United States Steel Corp - Keetac - Wastewater Permit

Submitted By

313 Results

Search Type

Sort:

Sort Results By

Comment From: Multiple Senders

9/19/25 @ 12:00 AM

Email comments from multiple senders received 9/19/25 - Variance.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Cathy Dolan

9/18/25 @ 9:13 PM

Please hold US Steel accountable to Minnesota sulfate limits!
Wild rice is central to the cultural traditions of our Indigenous Nations here in Minnesota for this reason we ask you to uphold the sulfate standard and reject any variances now and on in...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Theresa Wallin

9/18/25 @ 9:04 PM

I am a Minnesotan who wants to ensure that our people and place are healthy for generations to come.
Wild rice (manoomin in Ojibwe and psíŋ in Dakota) is a "superfood" that requires no pesticides or fertilizers to grow. Wild rice is a naturally fat-f...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Kari Tomperi

9/18/25 @ 4:50 PM

Protect Wild Rice, Not International Conglomerates

I am a Minnesotan who asks you to enforce the 10 mg/L sulfate standard at Keetac Mine because I love wild rice. Wild rice is much like the canary in the coal mines, when it dies its environment is u...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Sally Downing

9/18/25 @ 4:31 PM

Many of us, probably including my English, Irish and French ancestors have stolen from the Indigenous population of our continent. We have never properly "paid" for the consequences of our ancestors and our actions. Now a huge corporation wants to ge...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Kathleen Stuebner

9/18/25 @ 3:56 PM

I am a Minnesotan who wants to live in a state that keeps its promises.

The United States and Minnesota owe no debt to out-of-state corporations and international mining conglomerates. But the U.S. did make promises to Indigenous stewards in exchang...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Alli Maydole

9/18/25 @ 3:47 PM

I am a Minnesotan who wants to ensure that our economy and environment are healthy for generations to come.

U.S. Steel complains that complying with the law will create substantial and widespread social impact. But the idea that mining creates jobs ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Gail Iverson

9/18/25 @ 3:06 PM

I am a Minnesotan who wants to protect wild rice for future Minnesotans.

Before there was a Minnesota Pollution Control Agency or a U.S. Steel– before there was even a state of Minnesota– wild rice covered the entire territory that would become the ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Regina Brant

9/18/25 @ 3:05 PM

I am writing to provide comments regarding public notice of draft NPDES permits MN0055948 and MN0031879 for the U. S. Steel Keetac tailings basin and mining area, respectively. I have interest in these draft permits because I, like most Minnesotans, ...↓care deeply about protecting the environment.
I am concerned about the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's (MPCA) sulfate water quality standard of 10 mg/L for wild rice waters and its consequences to the Iron Range and communities across the state. MPCA was directed to review and update the wild rice sulfate standard in 2011 but has not done so to date. The future of Minnesota mines, local governments and other industries are critically affected by the enforcement of this outdated standard.
I strongly urge MPCA to update the wild rice sulfate standard considering current science and site-specific variables. The current 10 mg/L sulfate standard oversimplifies the environmental needs of wild rice. Many other factors determine wild rice resilience, such as water depth and fluctuation, predation, and competing vegetation. Wild rice has even proven to be successful in waters with sulfate levels up to 1,600 mg/L and beyond – 160 times higher than our current standard. The current 10 mg/L standard is not proven to be effective and compliance with it is unattainable for many businesses and communities. From wastewater facilities and small businesses to mines employing thousands of Minnesotans, the cost of meeting a 10 mg/L sulfate standard puts Minnesota at risk with no guaranteed outcome. Do not waste time, money and energy on a sulfate standard that doesn't make sense. I strongly urge you to refrain from including permit limits for sulfate until the time and resources are invested to develop a sulfate standard that follows modern science, addresses site-specific variables and contains cost as required by the 2011 law.
Beyond environmental science, this issue carries significant economic implications for our region and the State of Minnesota. Mining is a cornerstone of Northeast Minnesota's economy, contributing over $1.8 billion annually and supporting more than 4,000 family-sustaining jobs. These positions offer wages significantly above the regional average, with mining workers earning approximately $1,708 per week, nearly $950 more than the average across all industries. The sector also accounted for over one-third of net new jobs in the region during recent growth periods.
The current Keetac compliance schedule is too short and unattainable. There are currently no commercially proven and economical sulfate treatment strategies in place anywhere in the world. Time is needed to evaluate and develop treatment alternatives that are effective and achievable. Since these are some of the first permits to contain the 10 mg/L sulfate limit, other permittees will use the testing and engineering developed for compliance as a model in the future. Current treatment technologies to reduce sulfate levels result in increased solid waste that will be required to be landfilled, increased electrical usage, increased greenhouse gas emissions, and other negative environmental outcomes. Time and careful consideration are needed to develop feasible sulfate treatment that all Minnesotans can benefit from. The MPCA should allow a longer compliance schedule, or grant the variance, to provide more time to effectively find a feasible solution. The current compliance schedule does not include time for regulatory agency requirements such as environmental review, permitting and other authorizations that may be required.
The two draft permits require wild rice sulfate compliance at each of Keetac's outfalls, yet they all discharge to one water body where the MPCA has said the wild rice standard applies. The compliance point should protect that water body and be representative of the combined discharges from the Keetac facility. The permittee requested to combine sulfate compliance points to factually represent offsite discharges, however the MPCA denied that request. It is concerning that the MPCA will not consider the request, even though it is more factually accurate than what is contained in the draft permits. MPCA must modify the permits to include a single downstream compliance point as proposed by the permittee.
U. S. Steel has submitted two site-specific standard (SSS) requests for sulfate at Hay Lake near Keetac. The 2014 request was never acted upon by MPCA and the 2022 request was denied. These applications followed MPCA guidance and show that a higher sulfate standard than 10 mg/L is warranted. It is concerning that the MPCA does not take into account modern science and site-specific conditions. I urge the MPCA to reconsider the SSS applications as Keetac has been discharging to Hay Lake for almost 60 years with healthy wild rice in existence.
In summary, I urge the MPCA:
• To refrain from including sulfate limits in Keetac's permits. If the permit limits remain as proposed, the MPCA must modify the permits to contain a single sulfate compliance point and allow more time for compliance.
• To abide by the 2011 law and update the 10 mg/L sulfate standard that the state of Minnesota has recognized as being incorrect.

No attachments

Comment From: Alana Howey

9/18/25 @ 2:51 PM

We must protect Minnesota's most precious resource- water. In line with that we also need to start honoring our treaties with the Anishanabe relatives by making the growth of wild rice sustainable into the future. The record of pollution and accident...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Libby Logsden

9/18/25 @ 2:27 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Kristin Swenson

9/18/25 @ 1:56 PM

Here in central Virginia (the Commonwealth of), I am cooking a pot of wild rice to bring to a friend whose husband is dying of cancer. The experience is especially poignant as wild rice is itself under attack. I am a Minnesotan who asks you to enforc...↓

No attachments

Comment From: David Toole

9/18/25 @ 1:53 PM

Please use scientific data when making this decision. The standard that is being proposed isn't attainable and will put people out of jobs. Not only on mining but in the cities and towns all over the state. It will cost companies and cities millions ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Elizabeth Olstad

9/18/25 @ 1:06 PM

Please consider your moral obligation to respect the rights of Anishinaabe people and the land that is sacred to them. Their land and treaties been taken and/or diminished too many times. You can now do the right thing for them by not invading and po...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Sarah Irwin

9/18/25 @ 12:52 PM

I am a Minnesotan who wants to live in a state that keeps its promises..

The United States and Minnesota owe no debt to out-of-state corporations and international mining conglomerates. But the U.S. did make promises to Indigenous stewards in excha...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Mary Vlazny

9/18/25 @ 12:46 PM

We ask that the MPCA protect wild rice and Minnesota's water from sulfate pollution by upholding the sulfate standard and rejecting variances for mining companies who have raked in massive profits by creating pollution. US Steel can afford to clean u...↓p the mess they have made and in doing so they will have jobs for this community now and on into the future. Setting this precedent now ensures businesses that operate in Minnesota do so responsibly. Wild rice and clean water are central to treaty rights, the health of our ecosystems, and the culture of all Minnesotans. We stand together for the water and manoomin/ps�K and we ask that MPCA do the same.
Wild rice is more than just a food on our table. It is a species that is central to biodiversity here in Minnesota. More than 17 species of wildlife listed in the MNDNR's Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy as "species of greatest conservation need" use wild rice lakes as habitat for reproduction or foraging. But even non-threatened species benefit from healthy wild rice stands. Duck hunters rely on wild rice stands for cover, fishermen know that rice stands are a food source for amphibian and fish populations, and birders enjoy the variety of migrating waterfowl who feed at rice stands.
Please apply the 10 mg/L sulfate standard to the Keetac mine without variance because protecting wild rice protects us all.
Economically, leisure and hospitality� industries that depend on clean water for fishing, wild rice stands for fowl habitat, and a steady flow of visitors who want to see the beauty of Minnesota� account for more jobs and more environmentally safe and sustainable jobs in the region And 100% of all 5.8 million Minnesotans need clean water to drink.
Also honoring treaties and protecting religious liberties top the list of protection of water, sacred wild rice, and cultural practices on native homeland. Wild rice is sacred to the Anishinaabe, and Wild rice is central to the cultural and spiritual traditions of our Indigenous relatives here in Minnesota. Just as Minnesota law protects other people's cultural and worship practices from degradation by mining, it is important to protect Indigenous spiritual practices from mining.
Protect manoomin from the existential threat of waterborne sulfate by applying the 10mg/L limit to the Keetac mine without any variance.

No attachments

Comment From: Theree Presley

9/18/25 @ 12:05 PM

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1H6_ld-hOeNLH7TpMfqAr94HEcx6i35PxFKCzkeg23iw/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.xmpcjlana4wm

No attachments

Comment From: Karen Alexander

9/18/25 @ 11:40 AM

To members of the MPCA:
I am a Minnesotan who wants to ensure that our people and place are healthy for generations to come.
Wild rice (manoomin in Ojibwe and psíŋ in Dakota) is a "superfood" that requires no pesticides or fertilizers to grow. Wild r...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Jennifer Johnson

9/18/25 @ 9:59 AM

No attachments

Comment From: Alice Worden

9/18/25 @ 8:58 AM

I am a Minnesotan who wants to live in a state that keeps its promises. I hope you'll read this comment all the way through even if you've already read it a hundred times, because it's exactly what I want to convey to you.

The United States and Minn...↓

No attachments

Comment From: John Engesser

9/18/25 @ 7:38 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Multiple Senders

9/18/25 @ 12:00 AM

Email comments submitted by multiple senders on 9/18/25.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: John Schlichting

9/18/25 @ 12:00 AM

Email comment received 9/18/25 - variance

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Helen Kosobayashi

9/17/25 @ 10:23 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Blythe Pollard

9/17/25 @ 10:14 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Olaf Hall-Holt

9/17/25 @ 7:24 PM

I am a Minnesotan who would like to see our economy and environment flourish for generations to come.

U.S. Steel complains that complying with the law will create substantial and widespread social impact. But the idea that mining creates jobs is a m...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Susan Keller

9/17/25 @ 7:11 PM

Wild Rice is a cultural part of Indigenous Peoples in MN. It is sacred to them and part of cultural activities. We must not degrade it. We must keep it sacred and healthy. We will not put the profits of capitalists above the sanctity of people w...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Emily Meyer

9/17/25 @ 6:39 PM

I am a Minnesotan who asks you to enforce the 10 mg/L sulfate standard at Keetac Mine because wild rice is a sacred element in Indigenous spiritual practices and we have a sacred and ethical duty to stand for the religious rights of all US citizens -...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Mike Vant

9/17/25 @ 6:22 PM

Minnesotans Need Sustainable Economies, Not Throwaway Jobs.

I am a Minnesotan who wants to ensure that our economy and environment are healthy for generations to come.

U.S. Steel complains that complying with the law will create substantial and wid...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Susan Ebbers

9/17/25 @ 6:02 PM

In the first place, let us for a change hold to our treaties with Native peoples. Let us recognize, honor and protect the cultural and religious significance of wild rice to those people. Let us not further diminish and pollute the waters in which ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: PattyMn McGrath

9/17/25 @ 6:01 PM

I ask that the MPCA protect wild rice and Minnesota's water from sulfate pollution by upholding the sulfate standard and rejecting variances for mining companies who have raked in massive profits by creating pollution. US Steel can afford to clean up...↓

No attachments

Comment From: William Barton

9/17/25 @ 5:36 PM

MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
c/o Stephanie Handeland
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, MN 55155
When are you/we/MPCA/mining going to get it? The MAJORITY of citizens do not want mining to pollute OUR wa...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Jane Hovland

9/17/25 @ 4:45 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Gloria Karbo

9/17/25 @ 4:38 PM

The social and economic impact of granting this variance is real and detrimental to the public at large. It incentivizes pollution for profit at the expense of investment in sustainable economies, which we must do if people of the future are to surv...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Barbara Green

9/17/25 @ 4:26 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Sadie Green

9/17/25 @ 4:18 PM

(Treaties) Minnesotans Want to Keep Our Promises

I am a Minnesotan who wants to live in a state that keeps its promises..

The United States and Minnesota owe no debt to out-of-state corporations and international mining conglomerates. But the U.S....↓

No attachments

Comment From: Nancy Metz

9/17/25 @ 4:15 PM

I am not a Minnesotan but I long to live in a country where promises are kept. Native Americans have been treated abominably and this includes a sad history of broken treaties.

The United States and Minnesota owe no debt to out-of-state corporations...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Elizabeth Leeser

9/17/25 @ 4:02 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Julie Morgan

9/17/25 @ 3:58 PM

Two hundred and eighty-eight years ago, our country promised Anishinaabe people the right of "gathering the wild rice, upon the lands, the rivers and the lakes included in the territory ceded," forever." These same promises were repeated and extended...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Rebecca Cramer

9/17/25 @ 3:49 PM

I am a Minnesotan who wants to ensure that our economy and environment are healthy for generations to come. My primary residence is in S. Minneapolis, but my family has a cabin in Aitkin County.

U.S. Steel complains that complying with the law will ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Ralph Jacobson

9/17/25 @ 3:49 PM

I am horrified to hear that US Steel would even think to ask for a permit variance to discharge more than twice the volume of process water than what has been determined to be the limit that the waterways can absorb. Why do we go through the exercise...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Bill Sorem

9/17/25 @ 3:47 PM

I am a Minnesotan who cares about the religious liberties of all Minnesotans.

Wild rice is sacred to the Anishinaabe, and Wild rice is central to the cultural and spiritual traditions of our Indigenous relatives here in Minnesota. Just as Minnesota ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Lane Ayres

9/17/25 @ 3:46 PM

We have limits on sulfate for reasons. U.S. Steel wants us to let them put more sulfates into the water system because it would cost them more money to comply with the limit we have set. Simply put, they want us to increase the sulfate limit so that ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Laura Cina

9/17/25 @ 3:44 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Barbara Clark

9/17/25 @ 3:41 PM

No attachments

Comment From: JL Angell

9/17/25 @ 3:41 PM

Rule of thumb is always that exceeding established limits causes harms and is against the public's interest and thus there must be scientific research meeting a consensus of experts standard to ever consider such a proposal--which definitely does not...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Susan Raffo

9/17/25 @ 3:33 PM

It's hard to write a comment to a large-scale institution. Everything about this issue is about competing world views on the relationship between the economy, the environment, culture and what it means to ensure a safe and thriving world for future g...↓enerations. This is not really a rational conversation that can be assessed as though it is a math problem, but I know that is part of what the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency needs to do. So, if I were to turn this into a math-based assessment, I would lay things out like this: first, there is the cultural truth of what it means that manoomin is central to Anishinaabeg culture and has its own right to exist and that anything that threatens the livelihood of manoomin threatens the cultural interconnection between manoomin and Anishinaabeg people. Much of the treaty provisions made by the federal government with the Ojibwe people were written at a time before current technology. Part of our treaty agreement is that we honor and protect Ojibwe land that was ceded to the US government through a range of treaty agreements. By making choices that will inadvertently impact treaty land, in this case by impacting the wild rice that is central to Ojibwe life, we are breaking treaty. In 1837, the United States "guaranteed" Anishinaabe people thel right of "gathering the wild rice, upon the lands, the rivers and the lakes included in the territory ceded," forever, in exchange for title to that territory (1837 Treaty with the Chippewa). An 1855 Treaty transferred title of more Anishinaabe land to the United States– including the land holding the Keetac mine– but again retained the right to gather rice from the land and waters (1855 Treaty with the Chippewa; Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, 526 U.S. 172 (1999)). More than a generation ago, in 1973, Minnesota made good to protect that promise when it passed the 10 mg/L sulfate standard. Wild rice is of spiritual and cultural importance to Ojibwe people and that doesn't have to make sense to non-native people any more than Christianity has to make sense to non-Christians.

Second, western cultural economies have mostly not focused on the importance of biodiversity when assuming a future for those to come. Manoomin is at the center of an ecosystem in northern Minnesota and has to be protected so that the land itself is also protected.

And third, struggling economies in rural areas are real. I just completed a year long walk across the United States in order to talk with folks about how all of this fits together: honoring indigenous right to land, environmental protections, agricultural policy and economic struggles. Again and again I had conversations with people who were willing to think through how all of these pieces can fit together but it depended on not being set up as a power struggle between disparate interests. The only way to do that is to have this be a conversation among people impacted and not corporate interests.

Please protect the rice.

Susan Raffo

No attachments

Comment From: Gretchen Larson

9/17/25 @ 3:28 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Pamela Fickenscher

9/17/25 @ 3:20 PM

I am a Minnesotan who deeply values the natural resources -- especially our waters -- that belong to all of us.

U.S. Steel complains that complying with the law will create substantial and widespread social impact. But the idea that mining creates ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Micki Lechner-Riehle

9/17/25 @ 3:18 PM

I support clean water and healthy wild rice beds. Please maintain the lower sulfate levels.

No attachments

Comment From: Lauren Bilek

9/17/25 @ 3:16 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Denise Marlowe

9/17/25 @ 3:13 PM

Manoomin or wild rice is a sacred food and grows nowhere else in the world but the U.S.,Minnesota. It needs clean water to grow and thrive. Please do all in your power to save our wild rice. Thank you, Denise Marlowe

No attachments

Comment From: Brian Hubbard

9/17/25 @ 12:00 AM

Email comment received 9/17/25.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Multiple Senders

9/17/25 @ 12:00 AM

Email comments from multiple senders received 9/17/25 - Variance.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Clearwater BioLogic LLC (Jeffrey Hanson)

9/16/25 @ 7:44 PM

September 16, 2025

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Keetac Variance Comment Submission

We, Bill Newman and Jeff Hanson, believe that we at Clearwater BioLogic have a biological treatment system that is an alternative treatment...↓ technology for sulfate impacted waters. The system uses fixed film bioreactors with reclaimed carpet fibers as an attachment media and crop derived electron donors to reduce sulfate to sulfide. Sulfide is removed using two direct reduced iron (DRI) pellet based treatment methods. The bioreactors are capable of reducing sulfate concentrations as high as 2,000 mg/L to less than the 10 mg/L wild rice standard. The combination of the bioreactors and DRI based sulfide treatment systems have low operating costs, require minimal energy inputs, and add no harmful chemicals or byproducts to the final effluent. Two US patents have been issued on the bioreactor technology and the DRI sulfide treatment systems are patent pending.

Floating Bioreactor Development – Clearwater Layline: The floating bioreactors were first developed by Clearwater Layline. Field trials of the floating bioreactors were conducted for over four years treating water from the Area 5 mine pit lake at the former Erie Mining Site (future New Range Copper Nickel site). The influent concentrations of 1,100 mg/L to 1,200 mg/L were effectively treated year-round, regularly producing sulfate effluent concentrations of less than 10 mg/L. An ethanol electron donor was delivered to the fiber filled floating bioreactors to provide food for attached sulfate reducing bacteria biofilm. The native microbes used the sulfate as an electron acceptor reducing sulfate to sulfide. A gear pump and timer were used to feed ethanol at five minute intervals which may have resulted in variable ethanol concentrations within the fiber beds. We believe that this was the cause of variable effluent quality. The bioreactors often reduced the 1,100 mg/L of sulfate to less than 10 mg/L sulfate but at times higher concentrations were observed. Two chemical treatment methods were tested to remove the sulfide produced by the bioreactors. Iron sulfide precipitation using ferric chloride was effective but resulted in the addition of over 1,000 mg/L of chloride and had high reagent costs. Precipitation of elemental sulfur using pH adjustment and partial oxidation with hydrogen peroxide worked well but operation was difficult and reagent costs were also high. Overall the bioreactor technology was cost effective but it was determined that better sulfide treatment methods needed to be developed. Results from this initial field trial are available at https://conservancy.umn.edu/items/47e0df53-3924-48c4-9f5e-5f02905a3d31produce.

Bioreactor Optimization and DRI Treatment Development – Clearwater BioLogic: In 2018 Clearwater BioLogic, LLC was incorporated by Jeff Hanson and Bill Newman to continue development of the sulfate treatment systems. The bioreactor system was optimized using a more continuous electron donor feed to ensure that the bioreactor effluent is consistently less than the 10 mg/L wild rice standard. A new glycerin and ethanol electron donor blend was tested in large duration bioreactor column tests along with two new DRI sulfide treatment methods. Mining impacted waters with sulfate concentrations ranging from 30 mg/L to 700 mg/L were consistently reduced to less than 3 mg/L of sulfate in the effluent. The sulfide produced by the bioreactor columns was first treated with a DRI electrode system that uses a sacrificial anode to add iron cations without adding unwanted chloride, resulting in the precipitation of iron sulfides. Sulfide that is not removed by the electrodes is treated by adsorption onto the surface of a bed of DRI pellets. Both the iron sulfide precipitated solids and the sulfurized iron pellets have potential commercial applications in environmental remediation for the treatment of chlorinated solvents and toxic metals including mercury.

Treatment Cost Estimates: The four treatment systems described by Barr Engineering have a total design flow capacity of 13,000 gpm (up to 6,832,800,00 gallons per year). The combined mechanical and chemical treatment systems have an estimated annual operating cost of $105 million dollars per year. In reviewing the MPCA treatment system description It is not clear what mass of sulfate would be removed by the four systems as no weighted average concentration is presented for the total design flow of 13,000 gpm. Treatment costs using the Clearwater BioLogic technologies are proportional to the mass of sulfate removed so we need the proposed mass removal needs to accurately estimate treatment costs. Treatment of 13,000 gallons per minute of 30 mg/L sulfate would require removal of 776 metric tons of sulfate per year. If we assume a higher concentration of 150 mg/L of sulfate with the same flow rate we would need to remove 3,880 metric tons of sulfate per year. Electron donor costs for bulk ethanol are estimated to be about $1,000 per metric ton of sulfate removed. The cost of DRI and electricity for the sulfide treatment could add an additional $250 per metric ton to operating costs. Labor costs might add an additional $250 per ton of sulfate removed. If we assume $500 per metric ton to service capital costs and provide reasonable gross margin the total treatment cost should be approximately $2000 per metric ton. Note that both the precipitated iron sulfide and sulfidized DRI pellets may have commercial value that would offset some of the treatment costs. If we use the total treatment cost estimate of $2000 per ton of sulfate removed and a range of 776 to 3,880 metric tons per year treatment might cost 1.55 million dollars per year for the low mass assumption and 7.76 million dollars per year for the higher mass assumption. This is far less than the estimated costs of reverse osmosis based treatment. Capital costs for the treatment system would be approximately $5000 per bioreactor module with 500 to 1000 modules required. It may be required to build systems in four locations requiring capital investments in the range of 2.5 to 5 million dollars.

Proving The System at Scale: Clearwater BioLogic now has a pilot test trailer we can use to confirm the effectiveness of treatment with site specific water chemistry, optimize electron donor feed rates/costs, determine maximum flow rates per module and to optimize electrode operation and DRI adsorption sulfide treatment. The trailer has the capacity to treat approximately one seventh of a full scale floating bioreactor module. And multiple modules can be rafted together for any size flow required. After confirming treatment effectiveness on site with the treatment trailer pilot test, we would recommend operating several full scale bioreactor modules and a larger scale DRI treatment system at a larger scale for 100-200 gpm field trials. We believe that the above pilot test and field trials could be completed in less than a year and full scale treatment systems could be designed and build soon after. Clearwater BioLogic is willing to work with existing, reputable engineering firms for the effective design, building, and operation of sulfate reduction systems. We look forward to the opportunity to prove the systems at scale.

Thank you,
Jeffrey Hanson
CEO and Partner
Clearwater BioLogic LLC
8457 Spring Ridge Rd
Babbitt, MN 55706
ClearwaterBioLogic.com

No attachments

Comment From: Minnesota Chamber of Commerce (Andrew Morley)

9/16/25 @ 10:06 AM

Please see attached PDF.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Kevin Hakala

9/16/25 @ 12:00 AM

Email comment submitted 9/16.25

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Kevin Hakala

9/16/25 @ 12:00 AM

Email comment submitted 9/16/25

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Multiple Senders

9/16/25 @ 12:00 AM

Email comments from multiple senders received 9/16/25 - Variance.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Michael Shomsky

9/15/25 @ 8:09 AM

Enforce permit. Honor tribal treaty. Protect our water. Simple. Thank you.

No attachments

Comment From: Barbara Taray

9/15/25 @ 6:40 AM

Please grant the variance request for US Steel/Nippon Keetac facility AND tailings basin. It's a matter of national security and farming infrastructure. As a farmer I work in a mine because farming can no longer stand alone financially in northern ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Multiple Senders

9/15/25 @ 12:00 AM

Email comments from multiple senders received 9/15/25 - Variance.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Jeremiah Hoey

9/14/25 @ 10:21 PM

To Whom It May Concern,

The sulfate standard currently being considered for imposition on the taconite mines of the Iron Range may be noble or right in some respects, but not every decision is clear-cut or black and white. More often than not, there...↓ is a gray area in between.

To my knowledge, the revenue the State of Minnesota collects annually from the taconite mining production tax has exceeded $100 million for quite some time. The relief this provides to the people of northeastern Minnesota is substantial and vital for those of us who live here. These funds reduce property taxes for local residents, while also providing significant support to school districts and education in the area. This includes building maintenance, general expenses, and referendum revenue. The funds are also used for county road and bridge improvements, economic development, and many other essential needs.

The good-paying jobs that these mining companies provide are of the utmost importance to our local economy, families, businesses, contractors, and children. I have been working at U.S. Steel's Minntac facility for six years. My grandfather worked at this same mine for 30 years, my uncle currently works here, and two of my first cousins work at Keetac.

Due to financial difficulties growing up, I was unable to attend university like some of my peers. I worked hard and gained relevant experience to earn an opportunity in the mining industry. It took me a few years, but eventually, my dedication paid off. Shortly after being hired, I was able to purchase my first home in the town where I grew up. My parents still live there, and my younger brothers recently bought homes there as well.

If the mines shut down, I—and thousands of others like me—would more than likely have to move away from our loved ones and pursue life and work elsewhere. We already lost 7,000 mining jobs back in the 1980s, and an entire generation of young men and women entering the workforce at that time suffered that unfortunate fate. With the current economic conditions and the difficulties people face today—especially young people just entering the workforce—mine closures, idling, or layoffs would be absolutely devastating to this region.

I sympathize with the importance of wild rice to Native American people and their culture. I understand they have endured egregious injustices and generational trauma that may never fully heal. There must be a way to preserve the cultural importance and traditions of the Native American people while also mining taconite in an environmentally responsible and safe manner.

I respectfully ask that you consider commissioning a new scientific study for sulfate standards rather than imposing the outdated 10 mg/L standard, which is decades old.

Thank you for taking the time to read this, and I hope you have a wonderful rest of your day.

Best regards,
Jeremiah G. Hoey

No attachments

Comment From: Multiple Senders

9/14/25 @ 12:00 AM

Email comments from multiple senders received 9/14/25 - Variance.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Bill Newman

9/13/25 @ 5:13 PM

We believe that Clearwater BioLogic has a biological treatment system that should be considered as an alternative treatment technology for sulfate impacted waters. The system uses fixed film bioreactors with reclaimed carpet fibers as an attachment ...↓media and crop derived electron donors to reduce sulfate to sulfide. Sulfide is removed using two direct reduced iron (DRI) pellet based treatment methods. The bioreactors are capable of reducing sulfate concentrations a high as 2,000 mg/L to less than the 10 mg/L wild rice standard. The combination of the bioreactors and DRI based sulfide treatment systems have low operating costs, require minimal energy inputs, and add no harmful chemicals or byproducts to the final effluent. Two US patents have been issued on the bioreactor technology and the DRI sulfide treatment systems are patent pending.

Floating Bioreactor Development – Clearwater Layline: The floating bioreactors were first developed by Jeff Hanson of Clearwater Layline. Field trials of the floating bioreactors were conducted for over four years treating water from the Area 5 mine pit lake at the former Erie Mine Site (future New Range site). The influent concentrations of 1,100 mg/L to 1,200 mg/L were effectively treated year-round, at times producing sulfate effluent concentrations of less than 10 mg/L. An ethanol electron donor was delivered to the fiber filled floating bioreactors to provide food for attached sulfate reducing bacteria biofilm. The native microbes used the sulfate as an electron acceptor reducing sulfate to sulfide. A gear pump and timer was used to feed ethanol at five minute intervals which may have resulted in variable ethanol concentrations within the fiber beds. We believe that this was the cause of variable effluent quality. The bioreactors often reduced the 1,100 mg/L of sulfate to less than 10 mg/L sulfate but at times higher concentrations were observed. Two chemical treatment methods were tested to remove the sulfide produced by the bioreactors. Iron sulfide precipitation using ferric chloride was effective but resulted in the addition of over 1,000 mg/L of chloride and had high reagent costs. Precipitation of elemental sulfur using pH adjustment and partial oxidation with hydrogen peroxide worked well but operation was difficult and reagent costs were also high. Overall the bioreactor technology was cost effective but it was determined that better sulfide treatment methods needed to be developed. Results from this initial field trial are available at https://conservancy.umn.edu/items/47e0df53-3924-48c4-9f5e-5f02905a3d31produce.

Bioreactor Optimization and DRI Treatment Development – Clearwater BioLogic: In 2018 Clearwater BioLogic, LLC was incorporated by Jeff Hanson and Bill Newman to continue development of the sulfate treatment systems. The bioreactor system was optimized using a more continuous electron donor feed to ensure that the bioreactor effluent is less than the 10 mg/L wild rice standard. A new glycerin and ethanol electron donor blend was tested in large scale bioreactor column tests along with two new DRI sulfide treatment methods. Mining impacted waters with sulfate concentrations ranging from 30 mg/L to 700 mg/L were consistently reduced to less than 3 mg/L of sulfate in the effluent. The sulfide produced by the bioreactor columns was first treated with a DRI electrode system that uses a sacrificial anode to add iron cations without adding unwanted chloride, resulting in the precipitation of iron sulfides. Sulfide that is not removed by the electrodes is treated by adsorption onto the surface of a bed of DRI pellets. Both the iron sulfide precipitated solids and the sulfidized iron pellet have potential commercial applications in environmental remediation for the treatment of chlorinated solvents and toxic metals.

Treatment Cost Estimates: The four treatment systems described by Barr Engineering have a total design flow capacity of 13,000 gpm (up to 6,832,800,00 gallons per year). The combined mechanical and chemical treatment systems have an estimated annual operating cost of $105 million dollars per year. In reviewing the MPCA treatment system description It is not clear what mass of sulfate would be removed by the four systems as no weighted average concentration is presented for the total design flow of 13,000 gpm. Treatment costs using the Clearwater BioLogic technologies are proportional to the mass of sulfate removed so we need the proposed mass removal needs to accurately estimate treatment costs. Treatment of 13,000 gallons per minute of 30 mg/L sulfate would require removal of 776 metric tons of sulfate per year. If we assume a higher concentration of 150 mg/L of sulfate with the same flow rate we would need to remove 3,880 metric tons of sulfate per year. Electron donor costs for bulk ethanol are estimated to be about $1,000 per metric ton of sulfate removed. The cost of DRI and electricity for the sulfide treatment could add an additional $250 per metric ton to operating costs. Labor costs might add an additional $250 per ton of sulfate removed. If we assume $500 per metric ton to service capital costs and provide reasonable gross margin the total treatment cost should be approximately $2000 per metric ton. Note that both the precipitated iron sulfide and sulfidized DRI pellets may have commercial value that would offset some of the treatment costs. If we use the total treatment cost estimate of $2000 per ton of sulfate removed and a range of 776 to 3,880 metric tons per year treatment might cost 1.55 million dollars per year for the low mass assumption and 7.76 to six million dollars per year far less than the estimated costs of reverse osmosis based treatment. Capital costs for the treatment system would be approximately $5000 per bioreactor module with 500 to 1000 modules required. perhaps 2.5 million to 5 million dollars required to build systems in four locations and requiring capital investments in the range of 2.5 to 5 million dollars.

Proving The System at Scale: Clearwater BioLogic now has a pilot test trailer we can use to confirm the effectiveness of treatment with site specific water chemistry, optimize electron donor feed rates/costs, determine maximum flow rates per module and to optimize electrode operation and DRI adsorption sulfide treatment. The trailer has the capacity to treat approximately one seventh of a full scale floating bioreactor module. After confirming treatment effectiveness on site with the treatment trailer pilot test we would recommend operating several full scale bioreactor modules and a larger scale DRI treatment system at a larger scale for 100-200 gpm field trials. We believe that the above pilot test and field trials could be completed in less than a year and full scale treatment systems could be designed and build soon after. We look forward to the opportunity to prove the systems at scale.

No attachments

Comment From: Cindy Lustig

9/13/25 @ 8:41 AM

Please continue to deny the variance to USS and uphold the MN State Standard.

No attachments

Comment From: Multiple Senders

9/13/25 @ 12:00 AM

Email comments from multiple senders received 9/13/25 - Variance.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Diane Flakne

9/12/25 @ 12:36 PM

I understand the need for mining, but the ecology has already been compromised for years. Along with scientific studies and conclusions thereof, I believe that, as stated by the Minnesota Pollution Control agency and the MPCA, United States Steel Cor...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Brian Douglas

9/12/25 @ 10:24 AM

Our water sources should not suffer spillover costs from industries trying to maximize profit. If they can't honor laws and agreements already in place and remain profitable, the business shouldn't exist. Please enforce the laws in place and protect ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Michael Lee

9/12/25 @ 7:06 AM

I strongly support the MPCA's decision to enforce the restrictions on discharge of sulfate and other toxic substances in the permit to mine and stockpile tailings. Whether a mining company can afford it or not should absolutely not be a reason to con...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Sandy Daniels-Milton

9/12/25 @ 12:00 AM

Email comment received 9/12/25 - variance.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Ryan Vesey

9/11/25 @ 10:51 AM

It is critical to approve the proposed site specific standards for the US Steel mine. The site specific standards provide water quality far exceeding the standard for drinking water and there isn't evidence that these standards would negatively impac...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Multiple Senders

9/11/25 @ 12:00 AM

Email comments received 9/11/25.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Multiple Senders

9/11/25 @ 12:00 AM

Email comments from multiple senders received 9/11/25 - Variance.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Amy Norenberg

9/10/25 @ 10:27 AM

I am a lifelong resident of northeastern Minnesota, where mining has sustained families, communities, and local economies for generations. More than 85% of America's domestic steel production begins here, and the ripple effects reach far beyond the I...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

9/10/25 @ 12:00 AM

Email comment submitted 9/10/25.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Multiple Senders

9/10/25 @ 12:00 AM

Email comments from multiple senders received 9/10/25 - Variance.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: AJEET MILLIARD

9/09/25 @ 3:05 PM

Taconite, steel, iron, however it is referenced, is all vital to our very existence and way of day-to-day life. Without iron mining, there would be no automobiles, no rebar for our concrete infrastructure, no ships to transport goods on waterways, an...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Christopher James

9/09/25 @ 2:51 PM

We live in a global economy, even though Nippon Steel has made a promise not to idle mines this enforcement of this standard would be seen as a reason for shutting down the mine as uncompetitive.
I do believe that we have to honor native peoples and ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Gregory Pierce

9/09/25 @ 2:33 PM

Please grant the variance as requested by USSteel. The standards are outdated and not current. This will NOT harm wild rice.

No attachments

Comment From: Leonard Conley

9/09/25 @ 1:36 PM

how many parts per million does Minnesota Powers Boswell put into water
Following a 5.5 million-gallon coal ash wastewater leak at the Minnesota Power Boswell Energy Center in July 2024, preliminary monitoring detected sulfate levels above 10 parts p...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Matt Baudek

9/09/25 @ 12:10 PM

I am a 4th generation miner and would like to see my children have an opportunity to work in the mining industry as I have, in order to make a decision on this shouldn't the standard and rules/regulations be up to current science and experience?

No attachments

Comment From: Ashley Johnson

9/09/25 @ 11:04 AM

Keetac has followed all standards while I have been on property. They produce a unique quality pellet. The safe mining that has been performed for many years will continue. I support mining as well as the families this could affect.

No attachments

Comment From: Multiple Senders

9/09/25 @ 12:00 AM

Email comments from multiple senders received 9/9/25 - Variance.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: LiUNA (Patrick O'Connell)

9/08/25 @ 6:28 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Andy Baldwin

9/08/25 @ 5:54 PM

Thank you to all those that came to share and listen. My name is Andy Baldwin. I grew up here on the iron range, and now I'm a high school science educator.

Sulfates in our lakes are not only harmful to aquatic life, but are the cause of methymercu...↓ry pollution.

Critics of the sulfate standard do not address anything about the risk of harm to the public from mercury, and I think this is because they don't understand how sulfates and mercury are related.

Sulfates are compounds that are relatively safe on their own for humans. Which is why the standard is higher for drinking water. But they will trigger a biological process within an ecosystem that leads to extremely toxic heavy metals being released from within the environment.

Sulfates are used by these bacteria for energy like how plants use CO2. The bacteria in wetlands, lake sediments, and flooded soils convert them into sulfides, which are released into the environment. Sulfides react with stable, inorganic mercury and form methylmercury. This is always happening in our lakes, as it can't be stopped, but increasing sulfates means increasing methylmercury. Any amount above zero is already too much.

Even small amounts of methylmercury in the environment compound to high levels of toxicity in game fish due to bioaccumulation. Delaying compliance only prolongs this, and so many of our lakes already have fish with unsafe levels of mercury.

If I could say one thing loudly about this it would be that we do not need to wait to find out what will happen if we do nothing about methylmercury pollution. There are enough examples in recent history of widespread mercury pollution, and each of those cases involved untold number of lives affected or lost. We do not need to make the iron range the next example of a tragic public health crisis.

It's important to preserve and enforce this standard of 10mg/l for sulfate effluence for Key tac. And it could even be lower. Numerous recent studies indicate that harmful sulfate levels are much lower at 120 micrograms/L. But if not for the sake of protecting aquatic life, then enforcement should be for the sake of limiting mercury. After-all, mercury pollution is a permanent environmental condition. Once it's there, you can never get it out.

Likewise, once a higher sulfate limit is set, it's difficult to lower it. If the mining industry in Minnesota dictates that overseeing agencies are powerless to enforce regulation, then all future mines will expect this same treatment. Cu-Ni mines guarantee the increase of sulfate pollution and methylmercury.

If voluntary compliance to regulations is the norm, it's likely that Minnesota's lakes will never be healthy again. There are no minerals critical enough to trade for this destruction.

Finally, to those fighting on behalf of these billion dollar mining corporations: you need to stop. They don't need your help. They have the resources to comply with the standards for environmental protections that we need to keep people safe. To argue otherwise is irresponsible. Instead, there are people in your greater Minnesota neighborhood that do need your help. Help each other. Care about people.

No attachments

Comment From: Taylor Anderson

9/08/25 @ 10:00 AM

See attached. A copy has also been provided to the tailings permit comment space for your review.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: TAWNYA GUSTAFSON

9/08/25 @ 6:32 AM

I currently work at Keetac as a trainer and have been a Union Leader of some sort for many years, which allows me to raise by children and stay on the Iron Range. I have been pretty involved in the articles and public meetings for the law and standar...↓d. What happens after you make US Steel do this? Move to smaller companies that can't afford this? Give them grants, loans etc. until that is exhausted. If it's truly to keep the water clean for the rice that makes no sense. There is no way all the companies will be able to withhold this for your law.
Next, how is Minnesota and Keetac the 1st? I will be neutral; I understand that someone has to be 1st but it seems like no other area or business are in question. No one is under the stress of financial ruins expect US Steel. How is this right?
As far as science I heard many verbal comments at the meeting that there is science. Well, it must not be documented correctly. Why isn't this information out to the public if it is so true. What is the process for that? This information should be proven before a company should by law spend this money and follow a law.
Lastly no one talked about the science to help the companies out to follow the law and to afford it. So, we have reverse osmosis and no proof that it will help when the money is spent, and the job is done. There was a recorded speaker that was from Babbitt and had some sort of environmental company. He had talked about natural healthy science that could get this amount to where you want it. How do we not have this information for a cheaper option or environmentally friendly options.
If the MPCA is forced upon this law from the EPA and the Clean water act. How are we not getting comments or feedback from them and starting this from the start if it is such a grey area for both sides. I do not understand the process from our head government. It seems that this crisis should be on the president's table.
Lastly, I have great respect for our indigenous people and their culture and ways of life and living. there has to be a better way for both sides, and this is not the right way. Please make this right for both sides equally and fairly.
I guess my comment in a nutshell is I think we need more time not just Keetac but everyone. Scientists, companies, government, EPA and the MPCA need to have more solid information from all sources.

No attachments

Comment From: Multiple Senders

9/08/25 @ 12:00 AM

Multiple email comments received 9/8/25 regarding the variance.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Multiple Senders

9/07/25 @ 12:00 AM

Email comments regarding variance received from multiple senders 9/7/25

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Terry Carlson

9/06/25 @ 3:33 PM

The anti-mining groups don't care about the environment regarding both the wastewater mine permit and the tailings basin permit--this nothing more than a political move. WE LIVE HERE--no one cares more about our ground water more than we do. We're up...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Robert Youngman

9/05/25 @ 2:42 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

This letter is intended to provide comments regarding public notice of draft NPDES permits MN0055948 and MN0031879 for the U. S. Steel Keetac tailings basin and mining area, respectively. My interests include protecting our ...↓environment as well as retaining and expanding mining opportunities.

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) sulfate water quality standard of 10 mg/L for wild rice waters raises concerns about consequences to the Iron Range and communities across the state. MPCA was directed to review and update the wild rice sulfate standard in 2011 but has not yet completed this task. The future of Minnesota mines, local governments and other industries are critically affected by the enforcement of the current outdated standard.

I strongly urge MPCA to update the wild rice sulfate standard using current science and site-specific variables. The current 10 mg/L sulfate standard oversimplifies the environmental needs of wild rice. Many other factors determine wild rice resilience, such as water depth, water fluctuation, predation, and competing vegetation. The current 10 mg/L standard is not proven to be effective and compliance with it is unattainable for many businesses and communities. From wastewater facilities and small businesses to mines employing thousands of Minnesotans, the cost of meeting a 10 mg/L sulfate standard puts Minnesota citizens at risk with no guaranteed outcome.

Please do not waste time, money and energy on a sulfate standard that does not make sense. I strongly urge you to refrain from including permit limits for sulfate until the time and resources are invested to develop a sulfate standard the follows modern science, addresses site-specific variables, and contains cost as required by the 2011 law.

In summary, I urge the MPCA to:
• Refrain from including sulfate limits in Keetac's permits. (If the permit limits remain as proposed, the MPCA must modify the permits to contain a single sulfate compliance point and allow more time for compliance.)
• Abide by the 2011 law and update the 10 mg/L sulfate standard that the State of Minnesota has recognized as being incorrect.

Thank you,

Robert J. Youngman
605 South 6th Avenue
Virginia, MN 55792
218-741-2557

No attachments

Comment From: Brian Bergeron

9/05/25 @ 2:27 PM

Dear Sirs:
I completely agree with your decision to limit the amount of sulfate at U.S. Steel's Ketac iron ore mine and tailings basin in Keewatin so wild rice rivers downstream don't exceed the state's 10 parts per million standard. I believe there...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Mark Taray

9/05/25 @ 7:38 AM

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Attn: Stephanie Handeland

To: Stephanie Handeland:

I would like to input my opinion on the Waste Water Permit for Keetac. First of all, I want to be clear that I am in favor of Keetac getting a variance for the s...↓

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Multiple Senders

9/05/25 @ 12:00 AM

Email comments received 9/5/25.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Multiple Senders

9/05/25 @ 12:00 AM

Email comments regarding variance received from multiple senders 9/5/25

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Molly Wick

9/04/25 @ 9:03 PM

Please deny U.S. Steel's request for a variance from the sulfate water quality standard for waters used for the production of wild rice. As a PhD Water resources social-ecological scientist, I understand and have collected data on how Manoomin is a c...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Conservation Minnesota (Tracy Whitney)

9/04/25 @ 8:12 PM

Comments submitted on behalf of Conservation Minnesota and 472 of our members.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Becky Rom

9/04/25 @ 11:59 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Marco Good

9/04/25 @ 11:52 AM

Comments for KeeTac MPCA hearing

Thank you for the chance to comment on your proposed wastewater variance for the expanded operations at KeeTac.
I was disappointed when I attended your public meeting on Sept 3 not to be able to deliver these comme...↓nts orally. It seemed to me that EVERY local and state government representative who attended got to speak, when they have many other chances to speak publicly in St. Paul and in their districts and communities. Like representatives of the unions and mining contractors, they are paid to represent corporate interests. Most of us who oppose this pollution are unpaid. I gave a whole day and traveled for eight hours to attend this meeting.

It always frustrates me when the workers and their corporate masters and government representatives blame those of us who care for the environment for the short term nature of their employment.
The boom and bust economy of the profiteers is responsible for their tenuous employment, not us.

Please pardon my primary concern, which is for the Water, the Earth, and the natural world, over the short-lived business of plundering resources and leaving devastation in its wake. It is not my intention to denigrate the concerns of workers in the industry.

When I first moved to Greaney, just a few miles North of Keewatin fifty years ago, I learned from a wonderful man, an Anishinabe
Elder named Arnold Sweet, how to pick and process Manoomin, our sacred gift known as Wild Rice.

At just this time of year, we would be out in the sunshine for a few weeks gathering the multicolored grains as they ripened, slowly gliding across the flat-calm waters of the Vermillion River or Big Rice Lake, just north of here. The rhythmic swish, swish of the knocking sticks whispered as our canoe rocked gently side to side while the life-giving carpet of rice beards slowly covered the bottom of the boat. Those were some of the best days of my life.

It is no mystery why there is no rice today in the Rice River just to the North of where we are, downstream from MinnTac, which has been violating the scientifically established 10mg/l. standard by at least 40 times for at least 40 years.

I am deeply saddened that the MPCA has never in all those years been allowed to enforce that peer-reviewed standard, which is based on solid meticulous research by Dr. John Pastor and others at UMD. That standard has been ignored by the mining industry and the politicians who represent them, not us, just as the executive outlaws in power in Washington do today with every judicial mandate they have been given.

There is no viable technology that can undo this ongoing damage to our Waters and our Life. Expanding operations without addressing this problem of catastrophic sulfuric waste at the top of the watershed of North America will only kill more Manoomin, and everything else that needs clean water to live.

Some day I hope we will have a government that represents the people and the natural world we depend on for our survival as much as they represent extractive industrial corporations.

No attachments

[ Previous Page / Next Page ]