Permit Review Timelines
• In Wisconsin, the clock starts once the mining company submits their Notice of Intent to mine and begins field work and data collecting.
• Minnesota’s and Michigan’s permit review timelines seem shorter, but their clock doesn’t start until after all the necessary information has been compiled; a year of groundwater data collection is considered part of the permit review time in Wisconsin, while it does not in Minnesota or Michigan.
• While Minnesota and Michigan have separate permit processes for iron mining and other types of metallic mining that produce acid drainage, Wisconsin has one permit process but an extra step that adds time for acid drainage-producing mining. Mining that is not expected to produce acid drainage skips this step in the process.
Equal Treatment of Mining and Other Industries
• As in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan also require mining activities to adhere to statewide rules to protect water, air and land.
Protection of Property Rights
• Only Wisconsin explicitly protects the rights of waterfront property owners from the impacts of mining.
• Wisconsin goes beyond Minnesota and Michigan by setting the amount for damage claims if mining harms drinking water supplies.
Citizen and Community Input and Protections
• Wisconsin law provides more opportunity for citizen and community input, and greater protections from the boom and bust cycles so common to areas with mining than either Minnesota or Michigan.
• In Minnesota and Michigan:
- No required disclosure of past bad practices by the mining company;
- Local government participation is not required in the process;
- No local impact committees;
- Minnesota requires bonds (optional in Michigan) to assure financial responsibility for problems that arise, but neither for the long-term.
• In Minnesota, citizens can sue to protect against pollution, and in Michigan, citizens can request a Contested Case Hearing.
Other Miscellaneous Differences
• Only Wisconsin specifies when land is unsuitable for mining, for example, where the activity would destroy or irreparably damage special areas such as habitat for endangered species, wilderness areas or wild and scenic rivers.
• Wisconsin does not have a fund established to pay for surveillance and monitoring of mining activities while Minnesota and Michigan do.