On Sunday, we published an editorial critical of a new iron mining bill proposed in the Wisconsin Legislature. We stand by that view.

The editorial stressed that an iron mine would provide needed jobs and a stronger economy, especially in northern Wisconsin, and that streamlining the current permitting process makes sense, as long as there is no significant damage to rules and laws governing environmental protection.

But the proposed legislation simply goes too far in weakening those protections and in lessening the opportunities for citizen input. In our reading of the bill, it loosens protections to the point that political pressure could come to bear on the state Department of Natural Resources to ensure that a mine gets built.

As we concluded in the editorial, Wisconsin needs this mine; it does not need this legislation. Our view on this hasn't changed.

We revisit this topic today because earlier this week, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce issued a statement saying the editorial contained eight false statements. WMC did not contact us to rebut the assertions in the editorial, although a spokesman did call to say the statement would be released shortly before it became public.

The association accuses us of hyperbole. We think WMC is engaging in its own form of hyperbole. We concede that more careful language - in particular, using the words "could allow" instead of "would allow" - would have made our meaning more precise. On the issues cited, though, we believe our difference with WMC is one of interpretation and disagreement; not one of factual error. But we'll leave it to readers to decide who is right.

Here again are the assertions we made in the original editorial - and our response to WMC:

1. This bill would allow mining corporations to dump toxic waste into wetlands.

We should have said "could allow." According to the Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau analysis, the bill requires the state Department of Natural Resources to deny a permit on the basis of environmental harm "unless DNR has authorized the activity that causes the damage." It also requires denial on that basis "unless the activity or occurrence is authorized by DNR under an applicable approval such as a wetland water quality certification, or a permit for a navigable water activity."

Furthermore, the bill, according to the Wisconsin Legislative Council, says that current restrictions "for locations within 1,000 feet or 300 feet of specified navigable waters do not apply under the bill to activities that are approved by the DNR under specified statutory provisions created by the bill" and "the bill does not include the (current) restriction on locations where the DNR determines that there is a reasonable probability that the waste will result in a violation of surface water or groundwater quality standards."

In our view, that language could open the door to environmental damage.

2. The bill endangers the ability of homeowners in flood plains to obtain insurance.

It's true that the bill does not mention insurance. But according to the Legislative Council's analysis, the bill specifies that "ferrous metallic mining operations are not subject to local shoreland and floodplain ordinances." Current law requires operations to be in compliance with local ordinances. The result could be that properties in flood-prone areas no longer meet federal standards for local floodplain regulations management and could lose the ability to purchase floodplain insurance, according to testimony at a public hearing on the bill.

3. The bill would allow mining corporations to contaminate the groundwater of neighboring properties.

In part, our response to No.1 also applies to this point. The bill also allows the DNR to expand the design management zone by 1,200 feet, and we have found no provision that forbids that extension from crossing property lines. Again, "could allow" would have been more precise.

4. The bill would allow mining operations to inflict significant damage to the environment provided that the company agrees to mitigation.

The Legislative Council analysis says the bill contains "less stringent wetland regulations for ferrous mining projects, particularly with respect to allowing mitigation of impacts to certain wetlands" and "reduced requirements to obtain permits for water withdrawals and for activities that impact navigable bodies of water." Under the bill, according to state Rep. Brett Hulsey (D-Madison), the DNR can allow iron mining operations to inflict significant damage, provided that the miner agrees to restore or enlarge 1.5 acres of navigable waters for every acre that is significantly impacted.

5. The bill would allow iron mining laws to supersede all other environmental regulations.

The Legislative Council analysis says the bill has a "provision specifying that conflicts between the ferrous mining law and other statutes will be resolved in favor of the ferrous mining law." WMC says that doesn't apply to clean air and water regulations, so perhaps not all environmental regs would be affected. But the analysis does say that if there is a conflict with "another state environmental statute, the ferrous mining statute will control."

6. The bill requires the DNR to review a mining permit in 360 days, which is much shorter than the 3 1/2 year average of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

The WMC is right; the Corps does not issue mining permits. But we didn't say that it does. The Corps does issue environmental permits. So the feds and the state would still be unable to cooperate as closely as they do now, as a Corps representative testified at the hearing.

7. The bill removes the contested case hearing process, which gives citizens the opportunity to challenge data and question mining officials.

WMC says the contested case process is not a public hearing and that the association does not believe "that building a mandatory lawsuit into the permit process is consistent with efforts to streamline permitting."

WMC acknowledges that the bill removes contested case hearings; it just doesn't like them. We think contested case hearings are an essential element in public input.

8. The bill requires only one public hearing for an entire mining project; current law requires three.

WMC says the bill requires at least two hearings, one of which takes place before an application is filed, and allows DNR to hold more hearings. But if the other hearing takes place before the permitting process, how is that part of the process? The council analysis says the bill requires the DNR to hold only one "informational hearing to cover the mining permit, all other approvals and the environmental impact statement." More public input should be required - especially since, so far, no hearings have been scheduled in the area in which the mine would be dug.

***

WMC says it wrote its memo to legislators "in order to further a factual and honest debate about this legislation."

We agree: An honest debate is essential. So let's have one.