The Perennial Issue of Water

by Carl Kline

 

Some years ago, I took a group of twenty from the U.S. to India. Our place of residence was the Kasturbagram Rural Institute in Madhya Pradesh. It was a teacher training institution for women named after the wife of Mahatma Gandhi.

 

We stayed there while the school was on holiday. It was simple living. Our bed was a mat on the floor. One’s personal space was a foot or two on each side of the bed. There were simple bucket showers. You filled a bucket half full and used a plastic measuring cup to pour water over your body, soap up, then use the plastic cup to rinse off.

 

Many in the group didn’t respect the Indian bathing tradition. They bathed like they did at home, pouring buckets full throughout the process. Two days after we arrived, the well went dry. For the rest of our stay we traveled several kilometers with a bullock cart to fill a fifty gallon barrel with water at a neighboring well. Suffering through a third year of draught, the neighboring well was in danger too. That barrel had to last us for a day, for drinking, cooking, bathing, however it was needed.

 

My India bathing habits changed. Now I tried using a quarter of a bucket, or less, for the rest of our stay. And when I arrived home, there was a new found respect for that essential element in our lives, water. For a good year I continued the bucket and measuring cup tradition, standing in the shower, without turning it on.

 

Today the news is full of the water disaster in Flint, Michigan. People have been drinking poisoned water for years, with the apparent knowledge of public officials. As in most cases, this suffering hits the poor the hardest. Forty percent of the population of Flint live in poverty, many of them African American. Given the effects of lead poisoning, one can only guess what their children will encounter to keep them from making a better life.

 

But this isn’t the first or only community to suffer from poisoned water. There are some reports that many cities in this country have a similar problem. Infrastructure is old. Pipes are corroding. And levels of allowable lead can be gamed by testers, simply by following official instructions to flush before testing.

 

That’s not to mention what has happened to water in Native American communities. Here’s a culture that has traditionally had the utmost respect for the indispensable elements of life and they are suffering the most from poisoned water.

 

Navajo water has long been contaminated by coal mining and uranium spills. The situation there is as bad or worse than Flint. It’s been happening since the 1950’s. There has been no potable water on the reservation for decades. Peabody Coal drained the wells to slurry coal 256 miles into Nevada. Toxic holding ponds leak and end up in waterways. And the uranium industry, now long gone, left a water supply contaminated and draining into the Colorado River.

 

Louise Benally, a spokesperson for Navajo Black Mesa lamented in Washington, D.C. recently, “that no one’s talking about their water situation.”

 

We don’t have to go to the Southwest to find poisoned water. We could go to the Pine Ridge Reservation in our own state, where testing from several sites reveals a number of metals above EPA recommended safe levels for drinking water. They include: antimony, arsenic, bismuth, copper, lead and uranium. (There are 272 abandoned uranium mines in South Dakota, many on tribal lands). Statistically, with more than one metal with high concentrations in drinking water, 46% of the population is at risk for developing multiple cancers. Pine Ridge has one of the highest cancer clusters in the U.S.

 

Nor should we forget the Canadian indigenous communities near and downstream the tar sands operations in Alberta. The mining has polluted the water so badly wildlife is becoming scarce and the people are getting sick and dying in astonishing numbers.

 

But these big operators: mines, fracking operations, fossil fuel companies (and in our state, CAFOs) use water at will; and states and the federal government let them leave the little people to suffer the consequences. It’s not a surprise that the poor and politically powerless are the first to suffer. And the new Indians, small farmers and ranchers, are the next group in line.

 

It might be wise for all of us to know, who determines how water is used and how much is used? How often is our water tested? Who tests it? How transparent and public is the process? How careful are we of our shallow aquifers? Are our underground sources being drained by industrial agriculture, as is happening all over the mid west? What are we doing to prepare for climate change and the draught and floods it may bring? How secure and sustainable is our clean water future?

 

They say the human body is up to 60% water. For some living things it’s 90%. You would think we would respect water and want to keep it pure?

We Need to Protect Our Resources Now

by Robin EH. Bagley

I recently read an article about Stephen Hawking’s prediction that we (as in humans) are taking our species to the brink and will need to colonize space in the next 1,000 – 10,000 years in order to avoid extinction. Sounds crazy, right?

Before you break out the tinfoil hats, let’s think about who Stephen Hawking is. He’s often called the Einstein of our times, one of the pre-eminent physicists in the world, has an IQ of 160, and has studied the beginnings of the universe. So when he talks, I think it’s worthwhile to listen.

Lest we think we have at least 1,000 years to get this all figured out, Hawking warns us that the next 100 years will be crucial for humans to survive long enough to figure out how to live in space. Now 100 years doesn’t seem so far away, does it? My grandmother turns 100 this year, so we can say that it’s really a lifetime we have left to solve some pretty big problems.

We can’t all work on how to colonize space, but we can all work on how not to kill ourselves off in the next few hundred years. Personally, I think that’s just common sense.

There are many ways, large and small, that people like you and me right here in South Dakota can make a difference for our kids, grandkids and beyond. Let’s start with protecting our natural resources for future generations rather than sacrificing them to extractive energy companies and big ag. We know that there’s tremendous potential for solar power here, but most of utility companies and our state government, legislature included, can’t be bothered to remove the barriers that would make it easier for South Dakotans to invest in solar for their homes and businesses. Net metering anyone?

In case we forget, South Dakota is one of just seven states without net metering, so we’re behind the curve. We see cities and utilities in other states making leaps forward in renewable energy, solar and otherwise, but because of our regressive climate, those things aren’t happening here. We’re part of the problem, not the solution. In Spain and Italy companies are exploring incorporating wind turbines into existing structures, such as bridges. In Portland, the city has started generating electricity in some of its water pipes. Yes, hydro power in city water mains – genius!

And while we’re on the subject of water, let’s remember that water is necessary for human life. The human body can exist for about three weeks without food but only three or four days without water. Let’s stop ruining our water. That South Dakota’s water is pristine is a myth. Go grab a glass of water out of the Big Sioux and drink it. It’s the 13^th dirtiest river in the nation. Yum.

Recall that the Big Sioux basin is where the state would like to concentrate new confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), mostly large dairies. This further endangers the river; it’s the opposite of protecting it. On the other side of the state, the Madison aquifer is threatened by in-situ leach uranium mining. Radioactive water will not turn us all into Spiderman (yes, I know he was bitten by a radioactive spider, but you get the gist). If we think we can count on our state or federal government to protect our water, I have two words: Flint, Michigan.

In the interests of keeping humans around for a few thousand more years, we need to clean up our act. Let’s get busy with renewable energy and stop peeing in our own pool. Personally, I like Earth and think it could be nice if we could stay.

It is official: protecting our ground water is up to us

We have a problem in this state. There is no other way to open this blog post.

We have three fully allocated aquifers East River, where no more water rights can be granted. Seven more aquifers are close. We have a proposal West River for a uranium mine which is asking for the rights to 13,000 acre feet of water from the Inyan Kara aquifer. If that goes through, we’ll see more applications for uranium mines, and they’ll need just as much – if not more – water from the same aquifers. We have frac sand mine proposals coming through, mining which is extremely water intensive, and the only disposal method of the “sludge” left over after they wash the sand is to dump it back into the hole they just dug. Think mountaintop removal in the Black Hills, for sand.

We have a problem in this state, and that problem is our long-term ground water management. Or, more properly put, the lack thereof.

Yet the elected officials of this state seem to be blinded to that reality. That blindness came through in picture-perfect clear form last Thursday when the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee heard HCR 1025, the resolution which would have highlighted the simple fact that we need to deal with this problem, and deal with it now. The short story is that the bill was tabled at the end of the day. The long story, however, is far more interesting.

The hearing opened with testimony by the resolution’s sponsor, Rep. Troy Heinert, D-Mission.  His message was simple: this resolution is about the water, and opponents want you to read between the lines and bring smoke-and-mirror tactics to try to get you to vote against this, but don’t. Read the lines, and pass this through. Several others spoke for the resolution, including Rep. Kevin Killer, D-Pine Ridge; Jay Gilbertson, of the East Dakota Water District; Sen. Billie Sutton, D-Burke, and the prime sponsor in the Senate;  Paul Lepisto, with the Izaak Walton League; and yours truly, Sabrina King with Dakota Rural Action.

Our message was clear: this is an issue, this is important to people across this state, and this needs to pass. Our members have spoken out loudly and strongly in favor of both this resolution and in favor of better ground water management; Rick Grosek, with Bear Butte Gardens, put it best:

I’m very involved in my community.  I communicate with and network with many other agriculture producers, both in the Black Hills area and across the state.  I am among many, many other people who are very concerned about water – both quality and quantity.  I am not alone in my viewpoint.

Then it came time for opponent testimony, opened with the outrageous and what should be against-the-rules testimony by Larry Mann. Mann has been, for quite some time, one of the registered lobbyists for Powertech (soon to be Azarga). They actively lobbied against the resolution, yet when Mann got up to talk, he made quite the point that his badge was off and he was speaking for himself. We call BS, and it should have been called out in committee that when you’re hired by a client and you’re testifying on a bill in which your client has a direct interest, you’d better have your badge on.

But he wasn’t called out, and he spoke on how in 1989 the legislature did a shoring-up of all South Dakota’s environmental laws, so really we’re fine, we don’t need to do so again. But here’s the thing, Mann: 1989 was 25 years ago. That’s a long, long time in the realm of technology and ground water.

Then Mark Hollenbeck got up, and was at least honest in keeping his Powertech Lobbyist badge on. His testimony was simple, and basically alluded to the fact that Powertech worried this resolution would be waved about in the future. Translation: Powertech is worried that if the legislature says anything good about ground water, it will be bad for Powertech. What does that suggest, do you think?

Final opponent testimony was given by Angela Ehlers, with the SD Association of Conservation Districts. She said the SDACD was against the resolution. (But were they really, Angela? Because the Fall River County Conservation District was for it, just click here: HCS 1025. So it seems less that conservation districts were against it, and more that you were.) Ehlers also said the word “legitimate” isn’t in statute, so should be taken out of the resolution. Again, not true; the word “legitimate” appears twice in 34A-2-1, the statute referenced in the resolution. And with that last spurt of untruth, testimony was closed.

So this, then, is where things got weird. The word “legitimate” was amended out of the resolution, making it contrary to what is in statute. Then the word “mining” was amended into the resolution, again making it contrary to statute and making mining a more prominent and important use of water than it should be. And this is where the people of South Dakota start to disagree with their elected leaders. See, we don’t think mining is the end-all-be-all of economic development. And in fact, it is a well-documented phenomenon that areas reliant on resource extraction are less well off than areas with more sensible, long-term development. So no: mining is not more important than other uses, nor should it be.

Then the vote came to pass it through, and despite these changes, only the Democrats voted for the resolution, with all committee Republicans voting against it. Really, water shouldn’t be a partisan issue, but somehow it is.

And then, things got really weird. Clearly having no intention to support the resolution at any point, Sen. Larry Rhoden, R-Union Center, had been working behind the scenes with Sen. Dan Lederman, R-Dakota Dunes, to “hog house” HCR 1025 and turn it into an anti-water, anti-conservation, horrendous resolution, which you can click here to read: DRA 2.

Breaking all convention, Lederman was allowed to get up and talk about why he thought it was appropriate to take a pro-water resolution and turn it on its head. He’s against the proposed Niobrera Confluence and Ponca Bluffs Conservation Areas, and he wanted the legislature to validate his no-protection opinion.

Since all testimony time was over, there wasn’t an opportunity for a real hearing on this, but Committee Chair Krebs at least let Rep. Heinert get up to give his two cents on the new resolution language. His response? “This is the biggest slap in the face I’ve had since I got up here.”

And it was a slap in the face to everyone who had worked so hard on this resolution, and a slap in the face to all South Dakotans who believe in protection our water, and a slap in the face to anyone who believes in the proposed conservation plan. There was nothing appropriate or good about Lederman’s resolution, nor about how Rhoden brought it to the table.

It was clear, at this point, the hearing had become a circus. The motion to amend by Rhoden was ignored, and was substituted by a motion to table the resolution as-is was made and passed. It was a sham, robbing people of their opportunity to make their case for ground water protection, and the way it was handled in committee was beyond inappropriate.

So the question is, then, what is next? Where do you go when elected leaders will not even acknowledge a huge problem? What happens when the state keeps barreling forward with really bad proposals and without a thought in the world of where we’ll be in 20 years?

You keep fighting, is what you do. We have on record the opinion of our elected leaders. And we hold them to task for it. And we come back next year with a stronger coalition and a stronger voice, because you don’t let something like this go. We keep working to stop this absurd uranium mine proposal. We keep working to stop insane proposals for CAFO’s and factory production East River. We keep working with farmers and ranchers to find more sustainable ways of production.

We shouldn’t have to fight. We shouldn’t have to work this hard to protect our water. But the other side does, so we’ll keep fighting for our right to clean, abundant water. And we’ll keep fighting for a state with its priorities straight. And we’ll keep fighting until we get it.

HCR 1025 Ground Water Resolution Vote – YES 36, no 30

HCR 1025 was up today, reaffirming how valuable our ground water really is here in South Dakota. It is a resolution which actually directly impacts South Dakotans and our quality of life – because water IS life.

Rep. Heinert, who brought the resolution, spoke in favor of the resolution first in Lakota, and then in English. “Today is State and Tribal Relations Day. I ask that you support this resolution and with every changing technology and realize we will need to revisit our statutes as it comes to clean water in the coming years. We don’t get a do-over when it comes to our ground water. I leave you with two words, mni wichoni, water is life.”

Rep. Hoffman spoke against it. Rep. Hickey spoke for it. Rep. Verchio spoke against it. Rep. Craig spoke for it. Rep. Solum spoke against it. And Rep. Heinert again spoke for it.

AND THEN WE WON.

We have, in this legislative session, had to put through a policy looking at what happens when there is no more water that can be allocated from an aquifer. We should be looking at what we do before we get to that point. That bill, House Bill 1015, went through the House on consent calendar. We can make the same commitment to our ground water now.

California is looking down the barrel of a gun because they are in a period of massive drought and have not managed their water resources. South Dakota can avoid the same problem by valuing our water and managing it properly.

HCR 1025 – Our groundwater is IMPORTANT

We may have lost a bill that would have protected our groundwater, but we can still make a statement that our groundwater is important – more important than anything else, in fact, because everything depends on it. Agriculture, industry, life itself: without adequate, good groundwater, we have nothing.

So we’ve worked with legislators to introduce House Concurrent Resolution 1025, reaffirming the value of our groundwater and recognizing the need for on-going evaluation of its management. The text of the resolution is below, and a discussion on the resolution should be coming up in the next couple days. So email your legislators NOW and tell them to vote YES on HCR 1025.

A concurrent resolution, reaffirming the value of our groundwater resources and recognizing the need for on-going evaluation of our groundwater management.

HCR 1025:

WHEREAS, groundwater is a resource of immeasurable value to public health and welfare; and

WHEREAS, it is the public policy of this State to conserve the waters of the state and to protect, maintain, and improve the quality thereof  for water supplies, for the propagation of wildlife, fish, and aquatic life, and for domestic,  agricultural, industrial, recreational, and other legitimate uses; and

WHEREAS, it is the public policy of this State to provide that no waste be discharged into any waters of the state without first receiving the necessary treatment or other corrective action to protect the legitimate and beneficial uses of such waters; and

WHEREAS, it is the public policy of this State to provide for the prevention, abatement, and control of new and existing water pollution; and

WHEREAS, the State of South Dakota has limited groundwater resources, and any impact to such resources may be detrimental and permanent; and

WHEREAS, technology changes rapidly and technological development in all South Dakota’s industries changes the way in which our groundwater is used;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the House of Representatives of the Eighty-Ninth Legislature of the State of South Dakota, the Senate concurring therein, that the value of our groundwater resources is reaffirmed; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Legislature recognizes the need for on-going evaluation of our groundwater management based on rapidly changing technology and the ways technological advances impact our groundwater resources.

The work of the people

Today and tomorrow, DRA members are here in Pierre! It is astounding how much people can get done, and how much good can actually happen, when it is citizens talking to decision makers. Direct democracy, holding decision makers accountable, and helping those decision makers make the RIGHT decisions – this is why what we do is so essential. Some of the conversations going on here in Pierre literally would not be happening if the people of South Dakota had not stepped up and made their voices heard.

Case in point, how uranium affects tourism. We made our voices heard loud and clear – and the Capitol Journal agreed. Uranium mining is bad for tourism, and a paltry few million dollars in severance tax is a poor tradeoff for $1.9 billion from people visiting this beautiful state.

Today, we presented our petition. Tomorrow, we’ll protect our water. And always, we’ll be right here.

Doing the work of the people.

Dakota Rural Action members and Concerned Citizens for the Southern Black Hills presented to the Secretary of Tourism at the Ramkota

Countdown to Pierre – Uranium mining

It really isn’t a difficult question: do you think water should be protected from overuse and contamination? The answer for everyone should be, “absolutely.”

Over the course of the past year, South Dakota has seen a great deal of activity around the Powertech in situ uranium mining project. We’ve followed the process quite thoroughly on this blog; rather than repeat what we have put up here already, we’d like to focus on what is ahead.

Our priorities this year will be reinstating state control over uranium mining and protecting our water and our land from contamination. There are some significant tweaks between what we’ll be bringing this year and what we brought last year. And, this time around, we have a lot more information about what in situ uranium mining is really all about.

Kara Hagen, owner of the FlatIron Historic Sandstone Inn in Hot Springs and DRA member, urges people to take a stand. “If we don’t take a stand now, then when?” asks Hagen, “When it’s too late? Are you willing to take any chances or risk the future of the Black Hills and the purity and supply of our water?”

For example: there has been some public dispute about how much water Powertech proposes to use – and by association, the amount of water any other company would have to use were they to take up such a proposal. The absolute fact of the matter is Powertech is requesting the right to 13,710 acre-feet of water per year from the Inyan Kara Aquifer. It is on page one of their water rights application report. Powertech likes to say they’re only going to use 272 acre-feet per year, but when it comes to water rights, that 13,710 acre feet they own can’t be used by anyone else. It’s off the books. That matters.

“We have enough uranium resources to meet the United States’ needs into the 2020’s,” says Clay Uptain, President of the Black Hills Chapter of Dakota Rural Action. “We don’t need more uranium here, so it’s logical that uranium mined here would end up somewhere else. We would be left with contaminated water, while a Chinese company could gain the profits from the mining. I don’t want to see this happen.”

What has also become clear is South Dakota made a mistake back in 2010 when they passed SB 158, tolling our rules until South Dakota becomes an agreement state. Huge mistake – and it shows. Both the Board of Minerals and Environment and the Water Management Board were confused about what their role in this process really is, and there are conflicting understandings about what the state can and cannot regulate at this point in time. It is crazy to think South Dakota wouldn’t have control over its own territory, and considering in Wyoming it would take $4.5 million and 6 years to get primacy, we can’t wait for the state to put those rules back into effect.

Protecting our water, land, agriculture, tourism, and people is actually

Mining permit hearings continued – NO MINING PERMIT THIS YEAR

The South Dakota Board of Minerals and Environment has issued an order continuing (putting off, tabling, however you like to say it in non-lawerspeak) until after all other permits have been granted. In effect, this means there will be no large scale mining permit issued this year to Powertech!

The order states, “The Hearing Chair has reviewed the briefs and considered the statutory construction of SDCL 45-6B in total to determine whether the Board of Minerals and Environment (BME) is further able to fully consider the grant or denial of the permit without waiting for the other agencies and boards of the local, state and federal government to first rule on the licenses or permits within their respective jurisdictions. The failure of any of those other agencies or boards to grant their licenses, permits or other approvals may render a predetermination of the BME on the permit moot or potentially in conflict.”

SO – we have time. We have time to put proper protections in place. We have time to show how this would be devastating to our water, our land, and our people. And we have time to ensure our interests are not sacrificed for Chinese investors – or anyone else’s, for that matter.

Carry on, my friends, and to your good health!

Uranium mine permits – info, hearing dates, and locations

Our water, land, and way of life are threatened by the proposed uranium mine in the southern Black Hills. It is imperative that everyone possible attend these hearings. Whether you come for an hour, a day, or an entire week, we need you there. We need the boards to know we are watching, and we oppose this mine. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources needs to know they cannot simply approve every mine proposal thrown their way, especially after giving up their regulatory responsibilities. And we need the world to know the Black Hills are not for sale.

Large Scale Mining Permit (LSMP) Application:

Department of Environment and Natural Resources LSMP page:

http://denr.sd.gov/des/mm/powertechminepermitapp.aspx
This website has general information about the permit, the permit itself, all additions and changes, as well as all information relating to the contested case.

Hearing Information:

Monday, September 23, 2013
8:30am
Best Western Ramkota Hotel
2111 N. Lacrosse Street
Rapid City, SD (MAP)

The hearing will go throughout the week, starting with sworn testimony by “B” intervenors, then moving to testimony by the DENR, Powertech, and “A” intervenors. The hearing will likely continue through a second week in November. The date has not yet been set.

Water Use Permit and Ground Water Discharge Permit (GWP) Application:

Department of Environment and Natural Resources GWP page:

http://denr.sd.gov/powertech_wmb.aspx
This website has information for both permit applications. Though they are two separate permit applications and two separate issues, the Water Management Board decided to consolidate the cases and hear arguments for and against both permits at the same hearing.

Hearing Information:

Monday, October 7, 2013
8:30am
Best Western Ramkota Hotel
2111 N. Lacrosse Street
Rapid City, SD (MAP)

The hearing will last the entire week. The week of October 28-November 1 has also been set aside by the board for a continued hearing as needed. The schedule will follow the same format as the LSMP hearing, with “B” intervenors going first, then the DENR, Powertech, and “A” intervenors.