Amid the ancient forests and rocky outcroppings of the Upper Peninsula's Yellow Dog Plains, the beautiful Salmon Trout River cuts a serpentine path as it alternates between flat water and cascading rapids on its way to the world's premiere fresh water body—Lake Superior.

This river, set in pristine surroundings, is far removed from the hustle and bustle of Detroit and Lansing, but has nonetheless become a symbol of the best and worst of Michigan. The river is a testament to a state fiercely proud of its natural assets but increasingly neglectful of them in the face of budget crises and political combativeness.

While citizens discuss the economic future of the U.P. in terms of a clean environment, recreation and tourism, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) has revealed that its priorities lie elsewhere. The MDEQ is bumbling its way through a faulty review of a permit application to blast an acid-generating mine right beneath one of Lake Superior's premiere tributaries, the Salmon Trout River. Despite an outcry from concerned citizens, the review of this proposed mine has taken place with the apparent blessing of a so-called 'environmental Governor,' who has consistently ducked and dodged the issue while the future of the Great Lakes hangs in the balance.

The tug of war between citizens and the agency heated up when groups opposing the mine found out that MDEQ staff had deleted a report that was extremely critical of the mine. The report was written by MDEQ's own consultants and called into question whether the roof of the mine, just below the river, could hold up to the pressure of mining ? or if it would collapse and take the river with it.

On March 1, MDEQ Director Steve Chester acknowledged in a news release that documents questioning the stability of the crown pillar (the mine roof) were "not properly made part of the public record or given a comprehensive technical review." Chester then withdrew the proposed approval of the mine permit, a crucial and long-coming victory for concerned citizens.

A flurry of questions followed, including how critical documents could have been overlooked and whether their absence was intentional or accidental. The MDEQ announced it would investigate the matter and said that involved staff would be reassigned, creating even more questions about the integrity of the application review process. And the biggest question: Have other documents been overlooked or suppressed?

Environmental advocates were surprised by the proposed approval that was later withdrawn, in part because of rumored reports that called into question the stability of the mine's design as outlined in the application. Should the structure cave in, not only would it threaten human life inside the mine, but it would also drain the river above and expedite the flow of acid mine drainage (a mixture of acidic water and heavy metals created by mining sulfide ore) into the watershed and out to Lake Superior.

For now, this disaster is averted, with all state considerations of the application halted due to the suppressed reports and the investigation of how ? and why ? they were hidden. Did money exchange hands? Stock options? At this point nobody knows. Well, maybe a few do.

Public Lands, Private Interests

In 1992, the State of Michigan began leasing the mineral rights for its state-owned lands. Utah-based Kennecott Minerals Corp. jumped at the opportunity, leasing the sub-surface rights to hundred of publicly owned acres in the U.P. and also purchased up to 600,000 acres of mineral rights from private interests. In 2002, forced to declare their intentions by the lively interrogation of many locals, Kennecott acknowledged its interest in mining beneath the Yellow Dog Plains for the purpose of extracting metals, primarily nickel.

Although the Upper Peninsula has a longstanding history with iron mining, sulfide mining is entirely different and is named such because the minerals are embedded in sulfide-bearing rock. The mining operation bores into sulfide ores in order to extract metals. Sulfide mining has a centuries-long track record of pollution in the form of acid mine drainage (AMD), a caustic substance similar to battery acid. When sulfide ores are exposed to oxygen and water through the mining process, AMD is the unavoidable, destructive by-product. This substance ruins watersheds, threatens human health, and leaches heavy metals.

No state laws existed as of 2002 to govern this new kind of mining. Citizen advocates concerned with the track record of sulfide mining pushed for new laws and ultimately found success when Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm signed legislation into law in December of 2004.

In February of 2006, Kennecott submitted an 8,000-page mining permit application, which was deemed administratively complete by MDEQ within 12 business days of submission. In response to the impending mining project, hundreds of citizens packed public hearings to voice their opposition to the proposed mine. Despite this outcry, the MDEQ ultimately granted a proposed approval of the mine in January of this year, based on its review of the application. Now, with an investigation underway, the future of this issue is uncertain.

Public recreation lands valued for camping, hiking, snowmobiling, hunting and more would be off limits to those who own the property ? taxpayers ? if a proposal by Kennecott Minerals Co. is approved by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources.

As part of their apparent quest to turn northwestern Marquette County into a sulfide mining district, Kennecott has applied to the state for exclusive use of 160 acres of property that has been publicly owned for roughly 40 years.

Granting exclusivity to a for-profit company and barring public use of the land for decades sets a dangerous precedent: if they blast it, others will come. A bevy of mining companies now have their sights set on the Upper Peninsula and the underlying message seems to indicate that once the first sulfide mine blazes the path, others will happily follow.

Historically, the state has allowed the fencing of public property for oil and gas use, but only one or two acres at a time. The MDNR will make the final decision regarding the 160-acre lease request only if the mining company is approved for the other permit applications currently before the MDEQ. The department is under no obligation to grant the request and public outcry is one way to affect their decision.

A State on the Brink

Michigan residents have been pelted in recent years with a seemingly unending flow of bad news. Now, more than ever, the pride of Michigan ? its beautiful lakes and rivers, vast forests, and abundant wildlife ? is what gives residents solace. The Upper Peninsula represents the great escape, even to those who may have never crossed the Mackinac Bridge. The "Great Lakes State" is more than just a nickname and it's more than just the phrase etched onto a long line of license plates on northbound I-75 any given Friday. It is a way of life and perhaps the best tool in the state's collective toolbox when it comes to attracting new residents, whether they are young professionals or active retirees.

Poised at this critical juncture is a Governor desperately grappling for jobs and mistakenly considering an environmentally threatening mine as part of the solution. Perhaps she has missed the distinction that this mine would be open for only seven or eight years and employ fewer than 120 people at peak production, some of whom are certain to be mining experts imported temporarily to Michigan for these jobs.

Facing a crucial decision of its own making is the Michigan DEQ. Will leadership take the high road and thoroughly examine this mining application, as well as the actions of their own staff? Or will they rush over the mistakes of the past only to repeat them again with a proposed approval of a project that has been advised against by experts in a variety of scientific fields?

As the future of Michigan's Upper Peninsula hangs in the balance, grassroots organizations and concerned residents will continue to organize around this issue. It is these concerned citizens that are willing to acknowledge what political leaders are apparently unwilling to say out loud: not all economic development is good economic development. When it's not sustainable, not compatible with current uses, can undermine existing businesses, has never been done safely, and is not wanted by local communities, it is simply not worth the risk.