We bow to the great, almighty Dale Schultz (RINO-Richland Center)

You guys realize if Nygren had just gotten enough signatures last summer, he would've beaten Hansen, and RINO Dale wouldn't have a platform to pee on. It'd be 18R-15D, and this dickwad would just be Dem #16 instead of Dem #17.  If you recall, Nygren turned in like 20 more signatures than were needed, and the GAB, those same fellas who are so interested in rooting out fraud, threw out 21 signatures, Nygren stayed in the Assembly, and the rest is now a painful lesson in grandstanding RINO-ism.

I respect what Darling and Vos are trying to do, but groveling to a pig (I mean RINO) like Schultz is just painful. 

Lesson to all: RINO's are worthless.

--WRD



Rep. Vos, Sen. Darling: Statement on compromise mining legislation
2/29/2012

For Further Information, Contact:
Senator Alberta Darling
608-266-5830

Representative Robin Vos
608-266-9171

MADISON...Sen. Alberta Darling (R-River Hills) and Rep. Robin Vos (R-Rochester) released the following statement on a compromise mining proposal offered to State Senator Dale Schultz (R-Richland Center):

"For the past week, we have been meeting and discussing the opportunity to create thousands of good paying jobs throughout Wisconsin with State Senator Dale Schultz. We have listened to his concerns and responded with a compromise proposal which address many of the concerns we heard from Senator Schultz. We hope he takes the time to thoroughly review the measure and that we are able to find common ground.

Wisconsin has a great tradition of mining and stewardship. We are confident the compromise proposal offered to Senator Schultz achieves both of those goals. Mining equipment made in Southern Wisconsin will be used in Northern Wisconsin, benefiting everyone in between. It is our hope that we will be able to pass a meaningful update of our mining laws so that jobs can be created throughout Wisconsin as soon as possible."

Items included in the compromise language:

1. Wetlands Management

Add language to the mining bill to allow mitigation payments to a DNR in lieu fee program, if DNR establishes such a program.

Remove types of wetland mitigation from the bill with are not allowed under general state wetlands law, including riparian restoration projects, protection of upland groundwater recharge areas, shoreline stabilization projects, and riparian restoration projects.

Require wetlands impacts that occur within the Chippewa ceded territory to be conducted within the ceded territory.

2. Floodplain Zoning

Add an additional condition of approval for a ferrous mining permit requiring the DNR to determine that a ferrous mining project is likely to meet or exceed floodplain protections contained in ch. NR 116, Wis. Admin. Code.

Modify the exemption from local floodplain zoning ordinances under the bill to instead require those ordinances to apply to a DNR-permitted mining-related activity only to the extent that an ordinance is not more restrictive than the minimum federal floodplain requirements to maintain eligibility under the National Flood Insurance Program.

3. Ferrous Mining Permit Application Process

Allow one 60-day extension of a 420-day ferrous mining permit application review period if agreed to by the DNR and the applicant and if for one of the following purposes: 1) an extension is needed to coordinate with the Army Corps of Engineers on preparation of an environmental impact statement, or 2) new information or a change to the mining proposal necessitates additional time for permit review.

Require that a pre-application notice not be required before filing a ferrous mining permit application if the applicant is re-filing a previously denied mining permit application, if the application is filed within a year of the denial and is a request for approval of the same ferrous mining project as was requested under the denied application.

Allow DNR to review the quality of the information in a ferrous mining permit application when determining whether an application is administratively complete and to make one request of the applicant for supplemental information (similar to the wetlands and navigable waters bills that are pending) prior to the commencement of a review timeline.

Clarify that, in addition, the DNR may review the quality of the information submitted to the DNR in its processing of the permit application.

Remove the provision regarding automatic approval of a ferrous mining application if the DNR fails to make a decision within the 360-day timeline, and replace with a requirement that DNR return all fees paid by the applicant to the DNR, including fees used for internal DNR costs and outside costs. Retain the provision under the bill requiring a DNR decision on the application, regardless of whether the fee refund provision is triggered.

4. Ferrous Mining Permit Application Costs

Cap fees paid by the applicant to DNR for ferrous mining application approval at: 1) $2 million for DNR staff costs and related costs, and 2) the full cost for preparation of the environmental impact statement, prepared by a private party and awarded under a competitive bidding process.

5. Utility Provisions

Limit the application of the changes made to s. 30.025, Stats., under Assembly Substitute Amendment 1 to AB 426 (as also described in Assembly Amendment 2 to AB 426) to projects relating to ferrous mining activities.

6. Private and Public Wells

Restore applicability of programs under chs. 281 and 293, Stats., related to protections for private and public wells.

Insert a provision requiring DNR to impose conditions on high capacity well approvals for ferrous mining that ensure that privately owned high capacity wells will not be impaired, unless by agreement with the private high capacity well owner.

7. Water Withdrawals

Remove language related to economic considerations that must be made by the DNR in its evaluation of the impacts of proposed water withdrawals.

8. Groundwater Monitoring

Restore the 150-foot mandatory intervention boundary around mining waste sites.

9. Historical Resources