Politics

February 25

Fiery debate continues over proposed Maine mining rules

Business groups and the LePage administration see economic opportunity, but others fear heavy pollution, including near J.D. Irving’s Bald Mountain.

By Steve Mistler smistler@pressherald.com
Staff Writer

AUGUSTA — The battle over revitalizing metal and mineral mining in Maine continued Monday at the State House, setting the stage for a vote in the Legislature that will pit some of the state’s major business interests against environmental groups.

click image to enlarge

The proposed new mining rules are driven specifically by the proposed extraction of metals and minerals from Bald Mountain in Aroostook County.

Courtesy of Natural Resources Council of Maine

At issue are new regulations to streamline the process of getting permits and mining for minerals and precious metals in Maine. The proposed rules are designed to revive an industry that has been dormant since 1991, but are driven specifically by the prospect of extracting metals and minerals from Bald Mountain in Aroostook County, a project backed by New Brunswick-based J.D. Irving Ltd., the state’s largest landowner.

The involvement of Irving, which owns the Bald Mountain property, has heightened the tension and politics over the proposed rules.

Business groups such as the Maine State Chamber of Commerce are backing the new rules, arguing that mining could be a boon for the state and one of its poorest counties. Environmental groups have made defeating the regulations a top priority.

Nick Bennett, a staff scientist for the Natural Resources Council of Maine, told lawmakers on the Environment and Natural Resources Committee on Monday that metal mining can release sulfuric acid that can pollute nearby rivers and streams, killing fish and marine life. He said the long-term effects of mining could outlast a company’s interest in a site, so Maine taxpayers could eventually be on the hook for a cleanup.

The rules proposed in L.D. 1772 are subject to final approval by the Legislature and Gov. Paul LePage. The LePage administration supports the regulations. Jeffrey Crawford, with the Department of Environmental Protection, told lawmakers Monday that the changes would provide a comprehensive framework for mining to proceed in Maine while protecting natural resources.

Most of those who testified Monday had a different view. Forty-eight of the 52 people who signed up to speak at the public hearing opposed the rules. The hearing was specific to the regulation changes, not J.D. Irving’s interest in Bald Mountain. However, the proposed mining there was discussed repeatedly.

Bennett said the company’s interest in Bald Mountain is the reason the Legislature and the LePage administration have attached so much urgency to the rules.

“The Bald Mountain deposit and others like it have been present for hundreds of millions of years,” he said. “They will be present after Maine develops mining rules that will protect our environment and taxpayers, even if that takes time.”

The prospect of mining on Bald Mountain arose in 2012, when a bill mandated that the DEP rewrite its mining rules. The Republican-controlled Legislature approved the bill, and LePage signed it. Several Democrats, including the Aroostook County delegation, also backed the proposal.

The bill was one of the most intensely lobbied measures of the session, drawing over $85,000 in lobbying activity in a single month, according to reports filed with the state ethics commission. Aroostook Timberlands, a subsidiary of JD Irving Ltd., was the biggest spender, paying lobbyists $73,348 over one month.

Since then, the focus has shifted to the rule changes, the first draft of which was released in August. In January, the Board of Environmental Protection unanimously endorsed the changes.

Environmental groups have continued to urge lawmakers to kill the new regulations and start over. They have focused on several provisions, including one to require mine operators to ensure that discharges from closed mining sites meet water quality standards “as soon as practicable,” but in most cases, no longer than 30 years.

Critics say that operators could allow certain types of contaminants to persist longer than 30 years, as long as the time period is defined and the DEP approves.

(Continued on page 2)

Were you interviewed for this story? If so, please fill out our accuracy form

Send question/comment to the editors




Further Discussion

Here at PressHerald.com we value our readers and are committed to growing our community by encouraging you to add to the discussion. To ensure conscientious dialogue we have implemented a strict no-bullying policy. To participate, you must follow our Terms of Use.

Questions about the article? Add them below and we’ll try to answer them or do a follow-up post as soon as we can. Technical problems? Email them to us with an exact description of the problem. Make sure to include:
  • Type of computer or mobile device your are using
  • Exact operating system and browser you are viewing the site on (TIP: You can easily determine your operating system here.)


Blogs

More PPH Blogs