Willette should resign

from Bangor Daily News, March 16, 2015

I like to think that Sen. Michael Willette must have some conscience, however weak, nudging him to understand that his racist remarks are damaging to our social fabric. But something much stronger than conscience must motivate his remarks.

I believe that something is the cultural support of many voices in power encouraging him in his prejudices. There is widespread support among conservative leaders for such racist hatred of President Barack Obama and for other forms of prejudice against immigrants, women, LGBTs, non-Christian religions, a variety of ethnicities, workers, the poor. Though prejudice of national leaders is often more subtle thanWillette’s Facebook posts, it is more damaging when disguised because it results in legislation occurring now that legitimizes prejudice such as restrictions on environmental protections, on consumers’ rights to know, on voting rights, on workers’ rights to organize, on women’s reproductive freedom, on health-care rights, and on numerous other rights.

Such prejudice is a profound threat to our democracy. It drowns out voices of conscience for equality that our Constitution promises and for love and compassion that Christ and Pope Francis call for. The only solution is a politically enlightened and engaged public who will demand better from our politicians. For this reason, I support the social reprimand of Willette and the call for his resignation. I urge his other constituents to do likewise.

Alice Bolstridge

Presque Isle

Published also in The Star Herald, March18, 2015

Aroostook Folks Testifying in Opposition to Weak Mining Rules

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6S1gnMKvpM

Aroostook County Residents Opposed to DEP Draft Mining Rules

Excerpts from Comments on LD 146 – Mining Rules

Darrell and Lorette Adams (Mars Hill)

“My wife Lorette and I have lived in Mars Hill in Aroostook Country Maine for 15 years.  I was born and raised in Presque Isle, so we have a deep connection to Northern Maine. The proposed mining rules weaken the existing rules which protect our largest employer in the state which is tourism and retirement.  In Maine we have high sulfur mineral deposits which, when exposed to air and water create sulfuric acid leading to acid run-off.  Our watersheds and groundwater should not be risked if we are to continue to be a destination for tourists and retirees”.

Randel A. Agrella (Fort Fairfield) 

“Please count me in the camp of those who are vehemently opposed to weakening the mining rules in Maine.  It’s my belief that, if anything, they should be strengthened, not weakened.  My reasoning is simple and not very profound.  Mining is a particularly dirty industry, and the environmental costs tend to be very high. Developing Maine’s mostly rather marginal mineral resources will create a few jobs, yes, in the short run. Unfortunately the aftermath of mining operations is usually much more long-lived. Maine’s experience with the Callahan Mine in Brooksville should be instructive – it is now one of the most heavily polluted locations in Maine.  Maine does not need another Superfund site.  LD146 goes 180 degrees in the wrong direction in the regard.  The Legislature had it right in the last session, when it killed a similar proposal”.

Betsy Bishop Terrell (Carr Pond)

“I have actively watched the Maine mining revision process since the beginning; I wrote letters and spoke at the previous public hearings to testify against these flawed rules.  Over this period of time I have thankfully witnessed overwhelming opposition to the flawed revisions, and unfortunately witnessed the mining industry representatives amend these laws with only their needs in mind and not the long term effects they would have on the environment”.

Alice Bolstridge (Presque Isle)

“I am Alice Bolstridge from Presque Isle.  I am opposed to these rules because they are too weak to protect the environment. We need rules that are strong enough to protect the most environmentally risky sites such as Bald Mountain which contains unusually high level of toxic chemicals that are now contained in the rock. With these rules, open pit mining at this site would pollute a chain of rivers, streams, and lakes which are some of the most pristine areas for brook trout in the United States.  This proposed mining site is likely even more dangerous than the one left by the Callahan Mine in Brooksville. I am an old woman thinking about the legacy I and my generation will leave for the future.  My children and grandchildren enjoy fishing in the waters of the river chain downstream from that most risky proposed mining site. Bald Mountain is just west of Portage Lake, my home town.  These rules would allow a mining company to ruin a sustainable, life-enhancing legacy for the sake of a temporary boost in J.D. Irving’s corporate profits. Please, don’t let that happen”.

Mary DiMarco  (Houlton)

“It is clear that the overall intent of these metallic mining rules is to relax regulations on the metallic minerals mining industry”.

Ward Gerow (Presque Isle)

“I am very concerned that these weak mining rules would allow mining corporations to pollute our water and harm our woods and wildlife in Aroostook County for centuries. L.D. 146 as it stands would facilitate the permitting of a particularly problematic metal mining site that contains high levels of sulfur and arsenic compounds that very likely would leach into the ground contaminating streams, aquifers, and the woods.  I am concerned about the unrealistic and wildly exaggerated jobs claims for projects like Bald Mountain. Similar mining projects elsewhere have led to a relatively small number of long-time jobs and a somewhat larger number of temporary jobs during start-up. Thousands of Maine people need our state’s healthy environment to make their living and provide for their families. Guides, commercial fishermen, and sporting camp owners all depend on Maine’s clean water and abundant fish and wildlife.  Mining pollution is a grave threat to these resources and should not be risked for a handful of new jobs”. 

Jim and Megan Gerritsen (Bridgewater)

“I’m Jim Gerritsen. My family and I grow Maine Certified Seed Potatoes in Aroostook County.  I’m here today to testify in opposition to LD 146.  We are adamantly opposed to the weakening of Maine’s mining regulations.  We have farmed for 39 years in the unorganized territory of Central Aroostook Country. Our isolated seed farm is located 40 miles Southeast of Bald Mountain. In our 36 square mile township – Township D, Range 2 – there are just eight residents: six are in our family.  Our children were born in the Unorganized Territory. They’ve been raised with a land ethic.  They know the most important work they can do is make the land better for their children, just as my wife and I have done for them.  Their choice to live in Maine is a quality of life issue. They like the woods and the freedom and the purity. That’s why we oppose LD 146.  Weakening existing mining regulations is bad policy. It will hurt everyone in Maine.  Our priority must always be protecting Maine’s environment. To be successful – and to continue to be a great place to live and great state to visit – Maine must maintain very strict limits on groundwater pollution.  The Maine Legislature acted correctly last year when it overwhelmingly defeated this same proposal.  I urge your Committee to lead by example and defeat LD 146”.

John Graves (Presque Isle)

“I urge you to not weaken mining regulations for Maine. The risk of accidents which would pollute pristine natural trout habitat is too great. The benefit of short term industrial expansion is paled by the eternity of maintenance and cleanup that would exist after any mining is finished or after a disastrous accident”.

Gail Maynard (Woodland)

“I am an organic beef and grain producer from Aroostook County.  My family operates Orchard Hill Farm in Woodland.  As a farmer, I understand the importance of healthy soil, clean air, and water quality.  I want strong mining rules to protect my family and my business.  Weak mining rules allowing wide spread groundwater contamination threaten the pristine aquifer underlying Bald Mountain and my home.  There is an ongoing marketing campaign to promote Aroostook County as the bread basket of the northeast.  The “Aroostook Brand” has a mystical quality, invoking images of abundant, healthy cropland, clean air, free flowing streams and unspoiled vistas.  I ask you to consider images that might result from weak mining rules: acid mine tailing ponds, stunted fields and forests, fish kills, rivers of unnatural color.  This grim picture is anything but “Business Friendly”.

 Michael Maynard (Perham)

“My name is Michael Maynard and I live in the very small town of Perham Maine, in Aroostook County.  As a state we already have adequate mining rules in place.  To weaken the existing rules with the wording currently under discussion would be unconscionable.  The Fish River chain of lakes and rivers, for one, are a precious gem, a crown jewel of the highest natural order, and virtually the last remaining wild and sustainable habitat of the eastern Brook trout and our native landlocked Salmon.  Other endangered fish directly in the firing line of LD 146 are the Blue Back trout, a fish existing now under the very real threat of extinction from loss of habitat.  The rules in place now already allow for responsible mining in the state of Maine, there is no need to cheapen the value of our watersheds and forests simply to satisfy a mining company’s need for greater profit.  The current rules protect us, they protect our environment: our very natural heritage.  The rules in place must be upheld and I urge you in the strongest possible terms to reject LD 146”.

Alice Sheppard (Presque Isle)

“I first visited Maine on vacation.  I was instantly attracted to the clear lakes, pristine wilderness, and abundant wildlife.  I decided to stay.  Now I learn that proposed changes in Maine’s mining regulations would threaten all that I cherish.  Despite claims of ‘improved’ technology, mining in much of the state threatens the release of arsenic, mercury, and sulfuric acid – the latter a result of oxidations and hydration of sulfide compounds in the rocks.  The devastating collapse of a tailings dam at Mount Polly in 2014 refutes the claim of contemporary mining safety, as wastewater gushed into and contaminated nearby lake and streams.  A few short-term jobs do not outweigh water pollution, loss of habitat, and struggle to ameliorate them across millennia”.

Wayne and Pamela Sweetser (Presque Isle)

“We live and farm in Aroostook County and struggle every day to stay financially afloat.  We also know well the folly of destroying for short term gain the very resources that sustain us: air, land, water. We sincerely hope that you will accept the truth from empirically proven evidence that open pit mining such as J.D. Irving and its proponents advocate WILL release toxins that WILL poison ground and surface water.  Without strong mining rules, Maine will lose a lot to gain a little.  The losses will be for all Mainers; the losses will last forever and their costs will be generational.  The gains will be temporary and serve a few”. 

Stephen Wood (Presque Isle)

“My wife and I chose to move to Presque Isle in 1979 from the suburban sprawl of California to live and raise our sons in a clean environment where the land and its animals are enjoyed and respected.  I own a woodlot, lease some of the land to a farmer, and spend much of my free time in nature.  These attributes of Maine that I appreciate are the “Maine Brand”.  A clean environment where forests, fish and other animals thrive is also the economy of Aroostook County.  Hundreds of farmers, loggers, guides, inn keepers, and store owners depend on this economy for their livelihoods.  We live off the land and the tourists it attracts.  That pollution will seep into rivers and lakes for hundreds of years, devastating the very basis of our economy.  This project will destroy, not create jobs.  I urge you to oppose any weakening of our environmental laws.  The citizens of Aroostook County, and all of Maine, need a strong Department of Environmental Protection, not a Department of Environmental Degradation”.

                                                                                                                         NRCM  3/3/15

Testimony, February 25, 2015, Alice Bolstridge
Original draft below was composed attempting to follow original instructions of Chairman Saviello that we weren't to talk about Bald Mountain or J. D. Irving. This draft was modified in presentation when he asked (likely responding to some media criticism of his rules) testifiers to please relate any comments about Bald Mountain or J. D. Irving to the rules. 

Senator Saviello, Representative Walsh, Members of the Environment and Natural Resources Committee:

I am Alice Bolstridge from Presque Isle.  I am opposed to these rules because they are too weak to protect the environment. They allow construction of mines under or next to the vast majority of Maine’s lakes and rivers, areas that generate $3.5 billion annually for Maine, and that support 52,000 jobs. 

We need rules that are strong enough to protect the most environmentally risky sites such as the proposed mining site that I am not supposed to mention in Northern Maine which contains unusually high levels of toxic chemicals that are now contained in the rock.  These rules would allow mining companies unlimited release of arsenic, sulphuric acid, and other dangerous chemicals into the ground water in the so-called “mining area” which is so poorly defined in the rules that it could extend for many miles.  With these rules, open pit mining at this site would pollute a chain of rivers, streams, and lakes which are some of the most pristine areas for brook trout in the United States.

This proposed mining site is likely even more dangerous than the one left by the Callahan Mine in Brooksville? This year, more than 40 years after mine closing, the governor’s budget requests $1,650,000 over the next two years for the Callahan Mine Site Restoration program.  We need rules that will not allow such lengths of time to restore a site. I think 10 years is too long.

I am an old woman thinking about the legacy I and my generation will leave for the future. My children and grandchildren enjoy fishing in the waters of the river chain downstream from that most risky proposed mining site. These waters supply food, wholesome recreation, and direct knowledge and understanding of nature to many thousands of local people and tourists. Sports fishing contributes far more jobs and money to the local economy of that most risky site area than an open pit mine promises. These sustainable benefits constitute a legacy that will continue in perpetuity if we keep our waters clean.

Ramsey Hart, Canadian mining expert, says in a BDN article, “There’s almost no way Bald Mountain can be mined without polluting nearby water, potentially for thousands of years.” Bald Mountain, that most risky site I have been referring to, is just west of Portage Lake, my home town. These rules would allow a mining company to ruin a sustainable, life-enhancing legacy for the sake of a temporary boost in J. D. Irving’s corporate profits.  Please, don’t let that happen.

Thank you for hearing this testimony.  

Open-Pit Mining still not Safe at Bald MountainAlice BolstridgePublished in The Star Herald, February 18, 2015

To the Editor:

Once again, mining rules, deemed by the legislature last year to be too dangerous to the environment, are being considered again this year.  Although these proposed rules would apply to any mining operation anywhere in Maine, they were written to make it easier for J. D Irving to do open pit mining at Bald Mountain west of Portage Lake. There are no open pit mines anywhere that have not seriously damaged surrounding waterways, and Bald Mountain is an unusually dangerous site for a mining operation according to a report from the Natural Resources Council of Maine which you can read here http://www.nrcm.org/our-maine/publications/bald-mountain-mining-risks-hidden-from-the-public/ .   So what has changed in the last year that could make open-pit mining safe this year when it wasn’t last year?

The risks to the surrounding waters have not changed. I haven’t been able to find any evidence of new findings that acid mine drainage and extremely high levels of arsenic will be any less than what was determined by previous studies.  Ramsey Hart, Canadian mining expert, says, “There’s almost no way Bald Mountain can be mined without polluting nearby water, potentially for thousands of years,” http://bangordailynews.com/2012/09/27/news/portland/mining-bald-mountain-for-precious-metals-not-worth-the-environmental-risk-portland-speaker-says-2/   I haven’t found any evidence that technology can make the tailings ponds supposed to contain toxic elements safer.  The ponds always fail, both the old “legacy” ones and the modern ones. You can read about one at http://blogs.theprovince.com/2014/08/08/by-the-numbers-the-mount-polley-mine-tailings-pond-disaster/ .  Taxpayers are left to fund cleanup efforts in perpetuity after the mining company has left, taking all the profits out of the local economy. 

Nothing has changed in the inflated claims of benefits to the local economy: In mining communities, “Private enterprises make profits, but the agricultural communities have to bear the (passive) costs. The local economies are seriously disturbed . . . . In many cases the contribution of mining to a micro-economic situation . . . is rather negative than positive. . . . Pollution of the environment means a serious threat to the ecosystem and the health of the local communities, with grave consequences for the farmers, who depend on agriculture,” http://www.catapa.be/en/mining/economic .

With the threat to our waterways, we should also worry about the risks to sports fishing.  According to figures calculated from "2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation" and the "Aroostook County Economic Cluster Report Part 1: Analysis," sports fishing contributes + or – $36 million to the Aroostook economy.  A growing economy, it grew 17% between 2001 and 2011 and supports local businesses: lodging ($8 million), guiding, retail stores, local contracting, farmers, and more.  Agriculture and fishing are sustainable businesses that will be here in perpetuity if we protect our waterways.  The mining of Bald Mountain might last, at best estimates, between 5 and 20 years. 

The only thing that has changed since last year is an election that has put more perceived supporters of open-pit mining in the legislature.  It is clear, the risks to the environment have not changed. Under the proposed rules, open pit mining at Bald Mountain would be disastrous to our environment, our long term economy, and our way of life.  Don’t let it happen. Contact your legislators at http://www.kintera.org/c.9pLILTPwEbLUH/b.9252247/k.8F80/Mining_Rules_Action_Alert_February_2015/siteapps/advocacy/ActionItem.aspx .  Or contact the legislative committee.  Letters and emails should be addressed “Dear Senator Saviello, Representative Welsh and members of the Environment and Natural Resources Committee.” Send snail mail to: Senator Saviello and Representative Welsh, c/o, Tyler Washburn, Environment and Natural Resources Committee Clerk, Legislative Information Office, 100 State House Station, Augusta, ME 04333. Or email tyler.washburn@legislature.maine.gov .

Mining on Public Lands

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFMs6qA7Jyo&feature=youtu.be

Response to questions raised by Sen. Saviello and Rep. Duchesne during public testimony of Lew Kingsbury concerning LD 146 Proposed Mining Rules for Chapter 200 Metallic Mineral Exploration, Advanced Exploration and Mining

Lew Kingsbury of Pittston provided public testimony concerning LD 146 on February 25, 2015. During my testimony I stated that non reserved public lands, lands gifted to the state, lands acquired through referendum and public reserve lots had been excluded from the Proposed Mining Rules Subchapter 5: Mining Standards, section 20. Performance Standards, subsection B. Siting, para. (3) Mining Excluded. Both Sen. Saviello and Rep. Duchesne responded that 12 M.R.S.A. 549-B Exploration permits, exploration claims and mining leases allows for mining on all public lands. This is true.

But, the Constitution of the State of Maine, Article IX section 23 states: “State park land, public lots or other real estate held by the state for conservation or recreation purposes and designated by legislation implementing this section may not be reduced or its use substantially altered except on the vote of 2/3 of all the members elected to each House. The proceeds from the sale of such land must be used to purchase additional real estate in the same county for the same purpose.”

12 M.R.S.A. 598 A titled Designated Lands, Enclosure (1), states “The following lands are designated lands under the Constitution of Maine, Article IX, Section 23. Designated lands under this section may not be reduced or substantially altered, except by a 2/3 vote of the Legislature. It is the intent of the Legislature that individual holdings of land or classes of land may be added to the list of designated lands under this section in the manner normally reserved for amending the public laws of the State. Once so designated, however, it is the intent of the Legislature that designated lands remain subject to the provisions of this section and the Constitution of Maine, Article IX, Section 23 until such time as the designation is repealed or limited by a 2/3 vote of the Legislature.”

Clearly, 12 M.R.S.A. 549-B cannot be invoked until specific parcels of land held by the state under Designated Lands are voted upon and passed on the vote of 2/3 of all the members elected to each House in accordance with 12 M.R.S.A. 598 A and the Maine State Constitution Article IX, Section 23. My original public testimony of February 25, 2015 stands.

Respectfully

Lew Kingsbury

                                                                                                                        Enclosure (1)

§598-A. Designated lands

The following lands are designated lands under the Constitution of Maine, Article IX, Section 23. Designated lands under this section may not be reduced or substantially altered, except by a 2/3 vote of the Legislature. It is the intent of the Legislature that individual holdings of land or classes of land may be added to the list of designated lands under this section in the manner normally reserved for amending the public laws of the State. Once so designated, however, it is the intent of the Legislature that designated lands remain subject to the provisions of this section and the Constitution of Maine, Article IX, Section 23 until such time as the designation is repealed or limited by a 2/3 vote of the Legislature. [1993, c. 639, §1 (NEW).]

Designated lands are: [1993, c. 639, §1 (NEW).]

1. Certain Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife lands.  The following lands held by the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife:

A. State-owned wildlife management areas and public access sites described in section 10109, subsection 1 and section 12708; and [2003, c. 414, Pt. B, §20 (AMD); 2003, c. 614, §9 (AFF).]

B. Lands held and managed as a state game farm under the provisions of section 10109, subsection 2; [2003, c. 414, Pt. B, §20 (AMD); 2003, c. 614, §9 (AFF).]

[ 2003, c. 414, Pt. B, §20 (AMD); 2003, c. 614, §9 (AFF) .]

2. Public lands and public reserve lots. 

[ 1995, c. 502, Pt. E, §16 (RP) .]

2-A. Certain lands of the Bureau of Parks and Lands.  Lands under the care, custody, control and management of the Bureau of Parks and Lands, including:

A. Lands that constitute a state park or historic site as those terms are defined in section 1801; [1999, c. 127, Pt. A, §24 (AMD).]

B. Lands that constitute the Allagash Wilderness Waterway as defined in chapter 220, subchapter VI; [1999, c. 127, Pt. A, §25 (AMD).]

C. Lands used for public boat facilities under the provisions of chapter 220, subchapter IX, including launching ramps, locks, parking sites and access roads; [1999, c. 127, Pt. A, §26 (AMD).]

D. Public reserved lands as defined in section 1801, subsection 8; and [1997, c. 678, §8 (AMD).]

E. Nonreserved public lands as defined in section 1801, subsection 6. [1999, c. 127, Pt. A, §27 (AMD).]

Designated lands do not include: submerged lands; and all parcels of public reserved land in the towns of Bradley, LaGrange and Bradford held by the Bureau of Public Lands on January 1, 1994.

[ 1999, c. 127, Pt. A, §§24-27 (AMD); 2011, c. 657, Pt. W, §7 (REV); 2013, c. 405, Pt. A, §24 (REV) .]

3. Certain Bureau of Parks and Recreation Lands. 

[ 1995, c. 502, Pt. E, §18 (RP) .]

4. Baxter State Park Authority lands.  Lands managed by the Baxter State Park Authority not acquired by deed of gift and not contiguous to Baxter State Park. Specifically, lands deeded by Governor Percival P. Baxter by deeds of gift and lands managed by the Baxter State Park Authority that are contiguous to Baxter State Park are not designated lands;

[ 1993, c. 639, §1 (NEW) .]

5. Lands gifted to the State.  Except as provided in subsection 4, lands acquired by a deed of gift for conservation purposes; and

[ 1993, c. 639, §1 (NEW) .]

6. Lands acquired pursuant to referendum.  Lands acquired by the State through the Land for Maine's Future Board under Title 5, Part 15-A.

[ 1993, c. 639, §1 (NEW) .]

Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a state agency owning or holding designated land under this section may contract to operate or manage that land, provided that the contract does not violate any other provision of law. [1993, c. 639, §1 (NEW).]

SECTION HISTORY

1993, c. 639, §1 (NEW). 1995, c. 502, §§E16-18 (AMD). 1997, c. 678, §8 (AMD). 1999, c. 127, §§A24-27 (AMD). 2003, c. 414, §B20 (AMD). 2003, c. 414, §D7 (AFF). 2003, c. 614, §9 (AFF). 2011, c. 657, Pt. W, §7 (REV). 2013, c. 405, Pt. A, §24 (REV).