Second In A Series
As I suggested in my first post in this series on MCRC v. EPA, the complaint filed by the Marquette County Road Commission would have us believe that “anti-mining” forces worked secretly with and even infiltrated the EPA, and the agency’s objections to CR 595 followed a “predetermined plan.” The EPA, it claims, had decided to oppose the haul road even before the MCRC application was reviewed.
This sounds like legitimate cause for concern: permit applications should be reviewed on their merits, not pre-judged and not according to some other anti- or pro- agenda. We certainly wouldn’t want someone in the Environmental Protection Agency to be “pro-mining”; there are enough well-paid mining lobbyists already haunting the hallways in Lansing and Washington, DC. But in this case, the anti-mining label is being used as a term of opprobrium, and to distort and deliberately misrepresent what the Environmental Protection Agency is chartered and required by law to do: in short, to enforce the Clean Water Act and protect the environment.
When it comes to proving the insinuations it makes, the MCRC complaint offers slim evidence.
For example, the complaint makes a big fuss over a November 28, 2012 letter from Laura Farwell, who lives in the Marquette area and is described here as “a prominent environmental activist.” The letter is addressed to Lynn Abramson, then a Senior Legislative Assistant for Senator Barbara Boxer, and Thomas Fox, Senior Counsel of the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee, asking them to “weigh-in” with the EPA on CR 595. (Exhibit 1).
EPA must determine whether to uphold its original objections to proposed County Road 595 under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), pursuant to its supervisory authority over Michigan’s delegated wetlands permitting program. Tom may remember that during the August 30, 2011 meeting at EPA Denise Keehner of EPA’s office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds definitively reiterated EPA’s position and stated that the haul road would not happen.
Thus, this letter is to request, respectfully, that you weigh-in as soon as possible with the EPA on its decision.
The MCRC complains about Farwell’s use of the word “definitively” here and casts the 2011 meeting in a sinister light:
on August 30, 2011, a very different type of meeting regarding CR 595 took place at USEPA Headquarters in Washington, DC. MCRC was neither invited to nor informed of the meeting. In attendance (as far as is known at the present time) were top USEPA officials, Congressional staff, KBIC representatives, and a prominent environmental activist opposed to the construction of CR 595. It further appears that USEPA made no formal record of the meeting.
Without a formal record, it’s impossible to know what transpired at this meeting, and if the complaint is going to rely on Farwell’s memory of the conversation, then it should also take into account her intentions in paraphrasing and recounting it, one year after it took place. The language here — “a very different type of meeting,” “neither invited nor informed,” “as far as is known at the present time,” “no formal record” — doesn’t help in that regard, and it’s meant to suggest that conjurations were already afoot.
It’s clear the MCRC was not included in some discussions at EPA. There’s nothing extraordinary or illicit about that. All concerned parties had been meeting with and petitioning the EPA for several years at this point. The complaint is still a long way from proving that the EPA “surreptitiously met with a number of environmental activists vocally opposed to the road,” and an even longer way from proving that there was anything like an anti-mining coalition assembled in secret at the offices of the EPA.
In an ironic twist, these allegations of secrecy and whispering behind closed doors may come back to haunt the MCRC: at a Marquette County Board of Commissioners meeting this month, the Marquette County Road Commission itself faced accusations that it had violated the Open Meetings Act in planning to bring its suit against the EPA. Public officials who intentionally violate that act are ordinarily fined and incur other liabilities; in this case, there would be some eating of words as well.
By November 28, 2012, the EPA had, in fact, “decided against the proposed haul road,” as Farwell puts it in the email she sent along with the letter to Abramson and Fox. The EPA had entered objections to the Woodland Road Application (in March, 2010) and announced their objections to CR 595 (in March, 2012). Even so, a Fall 2012 public meeting held by the EPA “in Marquette…for more input” had Farwell worried. She was not at all confident the EPA would uphold its original objections to the haul road. The matter was still far from being “definitively” settled.
Whatever reassurances Farwell was given at that 2011 meeting — or thought she had been given, or recalled having been given, one year later — were clearly at risk of getting lost in the bureaucratic shuffle. The purpose of her letter is to prevent that.
There is nothing surprising in all this. Those watching new mining developments in the Upper Peninsula are constantly having to chase after the EPA and demand that the regulator step in and do its job.
Jeffery Loman, a member of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community and a former federal regulator, has repeatedly put the EPA on notice and complained of the agency’s failure to enforce the Clean Water Act.
In May of this year, the grassroots environmental group Save the Wild UP filed a petition with the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board, arguing that Eagle Mine was issued the wrong regulatory permit. The appeal requested that the EPA require Eagle Mine to obtain a Clean Water Act permit in order to protect the Salmon Trout River and other surface waters from the discharge of mining effluent. The Appeals Board did not contest the facts put forward in the petition, but dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. They hardly proved themselves to be staunch allies.
So watchdogs and environmental groups, too, have reason to gripe about the EPA and often feel powerless in the face of bureaucratic inertia and ineptitude. Laura Farwell herself seems to have felt that way, and that’s why we find her asking Abramson and Fox for help. The MCRC complaint exaggerates her influence at the EPA when it describes her as “a prominent environmental activist.” The epithet is used here to create the misleading impression that within the offices of EPA Region 5 and the confines of Marquette County there are political opponents with resources to match the power of multi-billion dollar, multinational mining companies.
Laura Farwell and her husband Frank moved to the area in 2006 from Madison, Wisconsin. They are members of the St. Paul Episcopal Church and participate, along with their son Cody, in the church’s Earth Day tree plantings. The couple donated some money to the UP Land Conservancy. Farwell has also organized events for the Cedar Tree Institute, which works to bridge “faith communities and environmental groups.” (She is described on the Institute’s site as “a concerned mother and local citizen.”) She is thanked for “working quietly behind the scenes” in a 2011 Earth Keeper TV video on the environmental risks posed by the Eagle Mine; and she’s copied along with many other local citizens in a Google Group post dated April 9, 2012, urging people to comment on CR 595 before the public comment period is closed.
Farwell’s commitments to land conservation are pretty clear, and while the complaint asks us to recoil in horror at the phrase “prominent environmental activist,” cooler heads are just as likely to be impressed by Farwell’s dedication to the people around her and the place where she lives. Maybe that dedication is all it takes to be a prominent environmental activist in the view of the Marquette County Road Commission.
Some locals, on the other hand, are legitimately concerned that nationally and internationally prominent environmentalists — like Bill McKibben, George Monbiot, Naomi Klein and their ilk — ignore the current situation around Lake Superior, or fail to give it the serious attention it deserves. National media have barely taken notice. Farwell herself admits that to the great and powerful in Washington DC “the proposed haul road may seem like some little back trail in the middle of nowhere,” but she urges that it will cut through “critical wetlands resources” and “enable the industrializing of this rural Great Lakes watershed by international mining interests.”
Farwell’s letter tries to create some urgency around the CR 595 issue by putting the road in context and specifying whose interests would be served by the industrializing of the region. A serious assessment of CR 595 would significantly widen the lens, taking into account the cumulative effects of all the new mining activities around Lake Superior: all leasing, exploration, development and active mining throughout northern Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Ontario. Otherwise, we miss the big picture, and without that perspective, it’s just too easy to parcel out the land, the water, and the future of the region to the highest bidders.
The MCRC complaint, too, places CR 595 in the context of “mining and economic development in the Great Lakes region” in a few places, but only to make the specious argument that those who oppose or question the road are opposed to mining and therefore opposed to the region’s prosperity. These are the ideological leaps the complaint makes. Those who don’t make these leaps are called activists or anti-mining obstructionists. That is a political, not a legal argument.
It’s never too late to have a serious discussion of what sustainable economic development and true prosperity for the Great Lakes region might look like. How might we best organize our lives together in this place? is a fundamental political question. But at this juncture, it appears, the MCRC can’t afford to let that conversation happen. This lawsuit is an attempt to shut it down and stifle dissent. Where business leads, society must obediently follow. To question this order of things, as Laura Farwell seems to have repeatedly done, quietly, behind the scenes, is to commit some kind of nefarious act.
This is where the attitude on display in this complaint gets worrisome. With this lawsuit, the MCRC pretends to have the political authority to direct economic development in the region (not just to build and repair roads). But that is only pretense, and things in Marquette County are not as they appear. The public still does not know who is funding the Road Commission lawsuit, what they stand for and what they expect in return for their support. The real powers lurk behind the scenes.
Pingback: The Political Project of MCRC v. EPA, 3 | lvgaldieri
Oh no. Look what our saviors in the EPA did.
“But in this case, the anti-mining label is being used as a term of opprobrium, and to distort and deliberately misrepresent what the Environmental Protection Agency is chartered and required by law to do: in short, to enforce the Clean Water Act and protect the environment.”
Looks like they do a wonderful job.
Ben, I’m hardly of the opinion that the EPA should be considered ‘saviors,’ and I’m not interested in apologizing for the EPA. I’m interested in the political objectives of this lawsuit. I am sure there is plenty of incompetence to go around, and more than plenty on the federal government side. What happened in Colorado is terrible, and serves as a stark reminder of the risks that (always) accompany sulfide mining operations like the ones currently underway in the UP.
And just what “political objectives” do you think there are? I don’t view the building of a road as political. Btw. I have been patiently waiting for at least a little unbiased reporting from you but I have yet to encounter that. When will we hear from some credible sources on the side of Stand UP in your blog? Oh and also your twitter comment shows me enough of your reporting style!!!!!!! If you can get that out of my comment you are a magician.
“3h3 hours ago
Louis V. Galdieri @lvgaldieri
A commenter on my blog seems to be arguing that the Animas River spill proves the EPA shouldn’t be inspecting mines.”
I sure hope no one takes you as a credible news source or at least any that did now see how you put your own spin on what you write.
And as far as your response of “I’m hardly of the opinion that the EPA should be considered ‘saviors,’”. Then maybe you can explain how you are three installaments in to this blog series and all you can do is tell us how the epa is free from corruption, has no “anti-mining agenda” and the “dark” 501c4 of stand up is the only one we should be worried about. So far in your posts you put a lot of faith in the EPA and exactly zero in the local administration or the general population ( which a vast majority want this road). So you can keep up your political posturing but having seen first hand how you put a jaded skew on what you write I have no want to follow your blog, other than to be your watch dog and make sure ad few people as possible buy into this “one sided crap” as I so eloquently called it in my first response on your first post of this series.
It’s always good to know I have a new reader, but if you’re going to appoint yourself my “watch dog,” as you put it, then I suggest you demonstrate some basic understanding of what I’ve actually written about the arguments and evidence put forward in the MCRC complaint, and less time barking out insults.
Your repeated attempts to brand me an EPA apologist are laughable, since in this series I’ve consistently characterized the EPA as an inept and unresponsive bureaucracy. As for “corruption”: I have no evidence of corruption at EPA Region 5, and the MCRC complaint doesn’t bring any forward. It’s also ironic to hear charges of corruption coming from someone defending a dark-money 501c4.
Please remember that you’re a guest here. I’m happy to exchange views and entertain counter-arguments, but I don’t appreciate the rudeness. There’s no need for it, and it makes it hard for me and others to take you seriously.
You miss representing my comment about the epa and your one sided reporting makes it hard for me to take you seriously. Guest ? You chose to start a blog, if you didn’t want criticism you maybe you should pick a new hobie. Dark money 501c4……..corruption, it’s laughable that you are connecting this and a government agency. Stand UP by being a 501c4 does not by law have to publish who it’s donors are. The epa as a government agency shouldn’t be conspiring with the KBIC or anyone else fighting this project. They should have been a neutral regulatory commission and ensured established guidelines and policies were followed. Luckily I will have the truth and facts on my side once everything comes out in the wash. Unfortunately once the lawsuit is complete, if the MCRC wins I’m sureally we will then be hearing how the judge was bought. Your watch dog. No I think I’m done reading or commenting. If you were interested in entertaining counter arguments you would have by now but you haven’t even addressed my first issue of you turning my words around. Good day sir.
Pingback: The Political Project of MCRC v. EPA, 4 | lvgaldieri
Pingback: A Postscript on the Political Project of MCRC v. EPA | lvgaldieri
Pingback: The Political Project of MCRC v. EPA, Revisited | lvgaldieri