Table of Contents
Cyanide Mining Bill Passes Committee
Dangers of Cyanide in MiningPublic Forum: The Fox River - Using Science in Decision-making on PCB Remediation and River Restoration
Cyanide at the Crandon Mine
Our Weakened Mining Laws
Cyanide Disasters at Mines
What You Can DoRenewable Energy and Sustainable Living Fair
News ReleaseWetland Protection Restored
Key FindingsSome Components of the New LawSplitting DNR, Splitting Allies
Trouble Ahead?
Conclusions
Cyanide Mining Bill Passes Committee
The state Senate Environmental Resources Committee recently voted
4 to 1 to recommend Senate passage of the Cyanide Ban, SB 160, which
would
prohibit use of cyanide in Wisconsin mining operations. The full
Senate
could vote soon.
Those Committee members in favor were Dave Hansen (D-Green Bay),
Robert Cowles (R-Green Bay), Jim Baumgart (D-Sheboygan), and Robert
Wirch
(D-Pleasant Prairie). The lone opposing vote was Dale Schultz
(R-Richland
Center).
The bill still waits for a vote in the Assembly Environment Committee, before a full vote can be held in the Assembly. (Then the bill would be reconciled between the 2 houses, and would need to be approved and signed by the Governor.)
Sodium cyanide is acutely toxic to any living thing. Incredibly
small amounts of cyanide can kill fish. For example,
cyanide measured at 20-80 parts per billion can kill rainbow and brown
trout. Birds and mammals that drink water or feed on cyanide-poisoned
wildlife can be killed at 40-200 parts per million, an amount also
fatally
toxic to humans.
Leftover cyanide at very small concentrations has harmed birds and
other wildlife that drank mine pond wastewater.
Cyanide is a powerful solvent that breaks down heavy metals ---
such as mercury, cadmium, chromium, and lead --- that end up as waste
products that need to be dumped. Cyanide can also break down
and form
complexes with other chemicals or metals, and still remain as toxic.
Mixes
of cyanide with other metals and chemicals can be just as toxic as
cyanide
itself, but they are not routinely monitored or carefully regulated.
Sodium cyanide would be used as a chemical reagent or solvent to
dissolve out metals from the ore in the "flotation process," particularly
for gold and silver. There are significant amounts of gold and
silver at
Crandon --- the DNR estimates as much as 1,100,000 ounces of gold,
and
63,000,000 ounces of silver. Northern Wisconsin also has
several other
gold and silver deposits.
The Nicolet Minerals Company (NMC) proposes to transport up to 20
tons of cyanide per month to the Crandon mine site. Cyanide and
other
toxics such as sulfuric acid pose environmental risks from transportation
and storage at the site and also from residuals in the waste dump and
in the waste back-filled into the abandoned mine shaft. DNR consultant
Andres Trevino reported that if NMC uses truckloads of cyanide at the highest
estimated rate, a one-month
inventory would be 18-20 tons. If the mine were to operate for
28 years,
over 6,000 tons of cyanide would be required.
Trevino reported that most of the residual cyanide would end up in
the pyrite concentrate that is proposed to be back-filled into the
mine
shaft, potentially in contact with groundwater. At least some
residual
cyanide would end up in the waste tailings dump.
Cyanide can be treated to become less toxic, but Trevino does not
report that NMC is proposing any active destruction of the toxic chemical.
Instead it appears that NMC simply expects any leftover cyanide to
break
down naturally in the waste dump pond when exposed to sunlight.
But colder
temperatures, such as in northern Wisconsin, can stop the breakdown
of
cyanide.
State Statute 160.19(12) says that the metallic mines are exempt
from the state Groundwater Protection Law. Statute 291.35 says
that
metallic mining waste is not subject of the state's stringent Hazardous
Waste Management Law, even if it contains cyanide. Unlike
state statutes,
the DNR has the power to grant variances and make changes to its own
rules
without legislative approval or public input.
Montana voters in 1998 banned the use of cyanide in mining, halting
new sulfide mine permits. The Czech Republic banned it in 2000.
Wisconsin
is thus behind these two historic mining areas in the environmental
laws;
although Vilas and Oneida counties have also banned cyanide.
The company
planning the Crandon mine claims that its vat flotation process is
safer
than the heap leaching process, but this does not address issues of
cyanide
waste disposal or transportation of 200 tons of cyanide a year on our
roads. The Crandon mine would also open the door to mining several
gold
deposits that would be processed with cyanide.
Colorado --- Cyanide spills from the Summitville gold mine contributed toWhat You Can Do
severe environmental problems on a 17-mile stretch of the Alamosa River.
It is now a federal Superfund site, with cleanup costing $170-200 million.Montana --- Mines had 62 spills or leaks of cyanide in 1982-98. The
Zortman-Landusty cyanide heap leach gold mine had repeated leaks and
discharges, resulting in wildlife deaths and severe contamination of
streams and groundwater.Nevada --- The Gold Quarry mine released about 245,000 gallons of
cyanide-laden waste into two local creeks. In 1989 and 1990, a series of
eight cyanide leaks occurred at the McCoy/Cove gold mine, releasing almost
900 pounds of cyanide.South Dakota --- In 1998, 6-7 tons of cyanide-laced tailings spilled from
the Homestake Mine, killing fish in Whitewood Creek, Black Hills.Guyana --- In 1995, over 860 million gallons of cyanide-laden tailings were
released into a major river when a dam collapsed at the Omai gold mine.Australia --- The Northparkes copper-gold mine in New South Wales killed
2,700 birds in 1995.Kyrgyzstan --- A truck transporting cyanide to the Kumtor mine plunged off
a bridge in 1998, spilling 2 tons of cyanide into local waters.Papua, New Guinea --- A helicopter crash in 2000 released cyanide bound for a gold mine.
Romania --- A huge February 2000 spill at the Aural gold mine destroyed
much of the Tisza River ecosystem in Hungary and Yugoslavia. Thousands of
dead fish floated into the Danube.Canada, Idaho, and North Carolina have also had serious cyanide
problems in recent years.
Please write to your Governor and elected representatives in the
state Legislature, especially your Assembly Rep, and tell them what
you
think about the proposed Cyanide Ban, SB 160.
Gov. Scott McCallum
Room 125 South, State Capitol
P.O. Box 7863
Madison, WI 53702-7863
Senator
P.O. Box 7882
Madison, WI 53707
Rep. (Last Name, A thru L)
P.O. Box 8952
Madison, WI 53708
Rep. (Last Name, Mc thru Z)
P.O. Box 8953
Madison, WI 53708
(If you don't know who your elected state representatives are, call
the toll-free Legislative Hotline at 1-800-362-9472 on weekdays,
between
8:00 and 5:00)
* Contact Assembly Environment Committee Chair Neil Kedzie(Information provided by the Wolf Watershed Educational Project)
(R-Elkhorn), because he controls whether the bill will be released from the
committee for a full vote. Call toll-free 888-534-0043 or e-mail
Rep.Kedzie@legis.state.wi.us* Print out a resolution for your group or local government to pass, or
print out a petition and more background information at:
The Fox River - Using Science in Decision-making on PCB Remediation and River Restoration
The International Association of Great Lakes Researchers will hold their
annual meeting in Green Bay, from Sun. June 10 to Thur.. June
14. The
majority of the event will be technical scientific paper presentations,
but
the Association has planned a special free public forum:
Wednesday, June 13
4:00 - 6:00 p.m.
at the University of Wisconsin - Green Bay
2420 Nicolet Drive, Green Bay
For more information, contact Dr. David Dolan, UW-Green Bay,
at 920-465-2795 (doland@uwgb.edu) or Victoria Harris,
UW Sea Grant Institute, at 920-465-2795.
Renewable Energy and Sustainable Living Fair
This is the largest and longest running renewable energy education
event in the world.
Thousands of people attend from around the world to see examples of
the latest and best technologies (as well as the tried and true...)
June 22-24
Portage County Fairgrounds
Amherst, Wis. (near Stevens Point)
Fair Hours
Friday 9 am - 7 pm
Saturday 9 am - 7 pm
Sunday 9 am - 5 pm
Fair Admission Daily 3-Days
Adults $8
$20
Seniors
$5 $10
Juniors
$5 $10
(Age 13-17)
Children free
free
(12 & under)
MREA members free
free
This year is the 12th Annual Fair, and it offers:
* over 100 workshops presented by experts from across the U.S.
* working demonstrations of renewable energy and energy efficiency
technologies
* products that help consumers save money, save energy, and protect
the
environment --- vendors and organizations will set up 117 exhibits
* special workshops and entertainment for children and families, and
* a friendly festival atmosphere, with a variety of food and beverage
vendors, including local brews.
The sponsor of the fair, the Midwest Renewable Energy Association
(MREA), is a network for sharing ideas, resources and information with
individuals, businesses, and communities to promote a sustainable future
through renewable energy and energy efficiency.
The Association is a tax-emempt, non-profit organization, founded
in 1990 to organize the first fair in recognition of the 20th anniversary
of Earth Day. Many founding members live in homes with renewable
energy
systems and some own renewable energy businesses. The MREA is
managed by a
Board of Directors. Membership is open to all.
A Garbage Free Event
In 1999, MREA began to reduce waste at the fair by purchasing
reusable plates and utensils for fundraisers. They encourage
attendees to
"Bring your own plate, mug, and silverware for eating at the fair!"
The first year, MREA reduced the fair's non-recyclable waste by 50%
with this simple effort. They hope to improve even further.
A dishwashing station will be provided near the picnic area, open
all day. During peak times, youth groups are fundraising for
their groups
by charging small fees to wash dishes.
Food and beverage vendors will still have throwaways for those who
forget, but MREA has asked everyone to serve on recyclable or recycled
content products. Recycle bins will be provided.
Reusable MREA mugs
will be available for purchase. Compost buckets will be provided
for
biodegradable food scrap (... but no meat, dairy or corn cobs,
please.)
Some Highlights of This Year's Fair
Home Tours --- Call in advance to reserve a seat on one of several
3-hour bus rides visiting several energy efficient homes in the area.
For
the hardy, a bike tour is also available on Sunday.
Eco-Village --- An interactive sustainable living demonstration and
discusssion area, in front of MREA's model home. On display are
a wide
range of sustainable living technologies, from composting to straw
bale
construction. Informal tours and demos all weekend.
Homeowner Poster Session --- Homeowners who use renewable energy and
sustainable living techniques will take you on a "virtual" tour of
their
homes using photos and helpful handouts.
Sampler of Workshops
* Electric Vehicle Conversion
* Pole-frame Straw Bale Solar Greenhouse
Construction
* Future Energy Challenge (UW-Madison program for students to develop
affordable and practical energy technologies)
* Climate Change Discussion
* Solar Water Heating
* Making PV Happen
* Women's PV Overview
* The Rise & Fall of Deregulation
* Introduction to Wind Systems
* A Yard Without Lawn
* Water Systems
* Energy Recovery Ventilators
* Water-powered Pumping
* Alternative Housing
* Utility Scale Wind Power
* Healthy Homes: A Green Approach
... and much more.
Special Guest Speakers
Paul Watson
Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
Friday, June 22, 6:15 p.m.
One of the original founders of Greenpeace in 1971, long known for his
dynamic leadership and direct actions to save whales, wolves, and other
wildlife. Well-known author and lecturer.
Julia "Butterfly" Hill
Circle of Life Foundation
Saturday, June 23, 1:30 p.m.
Starting in 1997, Julia protested old growth logging for 2 years
(without
break) atop a 1000-year-old Redwood tree in California. Helped
found the
Circle of Life Foundation to promote the sustainability, restoration,
and
preservation of life.
Contact Information:
Midwest Renewable Energy Assn.
7558 Deer Road, Custer, WI 54423
Phone: 715-592-6595
Fax: 715-592-6596
E-mail: mreainfo@wi-net.com
Webpage: www.the-mrea.org
Wisconsin officials like to brag about our state's "leadership" in
natural resource management, claiming we have some of the best
environmental standards and programs in the country.
While this claim may have been true in the mid-1980s, Wisconsin's
environmental programs have since been badly eroded by the legislature's
and Governor's cuts of DNR's budget and staff, their destructive DNR
reorganization, their politicization of the DNR Secretary's position
and
their elimination of the Wisconsin Public Intervenor Office.
The reality is that basic environmental law enforcement in
Wisconsin has declined, resulting in failure to protect public and
wildlife
health, and minimum water quality.
~~~~~~~~~
The following is the text of a news release issued jointly in Northeast Wisconsin by Clean Water Action Council and the Wisconsin Public Interest Research Group:
More than 1 in 4 of the nation's largest industrial, municipal,
and
federal facilities were in serious violation of the Clean Water Act
at
least once during a recent 15-month period, including 19.6% of Wisconsin's
largest facilities, according to a report released by the National
Public
Interest Research Group. The report, "Polluters'
Playground: How the
Government
Permits Pollution" describes many shortcomings in the monitoring
of water pollution and efforts to deter polluters.
The Bush administration has proposed cutting the EPA's budget
for
enforcement, which will likely result in fewer inspections, fewer staff,
and more pollution. "It is outrageous that the Bush Administration
is
proposing to slash enforcement budgets when more than one in four polluting
facilities are breaking the law," commented Kerry Schumann of WisPIRG,
"We
need clean water now, and we have to start by requiring polluters to
obey
the law," continued Schumann.
(In Wisconsin, enforcement of the federal Clean Water Act program has
been
delegated to the state DNR, with partial funds provided by the federal
government.)
The report analyzes the behavior of water polluters in Wisconsin
by
reviewing violations of the Clean Water Act between October of 1998
and
December of 1999, recorded in the U.S. EPA's Permit Compliance System
database, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
* 26 Wisconsin facilities were in violation of their Clean Water Act permits for discharging a significant amount over the legal limit, including 20 municipal wastewater treatment plants and 6 industrial facilities.The most recent Toxic Release Inventory shows that facilities* Wisconsin ranks 33rd from the top in the nation for percentage of major
facilities (19.6%) in violation of their clean water permits.* The top ten states with the highest percentage of major facilities in
SNC were Utah, Tennessee, Ohio, Vermont, Missouri, Oklahoma, Alabama, Rhode Island, Nebraska, and Indiana. The top ten states with the greatest number of major facilities in Significant Non-Compliance were Texas, Ohio, New York, Alabama, Tennessee, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Florida, Missouri, and Indiana.* 16 Wisconsin facilities were in Significant Non-Compliance for all 5
quarters during the period, including Appleton Papers Inc. (Locks Mill),
Packaging Corp. of America, and Wisconsin Electric Power Co. (Pleasant
Prairie). Also, public wastewater treatment plants for Portage, Sun
Prairie, Ripon, Oconomowoc, Arcadia, Beloit, Fond du Lac, Grand
Chute/Menasha West, Plover, River Falls, Lake Mills, Walworth County Metro, and Delafield/Hartland.* Nationally, 159 major facilities were in Significant Non-Compliance
during the entire 15 month period.* Nationwide, for the 42 industrial facilities in Significant
Non-Compliance for the entire 15 month period, EPA records showed only one fine in the past five years.
reported discharging nearly 8 billion pounds of toxic chemicals into the
environment in 1999.
"This continuing toxic release is unacceptable, stated Robert
Schmitz, of Clean Water Action Council. "It is an outrage that
our
government is not enforcing existing standards or pushing for better
ones."
"It's important to note that Appleton Paper Inc. is one of the
Wisconsin bad actors who was allowed to continue violating their permit
for
over a year, when they still haven't been held accountable for their
dominant portion of the PCB pollution they dumped in the Fox River,
Green
Bay and Lake Michigan over a period of 30 years.
Our government is not
protecting us," added Rebecca Katers, of Clean Water Action Council.
"Instead, the DNR responded to Appleton Paper's violations by increasing
their pollution discharge permit by 21% in 2000."
To increase compliance with permits and move toward the
zero-discharge goals of the Clean Water Act, the report recommends:
1) Tough penalties should be set. Penalties should prevent polluters fromThe Wisconsin DNR has stopped producing annual summary reports of
profiting by breaking the law and deter lawbreaking in the first place.2) Citizens should have full access to the courts. Obstacles to citizen
suits should be removed, including allowing citizens to sue Federal
facilities.3) Improve the public's right to know. The public should have greater
access to information about enforcement, including requiring submissions of
comprehensive data by facilities that discharge into waterways and making
such data available through online Internet searches.
toxic releases across the state. This needs to resume, so Wisconsin
citizens can know their local exposures and trends in the state, and take
action.
For more information, view the full NPIRG report online: www.pirg.org
In May, the state legislature and Governor passed a wetlands bill
to give authority to the DNR to regulate development in isolated wetlands.
This was to counteract the January decision of the US Supreme Court
which
had left these wetlands unprotected by restricting the authority of
the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) to regulate wetlands not connected
with
a navigable water.
The new law, 2001 Wisconsin Act 6, restores protection to over
1
millions acres of wetlands in Wisconsin, and is the first of its kind
nationwide to restore wetlands regulation to a state after federal
authority had been revoked.
The new law is a compromise, but surprisingly strong given the
intense political struggle and negotiations which led to its passage.
The
Senate had passed a strong "status quo" bill this spring which simply
restored previous protections, but in the Assembly, the Republican
majority
threatened to derail the bill by proposing a much weaker bill leaving
isolated wetlands much more vulnerable to destruction.
Citizen outrage across Wisconsin -- from environmentalists,
hunters, anglers, boaters, tourism industry representatives and many
other
interests -- succeeded in convincing the legislature to amend the Assembly
bill.
Opposition came from the realtors, builders, developers, municipalities,
Farm Bureau, agri-business and other business groups.
Some Components of the New Law
Wisconsin has good administrative rules in place, the NR 103 Water
Quality Standards for Wetlands. Since 1991, NR 103 has been the
basis for
DNR review of Corps of Engineers 404 wetland permits. NR 103
includes
"avoid, minimize, mitigate" and requires evaluation of practicable
alternatives. The rules were adopted after more than a decade
long fight
to get them in place, led by the Wisconsin Public Intervenors Office.
Once in place the loss of wetland acres in Wisconsin dropped from an
average of 1,400 acres/yr to 330 acres/yr.
The new law will use a federal standard (1987 Army Corps Manual)
to
define wetlands, and allows DNR to inspect any property on which an
application for a permit is submitted until 30 days after the permitted
discharge and any related conditions of the permit have ended or ending
on
the date of denial or withdrawal of the application. The new
law allows
the DNR to inspect a property if it has "reason to believe" an infraction
has occurred.
If the owner refuses access, DNR agents are required to obtain
warrants from a court before they can conduct on-site property inspections.
DNR may inspect required records only in the presence of the permit
holder
or the holder's designee, unless waived. The level of penalties
was
reduced from the previous federal levels.
In the new law, small (less than one acre) isolated wetlands that
are proposed to be filled for "public safety" as authorized by a local
government entity (city, village, town or county) or a state or federal
transportation agency, may have an expedited review process for
"practicable alternatives," following public notice, public comment
and
possibly a public hearing and/or judicial review.
Supporters are not sure how well this new process will work.
DNR
retains the ability to deny the water quality certification based on
the
wetland's functional values. Under a DNR and Wis. Dept. of Transportation
"Memorandum of Agreement" (MOA), DNR already considers public safety.
Under the MOA, WisDOT was required to replace wetland losses.
In the new law, DNR is required to make a determination on isolated
wetland applications within 120 days after the completed (DNR determines
completeness) application is submitted, unless the applicant and the
DNR
agree to an extension. The DNR is further required to establish
a timeline
for review of all wetland applications by administrative rules.
If the DNR fails to meet the timeline, the applicant may petition
a
court to compel DNR to approve or deny the application. If the
court
grants the petition, DNR must comply within 30 days and the applicant
shall
be awarded reasonable attorney fees and court costs.
The Clean Water Action Council is concerned about the strict
timelines because of serious workload problems within DNR.
The Governor
and Legislature have cut the staff and budget of DNR, which has been
a
major cause of any delays in wetland permit reviews. We
already know of
cases where DNR staff cut corners to expedite permit reviews.
If the DNR
is forced to speed up, but lacks the staff, they are being forced to
do
inadequate rushed reviews of wetland values. Though they
have the
authority to do inspections, they may not have the staff time to do
it.
This could fundamentally undermine the effectiveness of the law.
The same exemptions from discharge permits allowed under federal
law are included in the new law. These include: normal farming,
forestry
and ranching activities, maintenance and reconstruction of damaged
parts of
structures that are in bodies of water, maintenance of drainage ditches,
and construction and maintenance of certain farm roads, forest roads
and
temporary mining roads if certain requirements are met (general permits).
As under federal law, a discharge that would be exempt loses its
exemption if the discharge is incidental to an activity that brings
the
nonfederal wetland into a use for which it was not previously used
and if
the activity may impair the flow or circulation or reduce the reach
of any
nonfederal wetland. DNR is required to establish these exemptions
and
interpretations by the federal government into administrative rule.
The new law requires the DNR to issue general water quality
certifications (general permits) consistent with those issued by the
COE
before the US Supreme Court decision. Wisconsin already has state
specific
general permits, which will expire after five years.
Some troubles may lay ahead. The new law calls for establishing
a
future Legislative Council Study Committee on wetlands, though it
is
unlikely to be set up this year. Some of the "unresolved issues"
(from the
developers' perspectives) for that committee were summarized by Rep.
Neal
Kedzie (R-Elkhorn), chair of the Assembly Environment Committee:
* treatment of artificial or man-made wetlands,The information above is condensed from an assessment prepared by Caryl Terrell, Sierra Club-John Muir Chapter, and Charlie Luthin, Wisconsin Wetlands Association. For more* multiple definitions of wetlands,
* classifying and evaluating the functional value of wetlands,
* the process by which applications and permits are approved or denied,
* the burdensome regulations placed on agriculture and aquaculture
industries,* the creation of tax credits,
* development zones and incentives for wetlands restoration,
* the need for more involvement by local officials and planners, and a
whole host of others.
information about the values and functions of wetlands, visit the website
of the Wisconsin Wetlands Association, http://www.wiscwetlands.org.
While the legislation is certainly good news and the many
negotiators deserve major credit for their hard work, the media coverage
has been disturbing, as politicians have glorified their actions.
The Republicans in particular have lauded their own leadership
on
the issue, which seems odd given that 5 Republicans on the U.S. Supreme
Court (the same ones who elected the President) were the ones who created
the crisis in the first place.
This bill simply takes us back to the protections we had 6 months
ago, with some new weaknesses and wrinkles.
The environmentalists and conservationists who participated in the
tense negotiations are obliged to praise highly the legislators and
Governor for passing the bill, but the rest of us need to remember
the
bigger picture.
We went through several months of intense work and worry just to
recover what we had 6 months ago. This is not progress in the
bigger
sense.
The other 49 states have NOT passed such legislation, and hundreds
of millions of acres of wetlands are still vulnerable across the United
States.
Splitting DNR, Splitting Allies
by Rebecca L. Katers
A few weeks ago, I testified for Clean Water Action Council at a
"public hearing" in Green Bay before the Assembly Natural Resources
Committee, chaired by Rep. Johnsrud (Republican), on the Republican
proposal to split the DNR into 2 agencies.
The committee's rudeness was appalling, as they made us sit through
2 hours of committee and agency discussion (and Johnsrud's lame jokes)
before allowing citizen testimony.
Rep. John Gard (R-Peshtigo), who proposed the split, gave a LONG
self-serving speech full of inaccuracies and whining about DNR.
Then he
left. Gard didn't have the courtesy to stay and listen to at
least 30
citizens and organization leaders who waited hours to testify on his
pet
proposal. He wasted our time and left laughing.
Johnsrud shuffled appearance slips to ensure that three speakers
who (weakly) supported Gard spoke early and environmentalists spoke
last
(4 or 5 hours later, after most of the audience had left.) When
environmentalists spoke, Johnsrud left the room.
Many hunting and fishing organizations testified, all against the
split. Many wanted the Public Intervenor restored and DNR
Secretary
removed from political interference. (Those issues got the only
round of
applause during the 7 hour hearing.) Many were local elected
county
delegates to the Wisconsin Conservation Congress.
Afterwards
Rep. Johnsrud told me he would not schedule a public hearing on the
proposed Public Intervenor restoration, and would continue to block
any
legislative votes on the bill, because "nobody cares what the Conservation
Congress says ... they're all dumb as rocks ... nobody listens to them."
So Johnsrud doesn't respect environmentalists, hunters or anglers
but Republicans made him chair of the Natural Resources Committee.
This
should tell us something.
In the hallway before the hearing, I heard Johnsrud tell a TV crew
that "Environmentalists are trying to shut down hunting and fishing
in
Wisconsin, and this is why we need to split the DNR." ( ... supposedly
to
keep the fish and game money away from wicked environmentalists.)
I was
able to assure the TV crew this was untrue, but other Republicans repeated
the claim during the hearing. It's obvious they're trying to
drive a wedge
between environmentalists and outdoor sports conservationists, to keep
us
from working together on issues.
Gard and Johnsrud claim DNR needs splitting because DNR isn't
providing proper services. But 6 years ago, the Republicans took
political
control of DNR, slashed the budget, and forced the agency through a
disastrous reorganization which eliminated most mid-level experienced
staff. Yes, there are problems in DNR, and Republicans created
them. Now,
Gard has the nerve to pretend he cares about fixing DNR, but he proposes
to
further cripple the agency by splitting it. When will the
public wake up and see what they're really doing?
|
|
|
|
|