Phillip Abernathy, Custer banker and president of the Custer Area Economic Development Corporation, says on the Custer Chamber of Commerce website that that his organization will host an informational meeting on Powertech's proposed uranium mining project in the southern Black Hills tonight in Custer:

An informational meeting about the proposed Dewey-Murdock [sic] uranium project will be held at 6:00pm on Wednesday May 22nd at the Fire Hall meeting room. Raymond Johnson from the United States Geological Survey, Dr. James Munro PE, PHD, and Ben Snow Director of Rapid City Economic Development Corporation will all give a presentation on various aspects of the project. This meeting is being put on by the Custer Area Economic Development Corporation [Phillip Abernathy, Custer Chamber Buffalo Bytes, 2013.05.16].

(That's Dewey-Burdock, for those of you Googling at home.)

Johnson and Snow have done a Powertech dog-and-pony show like this before. Munro gets draws a paycheck from Powertech (assuming the company still has the cash to issue paychecks).

Evidently Custer's economic developers aren't interested in including in their program speakers who could address the impact that depleted and degraded water supplies and the release of radioactive material could have on the agriculture and tourism aspects of their economic development. I guess decent folks who see serious risks in permitting in situ uranium mining in the Black Hills and the Cheyenne River watershed will have to raise their concerns with questions from the audience at tonight's Custer meeting.

But be careful: speak up too loudly, and the Custer Emergency Response Office may put you on a terrorist watch list.

Last month Hyperion released its last 24 land options in Union County. Hyperion's proposed refinery near Elk Point has thus returned as fully to square one as possible.

The complete failure of the Hyperion project to get off the ground is mud in the eye of GOP Senate candidate M. Michael Rounds, who as Governor jumped in the tank early for the Texas dreamers' refinery plan. Now candidate Rounds is using the project's failure as an excuse to blow the EPA dogwhistle for his anti-government followers:

The Environmental Protection Agency's interference in the Hyperion oil refinery project is another example of how the federal government has been meddling in states' affairs, Rounds said.

"The EPA did everything it could to try and destroy that project just because it doesn't approve of using carbon-based fuel," he said. "Never mind that it would be a better, cleaner and more modernized facility than most that are already operating and that it would save a great deal of money in transportation costs" [Scott Feldman, "Rounds Prepares for U.S. Senate Run," Aberdeen American News, 2013.04.27].

Wait a minute. Rounds and Hyperion both said from the start that Hyperion was committed to meeting or exceeding the EPA's rules. The EPA took issue with some of Hyperion's paperwork, but it never moved to stop the refinery.

The EPA did not kill Hyperion. Hyperion killed Hyperion.  Hyperion lacked the plan, the infrastructure, the market demand, and the investors (which we knew five years ago!). Businessman Mike Rounds backed a plan that never had a business case.

But Rounds need you to believe that he can make good decisions as your Senator. That's why he needs to fabricate bogeyman stories about the EPA to distract you from his own golf-course-crony-clouded judgment.

Well, at least he didn't call Dakota Rural Action "liberal"....

Reporter Bob Mercer says he's not mocking nor criticizing Dakota Rural Action, but he takes DRA to task for not presenting specific needs or dangers to persuade the Legislature's Executive Board to study uranium mining and energy issues:

The organization’s lobbyist, Sabrina King, testified to the board Tuesday, calling for a look at what other states have done or failed to do regarding mining. She said one such area is “frac-sand” mining. The sand is used in the fracking process that busts open underground formations so that more oil can be extracted. As the study committee on oil and gas found last year, there was room for improvement in South Dakota’s laws. Unfortunately, Dakota Rural Action didn’t present examples to the board Tuesday of specific inadequacies in South Dakota’s laws and regulations regarding gold, uranium and sand mining [Bob Mercer, "The Shortfall of Dakota Rural Action," Pure Pierre Politics, 2013.04.24].

"Shortfall"... that sounds like criticism to me.

Mercer continues his criticism by claiming DRA relied on fear instead of evidence of real problems while lobbying for what he characterizes as costly and unnecessary regulations on mining.

DRA's Sabrina King responds:

Mercer states there was no information given to the Board about specific inadequacies in South Dakota law. Those were referenced in the original request, as well as in subsequent emails and conversations both I and many of our members have had with legislators. I’m not sure if he was expecting references to specific statues or what – but the issues are clear, have been heavily discussed, and when it comes to frac sands mining, there wouldn’t be specific statues to point to anyway, as they don’t exist; that was the whole point [Sabrina King, "The Shortfall of Bob Mercer -- and the SD Executive Board," Dakota Rural Action, 2013.04.24].

King also challenges Mercer's assertions about DRA's efforts during the 2013 Legislative session:

I can’t say whether Bob Mercer was actually at any of the hearings on the gold or uranium bills, but I certainly don’t remember seeing him there. More importantly, not once – ever – has he called up anyone from Dakota Rural Action or the Clean Water Alliance to discuss mining. We presented more data, studies, reports, and actual information about the risks of uranium mining than the proponents did of its benefits (many of which were outright lies). We showed the issues that have been found at uranium mining sites in Wyoming and Nebraska. Our testimonies were laden with facts and figures, as well as with personal stories of those who would be directly affected by uranium mining in the Black Hills.

Furthermore, Mercer’s comment that our requests would have had no benefit to the general public or the environment is purely his interpretation and is not correct – at all. Ensuring permit violations are reported in a timely manner, and ensuring our aquifers are not permanently contaminated for a temporary mining operation have clear benefits to both the public and the environment, but I get the feeling Mercer didn’t actually read any of the bills we supported, nor did he listen to our testimony or read the information we presented [King/DRA, 2013.04.24].

It is worth noting that as Mr. Mercer criticizes DRA for asking that the Legislature study our regulations to find out if there are problems we should address, he reports without commentary on the Legislature's decision to pay outsiders to study its own staffing needs, even though the Legislative Research Council has presented no evidence that unmet staffing needs exist or that such money should be spent. If the Legislature can commission a study to discover its own specific problems, citizen groups like DRA ought to be able to request studies to discover specific problems in mining and energy regulations that could have much broader public impact.

Just like last time and the time before, the Environmental Protection Agency has declared that the TransCanada-biased industry players who wrote the State Department's review of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline didn't do their homework:

In a comment on the State Department’s draft environmental impact statement for the project, EPA said Foggy Bottom failed to fully consider alternative routes for the Canada-to-Texas pipeline.

EPA said the draft review “does not provide a detailed analysis of the Keystone Corridor Alternative routes, which would parallel the existing Keystone Pipeline and likely further reduce potential environmental impacts to groundwater resources” [Zack Colman, "EPA Balks at State's 'Insufficient' Review of Keystone XL Route," The Hill: E2 Wire, 2013.04.22].

Remember, the existing Keystone pipeline route runs through eastern South Dakota, from up between Britton and the Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge down to Yankton. We might want to delay Keystone XL, but the more thorough review of alternatives EPA says is necessary could result in putting East River landowners through the TransCanada wringer again.

The EPA further dings State's report for giving insufficient attention to pipeline safety issues and the significant physical and chemical differences between the tar sands oil Keystone XL will transport and conventional oil, such as the fact that diluted bitumen from the tar sands sinks instead of floating like normal oil. The EPA recommends that the Keystone XL permit should include the following conditions:

• Requiring that the emergency response plan, as well as the contingency plans address submerged oil, as well as floating oil, including in a cold water response;
• Requiring pre-positioned response assets, including equipment that can address submerged oil;
• Requiring spill drills and exercises that include strategies and equipment deployment to address floating and submerged oil; and
• Requiring that emergency response and oil spill response plans be reviewed by EPA [Cynthia Giles, EPA Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance, letter to Department of State, 2013.04.22].

EPA does commend State's "comprehensive analysis" of the impact Keystone XL would have on minority, low-income, and tribal populations along the proposed route. EPA urges State to clearly document remedies for community and environmental justice concerns in the conditions for the pipeline permit.

Various tribes disagree that State has been so comprehensive in its review of Keystone XL's impact on their communities. The Ihanktonwan Oyate/Yankton Sioux General Council says the feds have failed to meaningfully engage them in the Keystone XL review process. The Yankton Sioux have passed a resolution vowing to join other indigenous peoples in the U.S. and Canada in fighting Keystone XL and other tar sands development.

Our Yankton Sioux neighbors could have a lot of help. Credo Mobile (the cell-phone branch of business-activist organization Working Assets) and the Rainforest Action Network are training 60,000 civil disobedience troops to stage over a thousand demonstrations to pressure President Obama to say no to Keystone XL:

[Credo political director Becky] Bond said Credo's push against the pipeline will consist of 1,000 demonstrations during the two-week period between the national interest determination report — likely due in September — and the date that the president could issue the cross-border permit.

“We think that escalation is critical at this point,” Bond said.

The actions will target corporate offices, the State Department and events held by Organizing for Action, the outside political group that spun off Obama’s reelection campaign and supports the president's agenda [Zack Colman, "Opponents of Keystone to Train 60K Activists in Civil Disobedience," The Hill: E2 Wire, 2013.04.22].

Remember, South Dakota neighbors: these protests aren't just environmental activism. They're also your best chance to get the President to put South Dakota property rights above the profit of foreign corporations. If you don't like foreigners controlling South Dakota, you should be all about protesting Keystone XL. Join your Indian and hippie neighbors (dare I call it the red-green coalition?) and tell the President to protect your property rights and your drinking water by nixing Keystone XL.

Speaking of water quality (and after 26 inches of snow in Lead, there will be lots of water running downhill this weekend), my friends at Dakota Rural Action are hosting an Earth Day Benefit Concert and Celebration at the Dahl Arts Center in Rapid City next Thursday. (Huh? Earth Day? That's not until spring... oh, wait....) On the program:

• Music from James Van Nuys and Family, Hank Harris, Marty Meyer, Steve Thorpe, and the Mike Reardon Band
• Clips from "Crying Earth Rise Up," a documentary about the water contamination from uranium mining in Crawford, Nebraska
• Snacks from Breadroot Natural Foods  Co-Op

Call the Dahl for tickets at 605-394-4101. Admission is $10 for Dahl Members, $12 Advance, and $15 day of event. Then come to the Dahl for the show on Thursday, April 18, from 6:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.

Given that the EPA finds 58.4% of rivers and streams on the Plains in poor condition, you should be at least a little concerned about water quality. For the last few years, East Dakota Water Development District has responded to that concern over the last few years with the Dakota Water Watch program. Program coordinator Jeremy Hinke says in a press release that in 2012, 50 active volunteers sampled 80 sites in 27 lakes and streams around eastern South Dakota for sediment and bacteria.

Now West Dakota Water Development District would like to join up and make this water quality monitoring program a statewide project. WDWDD is hosting an informational meeting on water monitoring on Wednesday, April 24th. The meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. and will be held in Room 112 of the University Center Rapid City campus, 4300 Cheyenne Boulevard, south from I-90 Exit 61, in Rapid City. Dakota Water Watch specialist will tell folks about the relatively simple water monitoring methods used and look for volunteers to join the program and gather data on West River bodies of water.

I volunteered for this program for a few years on Lake Herman and enjoyed my monthly excursions into the lake. The work is relatively simple: you put on your waders or hop in your boat, measure water depth, check water clarity with a Secchi disk, look around the shore for wildlife and signs of possible pollution, and grab a couple water samples in a plastic bag to take to a local lab. It's not too tough, and it provides you, your neighbors, and policymakers with practical data about local water quality.

If you're interested in seeing just how good your West River water is, come to the West Dakota meeting April 24, 7:00 p.m., at the Rapid City University Center.

Nebraska rancher and lifelong Republican Randy Thompson understands what South Dakota Republicans (and Senator Tim Johnson) refuse to admit: the Keystone XL pipeline is all risk and no reward:

The risks to our country’s freshwater, and the risks to our land, are ammunition enough for the President to reject the pipeline.

But the fact that the tar sands oil will be exported to countries like China and Venezuela, and won’t even stay in the U.S. puts me over the edge — because it means that American citizens like me would be taking on all of the risk so that Big Oil and foreign countries could get the reward [Randy Thompson, "All Risk, No Reward," York (NE) News Times, 2013.04.06].

I couldn't agree more, Randy!

Thompson is thus chairing the new All Risk No Reward Coalition, which is telling President Obama not to socialize TransCanada's risks just to boost Big Oil's profits.

Dakota Rural Action has joined the All Risk No Reward Coalition. Unlike the Republican Party, they've been fighting to protect South Dakota landowner rights from TransCanada's predations from the beginning. Now they want to highlight both the environmental risks and the financial costs South Dakotans will bear if Keystone XL blows a gasket:

The All Risk and No Reward Coalition focuses on the risks to landowners, water, and the environment posed by the Keystone XL pipeline – risks that are on display in recent Arkansas tar sands spill. The Pegasus pipeline spilled over 80,000 gallons of diluted bitumen, the harsh chemical-ridden substance that will be flowing through the Keystone XL pipeline. But while the Arkansas spill happened in a well-populated area with quick emergency response teams available, any spill that will occur in South Dakota will not have that kind of support.

Because the IRS does not consider diluted bitumen to be oil, companies transporting tar sands oil are exempt from paying into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. The tax-free tar sands product flowing through South Dakota in the Keystone XL pipeline would be exempt from paying into the fund which is used to pay for oil spills. This means South Dakotans will have to rely on taxpayer dollars to pay for a spill, because the state legislature has declined to require a bond from TransCanada for the pipeline [Dakota Rural Action, press release, 2013.04.08].

Now TransCanada might be nice like Exxon and pay for the cleanup of a Keystone XL tar sands spill anyway... but should we take that chance? Should we let TransCanada lay that risk on us before we've change federal tax law and state bonding law to hold them accountable?

The Keystone XL pipeline is essentially corporate welfare. We take a whole lot of risk off TransCanada's (and Canada's!) shoulders, we don't charge them for the favor, they increase their profits, and we get no lasting benefits in return. Even Republicans should recognize that's a bad deal for South Dakota.

Related: The Oglala Sioux Tribe passed a resolution March 26 reaffirming its commitment to stopping the Keystone XL pipeline "from crossing the Mni Wiconi Water Line, any part of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation and any and all 1851 and 1868 treaty lands." An organization called Owe Aku International is holding the Moccasins on the Ground Tour of Resistance, which brought over 300 activists to Manderson last month for training in direct action techniques to stop Keystone XL construction. Talli Nauman reports that another Moccasins on the Ground training took place near Yankton (Lake Andes, actually) last weekend, and a third is shaping up for Eagle Butte later this month.

Bob Mercer mistakes Ken Blanchard's sporadic narrow-minded only-ism for the deepest thinking in the state. Dr. Blanchard says past performance does not indicate future climate results:

I have been skeptical of world climate modeling projected into the future for the same reason as I am skeptical of anyone who claims to have discovered a formula that will predict the next winner of the World Series. It is possible to build a formula that corresponds to what has happened so far; it is another thing to guess what will happen next [Ken Blanchard, "Global Warming Flatlines," South Dakota Politics, 2013.04.06].

That sounds familiar.

Then Dr. Blanchard then asserts that past performance of technology and economic growth does predict future results :

One thing that we cannot project into the future is the nature of technological development. New sources of energy under the ocean floor will be exploitable very soon and it may be possible to put some of the carbon back when we got the energy. If we really want to solve the problems that our environment poses, the only hope lies in new technologies. The only way to get those is to promote economic growth. This is a lesson that the environmental left desperately wants not to learn [Blanchard, 2013.04.06].

Um... economic growth is also the only way to create environmental problems—eat more stuff, make more poop. Technology can make things cleaner (cars reduce manure on street; antibiotics reduce disease); it can also make things dirtier (cars make smog, antibiotics on dairies promote more resistant bacteria).

Technology and economic growth don't solve environmental problems; values do. Assuming that not-yet-invented technology will someday clean up our messes disinclines some of us from making less of a mess in the first place. Promoting economic growth as the only salvation for the ecosphere keeps us from seeing that we can remedy or avoid some messes by consuming less.

You can get rid of all the junk accumulating in your house and yard by inventing a Mr. Fusion to turn all your trash into energy. Or you can just buy less junk. You can use less gas by buying a Prius. Or you can choose a lifestyle in which you can depend on your feet and a sturdy bicycle to get you where you want to go. You can increase GDP by buying a bigger Case IH tractor and more Monsanto seed, hoping that those corporations will invest that money in research on miracle food pills. Or you can choose to farm organically and conscientiously to conserve the land and water for future generations.

Economic growth and technology are not the only ways to solve environmental problems. Without the right values, economic growth and technology can just as likely be our ruin.

Related Reading:

1. I wrote a similar critique of commentary from Dusty Johnson in 2008.
2. Wendell Berry's farmer-father said you can't plow your way out of debt. Berry says much more about conservation and economy in his 2012 Jefferson Lecture. A key passage:

The problem that ought to concern us first is the fairly recent dismantling of our old understanding and acceptance of human limits. For a long time we knew that we were not, and could never be, “as gods.” We knew, or retained the capacity to learn, that our intelligence could get us into trouble that it could not get us out of. We were intelligent enough to know that our intelligence, like our world, is limited. We seem to have known and feared the possibility of irreparable damage. But beginning in science and engineering, and continuing, by imitation, into other disciplines, we have progressed to the belief that humans are intelligent enough, or soon will be, to transcend all limits and to forestall or correct all bad results of the misuse of intelligence. Upon this belief rests the further belief that we can have “economic growth” without limit [Wendell Berry, "It All Turns on Affection," National Endowment for the Humanities Jefferson Lecture, 2012].