Pattison Sand Co. is proposing a 191-acre mine in Crawford County
You may well be answering the question above by your vote in the 96th District
Pattison Sand Co. is proposing a 191-acre mine combining properties of four landowners in the Town of Bridgeport in Crawford County. It is looking to create 30 jobs over the 20-year life of the project. Crawford County does not have countywide zoning so it’s up to local units of government to pass specific sand mining rules. A countywide moratorium on sand mining expires later this month, one reason Pattison is moving forward now.
“The county doesn’t really have any way to regulate it … so we are trying to help the villages and townships with their own ordinances,” says Crawford County Chairman Pete Flesch.
Read more: Cap Times Article
Fact: Lee Nerison voted for passage of the mining bill last session that said that if the “job creators” want to take over your community, they can.
The 183 page bill was filled with language that makes the building code look like a pamphlet. Below is on excerpt of the language that goes on and on. Even though the words suggest any number of procedures to challenge a “job creator”, what follows is a jig-saw puzzle of hoops to jump through in order to oppose the action.
From LRB?3520/1 -Assembly Mining Bill approved by Nerison
The bill further provides that if the applicant
cannot meet the general requirements by implementing conservation measures,
DNR shall nevertheless issue the mining water withdrawal permit if DNR
determines that the public benefits resulting from the iron mining operation exceed
any injury to public rights in a body of water that is affected by the mining operation.
Nerison would allow mining companies like Pattison to hold all the cards. Any opposition from the local community, township, or county would be trumped by the long and tedious language that would tie the hands of local opposition in the shackles of regulatory language, time lines, and a soup obstruction making it impossible to stop a mine.
Nerison voted in favor of the bill that would silence the voices of municipal governments and county boards and open the door to commercial interest and ground water be damed, pumped, and held captive to the interests of “job creators” like Dr. Long, Gogebic Taconite of Hurley, and well heeled folks in Texas, California, and Wyoming. Read – Why Texas and Califorina Folk Love Lee Nerison
Groundwater and frac sand mines
·stormwater ponds have failed recently, releasing
unsafe sediment and chemicals into waterways.
What happens to your well water?
·soil serves as a water filter, reducing the amount of
pollutants that reach groundwater.
After the acres are mined, the surface will be much closer to the water table,
intensive agricultural introduces harmful chemicals
and toxins to the groundwater.
What are the risks to the health of your children?
Sand is washed with flocculants – typically
polyacrylamides, containing some acrylamide, a
neurotoxin and carcinogen.
What about Toxic dust and noise?
Mine owner Regan did not respond to that issue specifically but says dust and noise should not be an issue with the Bridgeport operation because of the rolling terrain and the distance from adjacent property owners.
So, you probably will not develop cancer?
Much of the information and photos on this page can be found on the
Crawford Stewardship Project Page – Lausted pdf
Can land be reclaimed?
Aren’t mining operations required to perform post-mining land reclamation?
· Corporations must file “reclamation” plans. But Larry Schneider, a retired metallurgist and industrial consultant with a specialized knowledge of mining, calls the reclamation process “an absolute farce.”
· Reclamation projects by mining corporations since the 1970s may have made mined
areas “look a little less than an absolute wasteland,” he observes. “But did they reintroduce the biodiversity? Did they reintroduce the beauty and the ecology? No.”
You can verify Nerison’s vote on the Mining bill: AB 426 Requirements for Mining Permits and Nerison’s vote that helped to undermine renewable energy development and jobs by passing legislation that made it nearly impossible to develop wind farms in Wisconsin. This had the effect of shipping clean energy jobs to our neighboring states of Illinois, Minnesota and Iowa.his “ok” on the bill to limit wind farms – SB 185 State Regulation of Wind Energy Systems by clicking the link below: