Pennington County Commission continued hearing on proposed hard rock mining ordinance

/ Uncategorized / By

July 19th, Tueda.Where: Commission Chambers, 130 Kansas City St, Rapid City, SD 57701, USA (map),

 The meeting will likely start at 9 am, but the Draft Hard Rock Mining Ordinance will be  the last item on the agenda & likely won’t be reviewed before 10:30 am (please check agenda when published).

UPDATE FROM July 5th Meeting

– The Commission did not make a final decision but continued review of the draft ordinance to next July meeting, –  July 19th, at the end of the agenda. They expressed interest in a final decision on Ordinance maybe on August 16th, but I expect  we need to see what happens on July 19th. Both sides (pro and anti mining) expressed need for more time and review.  Commission wants clarity on whether they can be more stringent than state law or rule.   So please continue to send written comments and plan to attend on July 19th. The staff want the written comments to arrive by Wednesday at 4 pm the week before the hearing.

 
 
Proposed Ordinance
 
BHCWA has an updated alert w/ talking points-  an alert at https://bhcleanwateralliance.org/public-hearings/
 
 The staff want the written comments to arrive by Wednesday at 4 pm the week before the hearing. – it will be included in the packet to Commission – send to: pcboc@pennco.org
BH  Clean Water Alliance’s alert with e-mails at home for 4 of 5 Commissioners, you can send to those if you miss the deadline.
Otherwise written testimony can be brought to the hearing or you can give oral testimony at the hearing.
 
You can attend in person, but a zoom hyperlink  might be available for remote viewing – If you want to testify remotely by Zoom,  let staff know by Thursday in advance of the meeting.
 
The main concern is that the Planning Committee stripped off good items – such as request for Socio-economic study like Lawrence County requires in their ordinance, because the Pennington County States Attorney said the requirement of such study would conflict with state law. I am not sure which state law she means, but SDCL 6-12-5. gives counties authority to make ordinances more strict than state unless otherwise restricted. SDCL 45-6B-4 limits ordinances so as not to conflict with state law with respect to mining. Does adding a new requirement (that does not exist in state mining law), conflict with that state law? Why can Lawrence  County do this but not Pennington?.  Question – is all that the County allowed to do is to xerox the state law and duplicate/back-up DANR enforcement? If that is the case, we need the law amended.
To see Lawrence County’s Mining Ordinance:
 Above we refer you to BHCWA web page for more information and other talking points on issues BHCWA has been following..
PHAS will be asking them to add a section protective of threatened and endangered species.