The above headlining, stealing Dan Burns' headline at left.mn
But not stealing any content. Go there to read a solid thoughtful post.
UPDATE: Same site, earlier post by Dan about sulfide mining's evil.
It continues to amaze how corporatist-politicians of both parties keep this abomination of a threat to the earth alive and ongoing. They do.
Fuck 'em. They are wrong.
________UPDATE_______
Dan does mention and link on the wild rice question: Are native cultural and treaty rights to prevail; the wild rice issue being one of cultural core ways of pre-white long-established community existential history, a heritage factor defining multiple bands of first people in large measure, as well as a meaningful right implicitly and explicitly promised to tribes, by the U.S., by treaty.
Saying, "Oh, an economic balancing issue, we have cost-benefit expertise" is inappropriate when something well beyond an economic balancing issue is at stake. How do you value the foreseeable future and present sacrifice of water quality and wild rice preservation to the Tribes, on this basic heritage issue; that cost - with "benefits" foreseeable being profit to mining interests and incremental amounts of metals in global commerce. "Damages thinking" is inappropriate.
Tribal rights: Equitable interests where remedies are injunctions and writs of prohibition or mandamus apply; i.e., as really an equity issue. Beyond licensing, fees, anticipations and precautions.
Water quality: Where post-disaster remediation proves infeasible how does that balance, cost-benefit wise? You cannot balance clean water and further loss of clean water. There are areas where already, wild rice growth was killed away.
Hat tip to Steve Timmer for encouraging my looking at Tribal concerns and needs, as culture at stake among multiple tribes, vs. mine exploitation with toxicity worry. Two dimensions cutting against mishandling and misjudging at administrative law levels.