A controversial proposal to change the state rule protecting wild rice, or manoomin, from sulfate discharges from mines and wastewater treatment plants has been abandoned. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency said it would seek a new approach to applying recent scientific research to pollution regulations.
Wild rice is an important food source for many Minnesotans, and a cultural resource for Ojibwe people. Excess sulfate can set off a “cascade” of effects that harm wild rice and other aquatic life.
The rule sought to change the state’s standard from a simple numerical one to a more complicated formula. The existing rule, in place since 1973, requires discharges to contain less than 10 parts per million of sulfate. The proposed new rule would use an algorithm that takes into account other factors of water chemistry to decide how much sulfate is too much for a given body of water and its wild rice.
Mining and other business interests had fought the proposal for being too expensive to meet, while Ojibwe and environmental groups said it would not be protective enough of the official state grain.
Legal challenges
In January, an Administrative Law Judge rejected the proposal, on the grounds that it was too vague and complicated to implement. The MPCA appealed the decision, but it was upheld earlier this month.
“We’ve heard many, many voices, including the Administrative Law Judge on this topic, and the message is clear,” says MPCA Commissioner John Linc Stine. “Although the science is accurate, when it comes to how best to apply the science and affordably implement the rule, we still have more work to do. So, the MPCA will withdraw it from the rulemaking process. We look forward to working with legislators over the next three weeks to determine an alternative path forward.”
Meanwhile, legislators at the Minnesota state capitol have been debating a proposal that would effectively remove protections for wild rice. It has already passed the House of Representatives, and is expected to be voted on in the Senate this week.
Repealing the protections may violate the federal Clean Water Act, and could be vetoed by Governor Mark Dayton if it passes the legislature.