Dear HCN,
The first lesson you
learn if you want to be a conservation activist is that you have to
know what you’re talking about. Otherwise, you lose credibility.
Unfortunately, Larry Tuttle’s letter (HCN,
9/25/00: Response to ‘squishy-soft’) reflects that he has
yet to learn that lesson. Our suggestion? Visit the Northern Plains
Resource Council’s Web site (www.nprcmt.org) and read the full text
of our contract with the Stillwater Mining Co.
If
he makes that visit, Mr. Tuttle will learn that the “Good Neighbor
Agreement” is legally binding. It spells out standards of
performance, defines processes and deadlines to ensure that those
standards are met, and provides for unprecedented citizen access to
information about the company’s operations.
Far
from gutting standard federal and state requirements, this
agreement goes beyond what the state of Montana or the federal
government requires.
Without this contract, there
would be two large mines with state and federal
oversight.
With this contract, there are two
large mines with state and federal oversight, plus the following:
- independent environmental audits by a firm selected by the company and citizens’ groups,
- the opportunity for citizens’ groups to review and comment on the company’s proposals before the limited public participation process required by federal and state laws,
- legally enforceable water-protection limits that far exceed state and federal requirements,
- a permanent conservation easement on more than 2,000 acres of company-owned land,
- limitations on vehicle traffic in both watersheds,
- prevention of workers’ camps outside of existing communities,
- a legally binding requirement to share environmental information (including mine inspections) with all parties to the agreement,
- company payment for mutually agreed-upon scientific consultants,
- binding arbitration for disputes arising under the agreement,
- citizen samples of all company waste streams,
- plus many more provisions too numerous to mention here.
Did NPRC take what Mr. Tuttle calls
“the co-optation bait” by agreeing to a company-initiated strategy?
Hardly. NPRC made the initial offer to negotiate. The company
probably would never have agreed to sit down at the table had NPRC
and our affiliates not been poised to challenge key permits
necessary for the development of Stillwater’s new
platinum/palladium mine and expansion of its existing
one.
Mr. Tuttle has convinced himself that this
agreement will result in massive resource destruction. Having sat
through the hours of the meetings, having read the agreement cover
to cover, and having seen tangible results as neighbors of the
mine, we can only ask, “How?” The agreement provides protections
above and beyond those provided by state and federal law. Likewise,
what Mr. Tuttle calls “secret negotiations” have no effect on the
flow of public information. In fact, the agreement makes
considerably more information available to the citizens’ groups
that have been watchdogging the company for the past 20
years.
There are legitimate concerns about an
organization being co-opted by the negotiation process. It’s likely
that some companies view negotiation as a possible tool for
co-opting citizens’ groups, or wearing down opposition, or
polishing their public image. We had no illusions going into this
process that our goals were the same as those of the company. We
debated passionately at NPRC about how to make absolutely certain
that we wouldn’t become invested in the company’s success and
thereby walk away from our principles.
The
Northern Plains Resource Council has been fighting abuse of power
by corporations for over 28 years. Before Mr. Tuttle makes reckless
charges that we’ve given away the store, and before he advocates
revoking our tax-exempt status (as some “wise use” advocates tried
to accomplish a few years back), we suggest he actually take the
time to read the agreement.
Jack
Heyneman, Fishtail, Montana
Arleen
Boyd, Fishtail, Montana
Jerry
Iverson, Big Timber,
Montana
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline ‘Reckless charges’ refuted.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
