Mile Post 7, with Lake Superior in sight.

In 1976, Minnesota’s Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Pollution Control Agency (PCA), did their jobs to protect our waters and public health. 

The Lake County District Court and the Minnesota Supreme Court are responsible for today’s perpetual threat literally hanging over Lake Superior – the Mile Post 7 tailings basin.

The following timeline is from the “Reserve Mining Company Case Files.”
http://www2.mnhs.org/library/findaids/gr01628.xml

May-June 1976: The hearing officer issues Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations on the siting of an on-land tailings basin. He concludes that the Midway site (Mile Post 20) is the most appropriate location for Reserve’s disposal facility. He recommends that permits for Mile Post 7 be denied.

July 1, 1976: The DNR and PCA accept the hearing officer’s findings and deny permits for Mile Post 7. Reserve immediately appeals this decision to Lake County District Court.

July 7, 1976: Judge Dewitt orders Reserve to halt its discharges into Lake Superior by July 7, 1977, because Reserve and the state cannot agree on an on-land disposal site. Reserve appeals.

Oct. 28, 1976: The Court of Appeals affirms the orders of Judge DeWitt assessing fines and penalties on Reserve, as well as the July 7, 1977 termination order.

Jan. 28, 1977: Lake County District Court reverses the DNR and PCA permit decisions and orders issuance of permits for Mile Post 7.

Feb. 1, 1977: The DNR and PCA appeal the Lake County District Court decision of January 28, 1977, to the Minnesota Supreme Court. 

April 8, 1977: The Minnesota Supreme Court upholds the Lake County District Court and orders the state to grant Reserve permits for Mile Post 7.”

The backstory
The Minnesota Environmental Quality Council (EQC) Mile Post 7 Document clearly stated the danger: lrl.mn.gov/docs/2014/other/140233.pdf 

In “Conclusions” of the Mile Post 7 Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Hearing Officer Wayne Olson stated, “The Mile Post 7 site is located approximately three miles from Lake Superior and 600 feet vertically above the lake level. A 1,000-foot breach in the 13,000-foot south dam at Mile Post 7 would produce a 28-foot high wall of water moving down the Beaver River Valley at more than 20 miles per hour to Lake Superior.” 

In 2024, planned expansion of Mile Post 7 is extremely troubling when considering other statements by Olson, “The proposed tailings disposal facility would store only 40 years of tailings from Reserve’s operations, and the possibilities for expansion in the original design have been eliminated by design revisions.”  … “Expansion would not be possible at Mile Post 7 and the operations during the remaining 10 to 20 years of mine life would require development of another disposal area.”

Not long ago our agencies bypassed the “40 years of tailings” limit by deciding that the projected limit had not been reached by Reserve. To my knowledge “the possibilities for expansion in the original design have been eliminated by design revisions” has never been publicly addressed. Yet our agencies are planning expansions today, claiming a dam extension is not an expansion. Semantics. See “Findings” in the EQC Document, “Description of Proposal.” “Modification” or “extension,” expansion is the result. 

The agencies are also not planning to use the original Downstream construction method; it was, and is, considered the safest method.

Choices
The EQC Document, in “Findings,” designated four alternative choices for the location of the tailings basin, other than Mile Post 7. Olson addressed the pros and cons of each of the four, as well as the pros and cons of the Mile Post 7 site. Disposal in the Peter Mitchell mine had already been ruled out because of limited capacity and operational concerns. Reserve wanted the Milepost 7 site for its proximity to processing facilities near Lake Superior. 

Olson came to the conclusion that “Midway” was the best choice. If Midway had become the site, today there would be no danger to Lake Superior, or to residents living below the toxic Mile Post 7 basin. Why did Reserve insist on Mile Post 7? Apparently, the cost of laying additional pipe, adding pumping stations, etc. to connect processing facilities to Midway at Mile Post 20. 

Olson strongly objected to the Mile Post 7 site, stating in the EQC “Memorandum:” “In my judgment, tailings disposal at the Midway alternative site could be implemented speedily and Reserve Mining Company could move forward as a profitable and respected operation in Minnesota. If Midway is not implemented and Reserve’s operations are terminated, the consequences would be horrendous for a great many people, but the Mile Post 7 site would be no more suitable and no more legal.” (italics added.)


He also wrote that it was appropriate to give consideration to all opinions and to reflect the basis for those opinions in the record. “However such opinions are determinative of the question of whether there are feasible and prudent alternatives to Mile Post 7, a determination which rests by law with the responsible state officials.” (italics added) 

He further stated, “The record in this proceeding clearly establishes that Mile Post 7 is not a suitable location for disposal of Reserve’s tailings and would be contrary to law. (Italics added) Those who believe that the tailings pose no health hazard, that disposal in Lake Superior is minor pollution at the most, will be puzzled by concerns about blowing dust reaching Silver Bay and possibilities of dam failure which could flush 40 years of stored tailings into Lake Superior. But questions of health hazard and pollution have been determined by the United States Court of Appeals. We are bound by those determinations.”

Succinctly he wrote, “Failure at Mile Post 7, whether it occurred during operation or years after, would frustrate the sole objective of its construction, the termination of tailings disposal in Lake Superior, since stored tailings would be carried to the lake with no opportunity for recapture.”

“Risk of dam failure would not end when operations cease, but would continue in perpetuity.”

When will Minnesota learn?
Olson also wrote, “With the benefit of thirty years of hindsight, it is painfully apparent that Reserve Mining, its owners and its employees were not well served by the original decision to allow tailings disposal in Lake Superior. If the mistake of 1947 teaches nothing else, we should have learned that even risks which appear relatively small cannot be taken when the consequences are catastrophic and irreversible

In 2024, with the benefit of 47 more years of hindsight, our agencies intend to expand the basin at Mile Post 7 without a new EIS, without using the most stable construction methods, without taking into account additional dust issues from finer grinding, and likely without legitimate design possibilities for that expansion. Agency lack of transparency and enforcement stand in stark contrast to the DNR and PCA of 1976. We cannot count on the agencies today.

When the DNR announced it was not doing a new EIS in 2024, the agency cited the same 1977 Minnesota Supreme Court decision that forced the DNR and PCA to permit Mile Post 7 after the agencies had denied the permits. “The tailings basin dams are subject to extensive regulatory oversight pursuant to the DNR’s Master Permit, issued by the agency pursuant to a decision by the Minnesota Supreme Court in 1977.” (2024 DNR Record of Decision) Misrepresenting history.

“Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” (Churchill).

Minnesota legislators are blocking full “Prove It First” legislative hearings

In 2024, Minnesota is facing another choice with catastrophic and irreversible consequences for our waters. Copper-nickel sulfide mining. If sulfide mining is permitted, toxic water contamination would not end when operations cease, but would continue in perpetuity.  The consequences of mining in a sulfide ore body, with the resulting tailings and processing waste stored in massive basins prone to breaches, or failure.

The public has the right to hear and understand the scientific facts concerning sulfide mining. The proven dangers to our waters and our health. “Clean energy” is a misnomer when metal extraction perpetually pollutes Minnesota’s clean waters.

The Minnesota courts did not protect the public in 1977. The Minnesota Legislature is not protecting the public in 2024. When will our leaders learn that Minnesota’s “Sky Blue Waters” are more than a soundbite?