Issues raised by Native Americans in their “POLYMET DEIS –Tribal Cooperating Agencies Alternative Findings and Perspectives” should be seioursly heeded by the DNR and regulatory agencies. This is a through analysis of the DEIS and will be ignored or maginalized by “the powers that be” at the peril of all peoples of Minnesota. We are just hoping someone is listening and paying attention to these thoughtful citizens.
For example, for those who are interested in the science and claim little or no impact, that is highly debatable. The Cooperating Agencies write,
“The view that mine pit dewatering impacts will be very limited or non-existent (Adams, John and Michael Liljegren. 2009 “Additional PolyMet peatland data / information.” email communication to Stuart Arkley. February 1, 2009) is based on the assumption that there is little or no connection between the bedrock and surficial aquifers (GLIFWC 2009, Memorandum to Jon Ahlness and Stuart Arkley: Photographic evidence for pit impacts to wetland hydrology. April 24, 2009). However, the scant data that does exist characterizing mine site hydrology suggests that there may be substantial connection between the bedrock and surficial aquifers.”
How can any scientist claim “limited or non-existent impacts” when in fact the science “suggests that there may be substantial connection between the bedrock and surficial aquifers.” If there is any question at all, we should not proceed. When we know for certain our waters will not be polluted, then we may proceed.
Leave a Reply