies denied renewal of two 50-year-old federal mineral leases
required for a vast underground mine to be developed by Twin Metals
Minnesota, a move being contested in court.
And
second, they proposed a massive, potentially permanent federal
withdrawal from all future leasing, exploration and development in a
vast, mineral-rich area in the Rainy River watershed. This includes
hundreds of thousands of acres of federal, state, county and private
lands across northern Minnesota.
We
share the dismay over such a sweeping attack on development. This
arbitrary action renders irrelevant the rigorous, longstanding public
process in place to review environmental and other effects of
development proposals under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
and equally tough state statutes. Why have such processes if we allow
federal officials to pre-emptively decide the outcome before the NEPA
review can even begin?
No comments:
Post a Comment