Oneida County board shoots down mining resolution

It was a politician’s dream on Tuesday when the Oneida County Board of Supervisors took a vote that didn’t matter how supervisors voted — voting yes yielded the same result as voting no.

Specifically, supervisors shot down a Scott Holewinski resolution that would have delegated authority to the county’s forestry committee to entertain any unsolicited inquiries for exploration, prospecting, bulk sampling, and mining operations on county-owned land and to follow the procedures set forth in state statute and county ordinance.

The resolution failed 13-6.

Here’s the kicker, though. Unbeknown to supervisors — especially to county board chairman Scott Holewinski and forestry committee chairman Bob Almekinder — the county code already delegated that authority to the forestry committee.

The resolution came on the heels of attempts by two mining companies to inquire about a county lease for exploring and potentially developing a mining operation, including the controversial Lynne mineral deposits on county forestland.

Holewinski says Valhalla Metals reached out to him in June by phone, email, and then certified letter, but he did not respond. Almekinder was also contacted and did not respond. During the summer, the Wisconsin Counties Association (WCA) then reached out to Holewinski on behalf of GreenLight Metals, which was also fishing about for mining in the county.

At that point, Holewinski, along with Russ Fisher, the county’s vice chairman, attended a meeting in Madison with WCA and mining officials. Holewinski says the meeting was informational.

“I told them that I wanted to get the will of the current county board before any formal discussion about the Lynne deposit should move forward,” the chairman wrote in notes presented to the board Tuesday. “We discussed the history of the Lynne deposit, other deposits in northern Wisconsin, our mining ordinance and the resolution that I would be taking to the county board in August. … there was no discussion on how they mine, financial and economic impacts, or anything about their company.”

Holewinski said the purpose of the resolution was simply to clarify how the county would handle unsolicited inquiries from mining companies in the future. He pointed to a 2018 referendum in which 62 percent of voters rejected mining of the Lynne deposit, but he also observed that the county board, after the referendum, had rejected a resolution that would have prohibited all non-ferrous metallic mining activities, including exploration, prospecting, bulk sampling and mining operations on county-owned land.

That was 2019, and Holewinski said it was unclear what the actual position of the county was at the time, and that’s why he wanted a procedure for handling any incoming inquiries. 

“I was trying to be pretty transparent and not make a decision on my own and let this current county board make a decision who should be in charge of these unsolicited requests,” he said.

We’d kill for a reason

Supervisor Steven Schreier vociferously took issue with Holewinski’s assertion of transparent conduct.

“I’m sure everybody’s dying to know [why Holewinski didn’t take the initial inquiry to forestry if that’s where he wanted it], but apparently instead, based on what you gave us in your notes concerning both Kyle Christianson [of the WCA] and Valhalla, [there were] many, many phone calls, coordinating meetings, many, many phone calls talking to people about issues that concern the county without anyone else being made aware any of this was going on,” Schreier said. “Who else on forestry was aware of this other than the chair of the forestry committee? Anybody else? Anyone privy to this? … I take exception to just the way this whole thing evolved.”

Almekinder defended the resolution, saying he was unsure about what to do after hearing from the mining company and that he thought the resolution clarified things.

“I received a phone call that I never asked for,” Almekinder said. “I didn’t answer it because it wasn’t clear to me what I should do. Now it’s clear to me what I should do. I should answer that and answer this, whatever. And if the committee deems that we should bring it to the county board, we would. If it’s deemed not, it gets voted down in committee. That’s what this clears up for me.”

The only problem was, as both county forestry director Jill Nemec and county zoning director Karl Jennrich pointed out, state statute and county code already gives the forestry committee that power, at least in a de facto sense.

“We [the forestry department] are dictated by statute to manage those lands, including any sort of inquiries about mining uses,” Nemec said. “ … It does give the county board the authority to get inquiries and decide on inquiries with public lands, county forestlands. It also gives the county the ability to decide if they want to act on those inquiries. The thing that you have to consider when you get those inquiries is whether the use is compatible with the county forest law land.”

It would also require DNR approval, Nemec said, and likely require a process of withdrawing the land from county forest law — a process she said was complicated — which would surely require the forestry committee’s and the department’s vetting.

Jennrich was more direct, saying forestry was the appropriate committee for any kind of mining for the county. He pointed to the county code that designated the forestry committee to act as the mining oversight/local impact committee and to perform and act as a liaison between the county board and the conservation-UW extension committee, the administration [now executive] committee, and the zoning committee in all matters pertaining to mineral exploration, prospecting, mining and reclamation.

After hearing those two speak, Schreier said he was bewildered.

“Unless I misheard something from both those individuals, we already have language in place that establishes what’s supposed to be going on,” Schreier said. “So I don’t even know why we’re entertaining the resolution because if we have not only statutory language but our own ordinance language that already defines what the process is, I guess the only question would be is an unsolicited inquiry enough to trigger what was just mentioned or is this only when you get something like a letter of intent from an entity.”

When you have language already in place that defines the process, why would you want to create more language or feel like you need some kind of policy or guidance on it? Schreier asked.

Schreier said he was also bewildered why Holewinski would seek mining company and WCA input about what would be in the county’s best interest.

“We already know what’s in the best interest,” he said. “We already approved the language. It’s both in our ordinance language and statutory language. As far as I know, this isn’t going to change any of what was just spelled out to us by the two individuals who just spoke. Unless again, I misheard or I’m misquoting something they just told us.”

Holewinski accused Schreier of making up his reason for taking the trip to Madison.

“I went down to Madison not to ask them that,” he said. “I went down to Madison to tell them that I would be taking this to county board before we have any discussion. … You can make up anything you want. In my years on this board, I’m sure if I went around this board and asked them prior to this meeting, nobody knew where we stand and where these solicitations should go. So my reason for this is to clarify. So everybody here understands you can vote ‘yes’ and it’ll go to the forestry department. You can vote ‘no’ and we’ll just have to figure out who’s going to handle it.”

But, Schreier said, it didn’t need to be figured out: “You were just told who was going to be responsible.”

That would be the forestry committee, no matter how the vote went, as Billy Fried summed up the sentiment of multiple supervisors: “The way I understand it,” he said, “a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ ends up with the same result.”

Holewinski acknowledged that reality: “I guess so after today, but at least we had the discussion and everybody knows that the chair of the forestry committee will oversee the requests that I’m getting.”

In the end, Holewinski’s resolution lost, but it underscored an important point for those who want the county closed to mining — the county is currently open to mining. No matter how the vote went, the forestry department was and is authorized to entertain and review mining proposals, vet them, and send them to the county board.

Prohibiting mining was explicitly rejected by the board in 2019, as Holewinski’s resolution pointed out, and the 2018 referendum in which 62 percent opposed any mining of the Lynne site was localized and in any event advisory only. Thursday’s resolution debate thus clarified that reality, though no specific project is on the table.

The people speak

Just because the county policy is now clear doesn’t mean it’s popular, and Holewinski’s resolution, once people got wind of its language — giving the forestry committee the authority to “entertain any unsolicited inquiries” for mining and exploration — prompted a large and energetic crowd to attend the meeting to again express opposition to any sulfide mining in the county.

Nearly 30 people spoke against the resolution, with many more not speaking but clearly allied with mining opponents. Only one speaker supported what he termed keeping an open mind.

For the most part, speakers said the resolution effectively opened the door to mining in the county by even allowing a proposal to be considered, and they said that such intention ran against the public will, as expressed most explicitly in the 2018 referendum. A ‘yes’ vote on the resolution, they asserted, would violate the public trust.

Scott Kirby of Newbold said it only takes about 30 seconds of Googling to find out “there’s not one instance of a environmentally friendly safe mine anywhere in the history of the world.”

“So to be sitting here trying to figure out what are the benefits, economic impacts, job creation — what does it really boil down to?” Kirby asked. “How do we live? How do we survive? You can’t eat your money. You can’t drink poison water. I don’t know why you’re back here considering a resolution to allow mining to move forward in Oneida County. It doesn’t make sense. You’re smarter than that. You are all intelligent people.”

Kirby said he has a five-year-old son, soon to turn six.

“A mine that destroys the water quality of the region does not help his future just because some jobs may be [created],” he said. “I’m just a little perplexed as to why we’re here again this morning talking about this issue.”

Celeste Hockings, the natural resources director for the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, was one of several tribal members to speak, in her case on behalf of tribal president John Johnson. Hockings read a letter calling potential mining inquiries “particularly alarming” and disregarding “the will of residents of Oneida County, including the Lac du Flambeau tribe.”

Seventh district Democratic congressional candidate Kyle Kilbourn of Woodboro said people he meets on the campaign trail oppose mining.

“In my campaign travels, I’ve talked to people from Superior to Marshfield, from Hudson to Wausau,” Kilbourn said. “I hear over and over again that people value clean air, clean water, and a healthy environment. It’s why we live in northern Wisconsin. I’ve also heard we need to transition to a clean economy that grows opportunities for all residents.”

The resolution at hand did not achieve that objective, Kilbourn said.

“It puts our greatest assets at risk,” he said. “Oneida County is the fifth largest concentration of freshwater lakes in the world. Local businesses and residents depend on tourists fishing our lakes, enjoying our wildlife, and harvesting our tourist products. Now a foreign corporation wants to extract our livelihood for their own profit.”

What is patriotic about plummeting the value of small businesses? Kilbourn asked.

Crescent resident Karl Fate, a long-time opponent of mining in the county, voiced his concerns once more.

“The Lynne deposit was discovered 34 years ago, and there has not been a mine there,” Fate said. “It’s not a mystery why. It’s because of the extremely wet physical conditions on the ground at Lynne and its relationship to the Willow [Flowage]. We are the owners of the Lynne site. We are obligated to understand the conditions on the ground there. These conditions are well understood and it is simply irresponsible to claim ignorance of those conditions as your supervisors in this room continue to do.”

Fate said two things stood out to him after attending meetings over the last 34 years.

“Committee members were always pushing a mine but were never interested in the conditions on the ground at the site, nor were they ever interested in the public’s concerns about those conditions,” he said. “Number two, committee reaction to public concern was always to insist on a referendum question asking voters whether there should be a mine. We now know the answer.”

With the referendum question, Fate said, the county finally asked for the public’s blessing and the voters said ‘no way,’ and, if the land site is leased, it would be a colossal betrayal of the public’s trust.

Kathleen Cooper said only five-and-a half years had passed since the referendum.

“The people who voted in this referendum were not like hippies, not weirdo radicals, not ‘make love and not war’ and all that stuff,” Cooper said. “They were the conservative, hardworking people of this county who voted against this and overwhelmingly voted against it.”

Cooper said she understood that the region needs economic development. 

“We need to raise our tax base,” she said. “There are other ways to do it besides mining. It takes a little longer. It takes a little more effort on the part of our leaders to recruit other kinds of industries.”

She pointed to the city of Phillips, which she said had attracted such companies as SRC America, a corrugating roll manufacturing company, and other economic activity that is not as destructive as mining.

“So there’s other ways to have a good economy in Oneida County without inviting mining,” she said. “It is like a rape victim that keeps saying ‘no, no, no.’ And the rapist says, ‘I know you say no, but you really mean yes.’ Well, we don’t mean yes, we mean no.”

Jill Hunger said she had property immediately north of the town of Lynne. 

“In 2012 when we bought our cabin, the lawyer that looked at the deed was concerned,” Hunger said. “He goes, ‘you don’t have any mineral rights that come with this deed. They belong to the state.’ I hope that never causes a problem, but apparently it will.”

Hunger said she heard former county board chairman Dave Hintz propose a mining referendum in 2018 and later acknowledge that the people had spoken, not just in the town of Lynne but countywide, and she said she heard her own supervisor, Almekinder, say he would honor the result of the referendum. (Almekinder reiterated Tuesday that he would “never vote against my constituents for what they want.”)

“But here we are again in 2024,” Hunger said. “We’ve already said no and now Scott Holewinski has been doing some interesting things. I talked to a couple board supervisors over the weekend. They did not hear about the proposal from Valhalla that happened last June. This got sprung on them as well. … You’re asking them to vote on a resolution that could become part of the comprehensive plan for the county and the voters, the people who own that land, told you no. Why are we here? I’m asking the board today to vote no… It’s your duty to represent the people that elected you to be here.”

Tabitha Bennish of Rhinelander also reminded supervisors of the referendum.

“Those who vote in favor of this resolution today will be openly defying that directive of the people to not entertain such mining,” Bennish said. “I know a lot of this has already been said, but this vote is the first step in inviting mining companies to work in the county and your constituents, including myself, oppose risking the quality of our freshwater resources here in Oneida County.”

To be sure, Bennish said, some supervisors were reassuring people that passing the resolution did not necessarily mean there would be mining in the county.

“But why would we be wasting the taxpayer’s time and money to even entertain something when it’s obvious that the people do not want the mine,” she said. “So just voting ‘no’ to not even entertain such things is what seems most practicable. So please, if you want to keep our water safe, follow what your constituents want and vote no.”

Richard Moore is the author of “Dark State” and may be reached at richardd3d.substack.com.