Leading Businesses. Moving Michigan Forward.

Board Policies - Mining

Approved by Board of Directors, January 26, 2010

 

The Michigan Chamber of Commerce supports Michigan’s mining industry and is opposed to a potential ballot initiative that would essentially prohibit most types of new mining in Michigan.

Background

The mining industry has played an important role throughout Michigan’s history. Despite the current economic downturn, the mining sector remains viable and continues to play an important part in Michigan’s economy. Michigan’s mining sector provides $5.64 billion in economic activity annually and supports over 30,000 jobs. 

In 2004, the Legislature passed, and the Governor signed into law, Part 632 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act. The act created a new section of law to regulate nonferrous metallic mining. Nonferrous metals include copper, gold, nickel, platinum, and zinc but do not include iron ore. The legislation was developed with a wide range of stakeholders, including business and environmental groups. The legislation was supported by the Michigan Chamber of Commerce and unanimously approved by both the House and Senate. Proclaimed as one of the toughest and most protective mining laws in the country, the legislation set standards for protecting water quality, ensuring proper reclamation, and requiring post-closure monitoring for over 30 years. 

Near Marquette, an important new mining project, Kennecott Eagle, is preparing to open. Kennecott has spent several years gathering all of the necessary permits to operate in Michigan. When operational, the project will provide good-paying jobs and economic benefit for an area of the state with high unemployment. The operation would provide 500 new construction jobs and 180- 200 full-time jobs. The total wage and benefits of the operation would be $135 million for the life of the project.

Recently, a new group called “Save our Water” was formed to lead a petition drive to try and amend the mining law (Part 632). The group was formed out of Grosse Pointe, Michigan. The goal of the group was laid out in an email fundraiser from an Ohio resident who is supporting the campaign.  The email states “this ballot initiative will make Michigan’s sulfide and uranium mining law so tough that it will virtually stop all mining.” The proposal is currently supported by some environmental groups, including Clean Water Action, Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve in U.P., and Save the Wild UP. Former Governor Milliken is serving as the honorary chair of the group. The proposal was certified as to form by the State Board of Canvassers on October 14, 2009. It is believed that the group is now in the process of hiring a professional petition signature collection firm. If the group collects the necessary signatures, the Legislature will have 40 days to adopt or reject the proposal. If the proposal is not acted upon by the Legislature, it will be submitted to the voters at the November 2010 general election. 

A new group has been formed in the Upper Peninsula to try to defeat the ballot proposal. The group is called “Citizens to Protect Michigan Jobs.” The group is gaining support from many key individuals, groups, and elected officials in the Upper Peninsula. All members of the State House of Representatives and the State Senate from the UP have spoken out against the ballot proposal.  

County commissions in Alger, Baraga, Delta, Dickinson, Gogebic, Marquette, and Ontonagon have all passed resolutions against the ballot proposal.  Business groups, such as the Lake Superior Community Partnership (Regional Chamber), have also come out against the proposal. 

On December 1, 2009, the Michigan Chamber’s Environmental Quality (EQ) Committee met and reviewed the proposed ballot initiative. Members of the EQ Committee unanimously voted to oppose the initiative. Members of the EQ Committee were particularly concerned about the fact that a company can make an investment in Michigan based on the law and then have the investment threatened by a ballot initiative. EQ members felt this created a high level of regulatory uncertainty. EQ members were also concerned about the bad precedent of regulating a key industry through ballot initiative; if it is mining today, it could be forestry, manufacturing, or agriculture in the future.