District court upholds pollution rule to protect wild rice

  • Article by: JOSEPHINE MARCOTTY , Star Tribune
  • Updated: May 14, 2012 - 10:56 AM

The Chamber of Commerce had argued that the state's pollution standard was vague and not applied uniformly.

  • 21
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
Willy53May. 12, 12 6:17 AM

Once again the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce goes to bat not for small business or ordinary Main Street Minnesotans but large corporate interests. Under Pawlenty the MPCA was greatly diminished in an effort to allow corporate polluters more leeway to pollute. Just once, I'd like the Chamber to step up and support anything that was good for the ordinary Minnesotan or policies that actually benefit small business. Preserving our North Country ecology and habitat will have infinate benefits for Native Americans, all sportsmen, nature lovers, Minnesota's tourist industry and even the long term viability of continued mining. Short sighted destruction of our waters to allow short term mega profits for out of state mining interests has very little benefit for the vast majority of Minnesotans. It's time for the Chamber to be ostrasized as a special interst lobby for large corporations and outed for the anti-Minnesota values it regularly champions.

43
7
cedarriverMay. 12, 12 6:41 AM

People drink sulfates in wine on a regular basis, it says on the bottle "contains Sulfates" lets get people working on the range and start up this mining operation. China needs copper and we have one of the worlds largest deposits on the range.

5
44
drillforoilMay. 12, 12 6:55 AM

The MPCA and the EPA are over regulating way to much and it's gotten out of control. Well time to start my morning camp fire, light up a cigar, cook some ALL AMERICAN FRIES with bacon and eggs, and finally blast a little AC/DC.

7
39
mn2niceMay. 12, 12 7:42 AM

This is just one of many examples where large corporations don't just want reasonable regulation, they want no regulation at all. We saw what happens when no regulation is the name of the game in 2010 with the Gulf Oil Spill. Minerals management had sliced regulatory oversight of the industry, bp, Haliburton, and Transcean took careless steps to rush a well to production and look what happened. PolyMet and other mining interests would do exactly the same if we let them. Then who would be left with the bill for clean up? You and me. The Court issued a good decision that should stand up under appeal.

34
5
fishheadMay. 12, 12 7:52 AM

Northern DFL'ers are no better than the GOP when it comes to protecting our future. I hope a wave of incumbents get sent home this election. The mining companies said they could meet the 10 mg/l standard so why does the Chamber think they can't. What do they know that we don't?

20
2
kleindropperMay. 12, 12 7:53 AM

And now you know why North Dakota has money and jobs coming out of their ears while Minnesota wallows. Art and bike trails can only add so much to GDP.

12
33
conbrioMay. 12, 12 8:00 AM

"Art and bike trails can only add so much to GDP."-----------------------Actually both art and bicycling and more to the GDP than acid drainage mining, and neither have any known level of toxicity.

28
7
conbrioMay. 12, 12 8:05 AM

"Art and bike trails can only add so much to GDP."-----------------------Actually both art and bicycling and more to the GDP than acid drainage mining, and neither have any known level of toxicity. I am a northern DFLr who strongly opposes acid runoff mining: the value of sustainable recreation exceeds the value of this type of mining, and provides plenty of sustainable jobs.

25
4
AmberglasMay. 12, 12 8:17 AM

"People drink sulfates in wine on a regular basis, it says on the bottle "contains Sulfates" " Wine contains sulfites, not sulfates. They are both naturally occurring sulfur containing compounds, but they are not at all the same. Sulfates are not used as a food preservative.

29
3
patasticMay. 12, 12 8:30 AM

The EPA says the legislature can't set a standard (ostensibly through the political process) that isn't based on science. But, Minnesota doesn't have a standard based in science. That's the point. So, were left with a politically set, arbitrary standard from 1970's instead of one from 2010. That makes no sense. Either way, a truly scientifically derived standard is needed.

13
3

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

question of the day

Poll: Can the Wild rally to win its playoff series against Colorado?

Weekly Question

ADVERTISEMENT