New mining rules would overridethe will of the people
To the editor:
On Monday, May 11, the legislative Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (ENR) will hold yet another public hearing on a bill about open-pit mining rules. This will be the third time in the last year or so that I have traveled to Augusta to testify in opposition to such rules, and I am once again struck with the ironies of this process. The Board of Environmental Protection (BEP) and the ENR committee are charged with protecting our environment and natural resources. Instead of rules that would strengthen protection of the environment, they are, once again, writing and attempting to pass rules that would weaken current protections.
Why are they doing this? Have there been break-through advances in technology that would make mining of Bald Mountain safer than it was a year ago? Of course not. Has public support for mining increased in the last year? Actually, the opposite has happened; opposition to mining has increased as the public become more aware of the extreme risks of polluting the Fish River chain of waterways with arsenic, sulfuric acid, and other toxic chemicals for generations. This pollution will devastate the area’s outdoor sports industry and make a mockery of inflated promises of an economic boon.
I have been paying close attention to the debate on both sides in the media and in the legislative committee hearings, and I have to conclude that this new attempt to make it easier, cheaper, and more profitable for Irving, Inc to mine Bald Mountain, regardless of environmental consequences, is a direct testament to the power and influence of a major international corporation on our political process. It is an attempt at a dangerous override of the will and welfare of the people and emblematic of the threat big money poses to democratic principles across the country.
Alice Bolstridge
Presque Isle
Mineral rights in the wildlands of Maine
To the editor:
In regions of sprawling wildlands, as occur in Aroostook County, astute prospectors are not uncommon. However, in Aroostook and other wildland areas of Maine, prospectors are virtually nonexistent due to the longstanding inequity in the mineral-rights system.
As a native Mainer, I am relatively certain that most Mainers have little understanding of the injustice that has long pervaded mineral rights ownership in the Maine wildlands. In the adjacent provinces of New Brunswick and Quebec, long ago the Crown decreed that ownership of the surface lands (e.g. timberlands) did not carry with it ownership of the subsurface mineral domain. Rather, it was decreed that subsurface minerals belonged to the people, such to be administered by the Crown. Mineral rights became the property of individuals by staking one or more claims on which a fee was levied by the provincial government, such amounting to a fair “tax” on mineral rights. These rules clearly established that even if valuable minerals had not been discovered, those holding mineral rights must pay to hold those “rights.”
I have had extensive on-the-ground experience in these matters in both New Brunswick and Quebec. Years ago in Quebec, less than a mile from the Maine-Canadian border, my group claimed hundreds of acres of subsurface mineral rights. Although the surface timberlands were owned by a major multinational corporation, the corporation did not have any rights to our metal discovery. Also, in the past my group claimed large acreages of mineral rights in southern New Brunswick, where similar to Quebec, the timberland owner within the claim area did not have “rights” to our mineral claims. The system generated significant expenditures, as the exploring groups were not subservient to the major landowners, as is the case in Maine.
In stark contrast to the above, in the distant past the granting of large tracts of land in Maine apparently included mineral rights. However, the fact that neither undeveloped nor developed minerals in the wildlands were ever subject to annual assessment by the state, in conjunction with the failure of the landowners in the wildlands to undertake primary mineral inventories, establishes that the surface owners in the wildlands have abrogated their “right” to the mineral domain.
Long ago, had the state ruled that mineral rights were to be assessed based on acreage and mineral status, then it is evident that most of those “rights” would have reverted to the state. Such a situation would have amounted to a “windfall” to the state in both claim fees and mineral exploration expenditures.
If the multibillion-dollar Bald Mountain deposit in Aroostook County were located in J.D. Irving Ltd.’s native land (New Brunswick) simple ownership of the timberlands, whether acquired before or after minerals were claimed, would not entitle the Irving group to reap benefits form the mining of the deposit by others, whereas in Maine, Irving’s post-discovery ownership of timberlands enables Irving Ltd. to “take all.”
J. S. Cummings
Grand Prairie, Texas
Mining contamination would ruin Aroostook
To the editor:
The citizens of Maine have made it clear to the legislature they we are not willing to sacrifice the environment that provides us with beauty and economic opportunities to the interests that will destroy it through mining. There have already been numerous hearings about mining regulations.
Many people have gone to testify and overwhelmingly those testifiers have strongly advocated for the protection of Maine’s environment. Still the legislature continues in its quest to defy the will of the people and force inadequate mining rules into reality.
There will be another hearing on Monday, May 11 at 9 a.m. in Augusta (room 216, Cross Office Building).
The process to get to this newest hearing has been convoluted and confusing. It does not allow for easy citizen participation. A final draft is not yet available to read. Although the Environment and Natural Resources Committee (ENR) has spent many work sessions on this issue, it still does not answer a basic question that I have had since the beginnings of this in 2011.
We are consistently told that there is new mining technology to treat the water used in the mining process that removes all toxins and contaminants. That is where ends. There is no explanation of that technology or even any references to where anyone could find further information. Listening to the ENR Committee on April 27, it is clear they are confused about this also.
I have researched and cannot find a single example of a mine that does not leach toxins either during active mining or after closure. They all require perpetual treatment at taxpayers’ expense. It is as true of modern mines as it is of 100 year old mines.
Mining rules will rely heavily on the honesty and integrity of any potential mining company when they present their mining proposal. Mining companies are notorious for their willingness to violate environmental law and risk being fined because fines are not punitive enough to discourage violations. At Bald Mountain we will be relying on the integrity of JD Irving. Irving has a history of violating child labor laws, forestry practice laws, and environmental laws.
There are no provisions in the proposed mining rules to ensure that mines will employ Maine workers. A mine at Bald Mountain will likely only last 5-10 years. If metal prices drop it would close sooner. There are no provisions for worker retraining or to help towns that are left economically devastated by a mine closure.
The mining rules do not require mining companies to put up sufficient financial assurances to deal with an environmental disaster. The tailings pond, which contains contaminated mine waste, at the Mount Polley mine in British Columbia failed last August. The entire tailings pond emptied into the Polley Lake. The Mount Polley mine is modern using modern technology. A failure at Bald Mountain would release arsenic and sulfuric acid into the Fish River Chain (FRC). The FRC is known as one of the best sources of brook trout in the nation. Contamination that ruins that would be economically devastating for Aroostook County.
I do not know how you calculate how much money would be sufficient to remediate that kind of disaster but the proposed rules will not provide for it.
Please consider going to Augusta on May 11 to let the ENR committee know how much we value the environment and way of life in Aroostook or submit written testimony to: Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, c/o Legislative Information, 100 State House Station, Augusta, ME 04333.
Please let your State Representative and Senator know that you value the Fish River chain and all that it currently provides us.
Shelly Mountain
Mapleton
Clear heads prevail in Augusta
To the editor:
As a follow up to my prior letter to the editor, published on April 22, I am pleased to report that on April 29, the Veterans and Legal Affairs Committee of the Maine State Legislature voted that the proposed legislation to change the Maine State Constitution by removing certain constitutional rights of the citizens of Maine, LD 1084, ought not to pass. Similarly, the committee voted ought not to pass on LD 754, a second bill to change the Maine Constitution, on April 22.
The two essentially identical bills, LD 703 and LD 753, were tabled by the Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Committee on April 21.
There was nearly no support for these bills other than from one sponsor, and from the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, along with an individual from Vermont. Most others, including the Maine Municipal Association, the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Family Independence, and the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife urged the committee to “use caution” in evaluating these bills, the ramifications of which, they explained, could potentially be detrimental to Mainers in quite a number of different ways.
And, yes, Mrs. Sandelier, we both agree that it is perfectly legal to amend the Constitution of the State of Maine, and the legislative process to do so is also perfectly legal. Contrary to your assertion in your letter to the editor published on April 29, I made no claim whatsoever that the process was illegal in any way. My expressed concern was not with the process, nor the legality of the process (as you asserted). In fact, I made none of the claims you assert that I did. Rather, I expressed concern about the specific proposals – as I outlined in my original letter to the editor, which would have amended the Constitution ways that would have had a serious negative impact on every citizen of the State of Maine.
I am thankful that clear heads have prevailed in Augusta and that these misguided and ill-conceived proposals have been effectively rejected by our representatives, and every Mainer’s Constitutional rights remain unscathed – for now.
Dr. Dena L. Winslow
Presque Isle
