Last week Seth Tupper reported that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources want to allow Canadian gold mining company Agnico Eagle Mines to study cadmium pollution in the water around the Gilt Edge Mine southeast of Lead. That pollution was left there by the last Canadians on the site, Brohm Mining, which went bankrupt in the late 1990s and saddled taxpayers with possibly $200 million in clean-up costs.
It strikes me as odd that the EPA and DENR would enlist a private mining company, which admits, “We are not environmental specialists,” to do their job at a Superfund clean-up site. Agnico will subcontract the environmental work and use their access to the site to look for gold. The EPA/DENR agreement doesn’t allow them to extract any gold, but Agnico can use the data they gather to determine whether it’s worth their while to apply to reopen the mine.
This privatization of Superfund clean-up responsibilities could be a smart way to save taxpayers money. The EPA and the state may be saying to Agnico that helping with this environmental project is part of the price of doing business at this contaminated site. If Agnico’s geologist-friend is right, there may be more than enough gold to pay for this testing, so why not tap the capitalist urge to pick up the tab for a previous capitalist externality?
But there could also be some conflicts of interest. Consider that by picking up this cost, Agnico is doing cash-strapped South Dakota a favor. When time comes to approve a new mining permit and to monitor new mining activities at the Gilt Edge site, South Dakota regulators may return the favor by paying less attention to little details like new pollution or violations of a new permit.
Agnico itself could manipulate the process to benefit its interests. The agreement makes clear that Agnico is not to be held responsible for any existing contamination. Agnico could report finding twice as much contamination as actually exists on site, then, when it starts digging for gold and produces a bunch of waste of its own, say that their waste is the leftover Brohm waste they reported.
Paragraph 31 [especially subparags. (c) and (e)] provide for quality control and oversight that ideally prevent fudging the numbers. However, paragraphs 40 and 41 allow Agnico to keep some data secret. Agnico can claim privilege to keep from handing over info to EPA and DENR. Agnico can claim business confidentiality on all the items it does hand over to EPA and DENR and thus prevent the general public from seeing any of its data.
If EPA and DENR were doing this work itself, there’s no way the testing data would end up confidential. There’d be less capitalist motivation to fudge the numbers. We can hope the EPA and DENR will be fair environmental watchdogs, but in under South Dakota’s cheapskatery and the Trump/Pruitt administration’s hostility, we can’t take such effective watchdoggery for granted.
The EPA is taking public comment on the Agnico/Gilt Edge deal through April 2. I see no comments up yet, but I encourage Black Hills residents and South Dakota taxpayers interested in seeing the Gilt Edge Mine cleaned up right to review the Agnico agreement and see whether it seems like a good deal for South Dakota.
I have a few choice words about this. At bottom, this is typical government corruption.
The Superfund program was designed to hold parties responsible for cleaning up the messes they made, so that taxpayers didn’t have to foot the entire bill. Essentially, it was designed to prevent de-privatization (or socialization) of the costs of cleanups. Cleanups are always complicated, far more difficult than doing things right the first time. They do require expertise, some of which is in private consulting firms. As long as these firms are beholden to the people’s interest (ie., the cleanup), and not one of the responsible parties, or a completely different entity with a desire to re-mine the site, then they are just fine.
That’s not what we have here. The State of South Dakota is the responsible party here, since Brohm Mining went bankrupt. It took over the mine site after it failed to properly regulate, which included a vastly deficient bond. Brohm Mining was a shell company designed specifically to take resources out of South Dakota and place the money in Canada, while keeping the US entity purposely poor. Everyone in the Gilt Edge Mine area knew the mine was in an area where acidic conditions prevailed. The State was specifically warned about this during permit hearings, yet the Board of Minerals and Environment handed them a permit anyway. When the Technical Information Project and the Atlantic States Legal Foundation put EPA on notice of a citizen suit to obtain National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permitting for the Brohm Mine, DENR and Brohm Mining opposed it together, always in lock step. The state’s dilly-dallying on that may have increased the problem. So, yes, sorry to say it, but the state ought to be paying the full cost of cleanup because of their failures to listen to citizens and properly regulate.
The state has been lucky to have had EPA footing most of the costs, but the state is chipping in money, too, though I think most of it has been coming out of the bond. That brings us to the fact that the current EPA is shorting the federal contributions to the Superfund program. It has started doing superficial cleanups to make it look like things are getting done. It’s actually sweeping things under the rug. When the Reagan administration did this, people went to jail.
So, South Dakota citizens are now part of the experiment in government corruption, and they are the guinea pigs. Agnico is a Canadian mining concern that wants to re-open the Gilt Edge Mine to mining. The acid rock is still there. The cadmium is still there.
It’s a complicated agreement, but here’s what I think is going to happen: Agnico is going to be paying into the Superfund sub-fund. I think that is going to be to displace the portion of funds that South Dakota is paying into Superfund clean up. Thus, Agnico is essentially paying a bribe to both EPA and the State of South Dakota. For this bribe, Agnico is expecting easy sailing in their effort to open another mine, that may include the portions of the expanded mining area on Forest Service land.
By the way, this agreement was negotiated without any public notice or public input. This mining site has been controversial since 1988, yet no one sought fit to let South Dakota citizens in on what was proposed until there is only a couple weeks to read and understand what is going on.
That’s how corruption works. EPA and the State of South Dakota should hold public meetings on this, and extend the comment period. There is a large backstory to this agreement that needs to be figured out. It has been in the works, in the background, for many months. When I called to try to ask some questions, I was told I had to submit a Freedom of Information Act request to get further information. That will take some time. Until we have all the information and the backstory, and an opportunity to comment based on a full understanding, this agreement should be shelved.
Many Superfund sites have citizen committees to oversee and keep tabs on the work. That should be the next step here, and until that happens, there should be no finalizing of this agreement.
Amen, Donald!
Thank you Cory for revealing this conflict of interest story.
The best way we South Dakotans can further develop our economy is to protect our environment and promote an excellent quality of life. Its time for some grassroots action to prevent further extractive mining in the Black Hills.
Donald’s explanation of the situation is well worth reading.
Donald speaks of the socialization of business costs. Looking just at that issue, one would think that pushing the clean-up costs back to the private sector is a brilliant maneuver. We’re not getting the Brohm folks who were originally responsible for the mess to finally pay their debt (the only association between Brohm and Agnico appears to be that they are both Canadian), but we are at least getting the mining industry to pay for the sins of one of its own.
But Donald argues that South Dakota is as much to blame for the mess as Brohm. We failed to regulate. We gave Brohm a free hand in the Black Hills. We let business interests supersede the public interest, and now we reap what we sow by having to pay for the clean-up. Ending up saddled with those costs should teach us a lesson and make us more cautious about future mining permits. Finding a way to escape that burden reduces our public impulse to protect the land in the future—why worry? We’ll just find another rich corporation to get our fat out of the fire! This particular escape also reduces the transparency and reliability of the process, as the data now will be controlled by a self-interested actor who can keep secrets and enjoy the protection of regulators grateful for the budget savings rather than by public scientists who should answer solely to the public.
About seven years ago I looked at a house in Gilt Edge subdivision. Really liked it, but thank goodness I did some homework. When I asked how deep the well was, the realtor told me that the owners go and get water elsewhere and bring it back to the house. Huh? When I asked why, the realtor said she didn’t know why. Huh? Thank goodness I drove a couple of miles up the road, and found the Gilt Edge Superfund site —– did some homework, then ran away fast and didn’t look back!
Donald Pay not only lays out the Gilt Edge corruption is great detail, but sadly, it could describe so many things in this state.
I’m VERY concerned about the new drilling going on in Rochford right now. (Also a Canadian Company) The oversight (lack of) is ridiculous. I guess the better question is, “what oversight?” Like the foxes watching the hen house. I also have a selfish interest in this as I just purchased a home 4 years ago, east of this new drilling exploration.
Citizens have been hitting both the Pennington County Commission and state legislators on the dangerous issues/lack of oversight on this project. The spineless response from Rep David Johnson says that the drilling company is obeying all the current laws and there is nothing he can do. And then says this, “”Come to me with a law or a bill to take to the house and I will run with it with as much speed as I can get”.
http://www.kotatv.com/content/news/Legislators-talk-environmental-issues-at-Cracker-Barrel–474403633.html
That sure isn’t the stance these legislators take when it comes to women’s rights, potty police, voters decisions, etc.
Dana P,
Thanks for your comment here. I was around in the 1990s when the streams were running yellow down to Sturgis. It was intermittent and everyone was assured at the time that there was little concern once the water cleared. It probably resulted in traces of toxins infiltrating into groundwater. Whether the levels are high enough to violate drinking water standards is something I don’t know.
I have a different reaction to the comment by Rep. Johnson. I wouldn’t expect him to have a clue about what to do, but he did extend an offer. I’d take him up on it. We worked with a number of legislators, Democrats and Republicans, on our bills and initiatives, and they were very helpful, but they left most of the research and concept development to us. There are still a few of the old folks around, but many have moved away or died. I’d be willing to help out from here. Don’t just assume that if you disagree with one party or a legislator on many issues, they won’t be sympathetic on this issue. We found a lot of support from Republicans.
Just off the top of my head, legislation could be developed on requiring permitting and hearings on all exploration permits, requiring an Environmental Impact Statements for all mines, perhaps a ban on mining where acid rock drainage is predicted. These ideas have been enacted in other states, so they aren’t too much of a stretch.
O K
The Northern Neighbors do testing
NO data collected can be hidden or unreported.
If GOLD present RFPs presented. This company then has the right of First Refusal on any compliance standards set up by the St of So Dak ( and Fed Regs).
Donald,
Thank you for your comments. You are absolutely correct in everything you are saying. I admit, my optimism with the Republicans and Republican leadership is minimal. Most especially with subjects like this. Too many times bitten, really pretty shy. (smile) In alot of cases, I would give folks like Rep Johnson a chance and take him up on his offer. But in his case specifically, this is a guy who not only hasn’t updated his website or F/B page as to “the issues” (ANY issues) in the last several months (almost a year on his web page) but he also might be a little gun shy after the kerfluffle with he and DiSanto a few weeks ago. When he said, “bring me a bill” at the cracker barrel, I would have thought he would have said something/anything about that on his web page or F/B page. If he was that frustrated with the current laws as he was implying, why would he not say something? I guess I was just reading it as lip service from him. Maybe he isn’t the one to approach with this?
I think your advice and brain storming are perfect. “We” have been forming some group think and problem solving groups over the last several months in reference to the gold exploration in Rochford. I like your ideas and I will bring them up! THANK YOU! And thanks for your offer to assist. I appreciate it.
Can the LRC, Legislative Research Council, help put it in legal terminology once the basic ideas are sorted out? And I think we need to share, share, share this so we get advice and expertise from as many people as possible! Thanks, Cory, for keeping us informed of this and so many other issues!
https://www.nrcce.wvu.edu/news/2018/02/15/rare-earth-elements-project-illustrates-potential-for-profits-and-amd-cleanup
Gold mining and coal mining are not necessarily the same, and the mining sites can be pretty different…nevertheless it would be a win-win if one could clean up a site while collecting the critical elements that wind/solar/batteries need.
I sent my comments in on time, but Regulations.gov had character limitations, so I had to mail them.
I spent the weekend and Monday writing comments to EPA on a plan to allow a mining company to renew exploration (and potentially a new mine) at the Gilt Edge Mine Superfund Site. This is corruption, brought on by Agnico Eagle Mines LTD, a Canadian mining company, conspiring with the State of South Dakota, and EPA appears to be going along with it. The Settlement Agreement actually contains what is a thinly veiled bribe–$30 million to partially offset the money both South Dakota and EPA will spend on the cleanup. And for that bribe, Agnico has been gloating in mining trade papers and the Rapid City Journal that it expects a mine. Anyone think the permitting process will be at all fair after the State gets $30 million in bribe money?
As I was writing the comments to EPA, I became more and more upset and mad. South Dakota has had what I believe is a criminal syndicate running state government for decades, and it shouldn’t be a surprise to me that the cast of characters there would be involved in this new corrupt endeavor. I had thought obtaining Superfund status for this site would end the criminal behavior, at least at this site. But, apparently not.
EPA head Scott Pruitt is in some difficulty for his unethical and illegal activity. It is really out of hand, and he may be fired, but his activity and that of his EPA is going to have decades-long impacts in South Dakota from the Dakota Access Pipeline to this latest criminal enterprise at the Gilt Edge Mine.