Minnesota mine, environmentalists face off over wild rice

Minnesota mines that deposit their byproducts in lakes where wild rice grows are chafing against a flat limit on pollution, urging the state to create individualized, lake-by-lake standards.

|
Melanie Stetson Freeman / The Christian Science Monitor / File
In this file photo, logger Dave Starry holds harvested wild rice from Minnesota's Upper Whitefish Lake.

Can case-by-case rules settle a debate between miners and environmentalists?

Last fall, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) proposed new limits on sulfate pollution in wild rice lakes. The agency amended its proposal on Tuesday, this time advocating for an individualized approach to pollution control.

“This isn’t a decision yet. It’s the next step in the process,” Shannon Lotthammer, director of the MPCA’s water quality standards unit, told the Associated Press.

Minnesota is home to 11,842 lakes, earning it the nickname "Land of 10,000 Lakes." Wild rice grows naturally in over 1,000 of those lakes. Boreal forest lakes make ideal homes for rice patches, which can survive flooded conditions that would drown competing weeds. The grain holds cultural significance for indigenous people and is valued commercially for its nutritional content.

Research has shown that sulfate and iron levels in lakes can affect the growth of wild rice. Minnesota encompasses part of the Iron Range, a cluster of facilities that mine and process taconite iron ore. These mines produce sulfur compounds called sulfates as a byproduct, depositing them into nearby waters. Bacteria convert sulfates into sulfides, which settle into lake sediment. Sulfides are thought to suppress nutrient uptake by wild rice, essentially choking them at the root.

In the 1970s, Minnesota's legislature established a flat limit on sulfate in wild rice lakes: 10 parts per million. Mining interests have argued that the standard is too restrictive, so the MPCA has recently developed a formula that sets limits on a case-by-case basis. The formula considers iron, carbon, sulfate, and sulfide levels to make threshold recommendations in each of Minnesota’s rice lakes.

In-house research by the MPCA suggests that iron can reduce sulfate-to-sulfide conversion rates by bonding with sulfur to form a solid. An increase in iron concentration, the agency says, would allow continued sulfate production without impacting wild rice.

But not everyone agrees with the new approach. Paula Maccabee, attorney for an environmental group called WaterLegacy, told the Duluth News Tribune that the MPCA has ignored contradictory findings. She cited new research conducted by John Pastor, a professor of biology at the University of Duluth, which suggests that iron may not reduce sulfate conversion at all.

Rather, Dr. Pastor has argued that precipitating iron sulfide can form a plaque on wild rice roots, hindering seed production. 

"We already know that the existing sulfate limit is effective and reasonable. But PCA, ignoring evidence that the equation they are developing is flawed, continues down this path and away from protecting wild rice," Maccabee said. "They are developing this very complex and flawed process based on pressure from the mining industry and Iron Range lawmakers when their primary concern should be protecting wild rice."

The MPCA will accept feedback on the proposal through Sept. 6, after which time the rule-making process will begin. Any changes in pollutant standards must be approved by the Environmental Protection Agency.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Minnesota mine, environmentalists face off over wild rice
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2016/0720/Minnesota-mine-environmentalists-face-off-over-wild-rice
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe