More than half a century ago, a renowned biologist concluded that wild rice doesn’t grow well in lakes that are high in a type of mineral salt that comes pouring off Minnesota’s Iron Range.
Now, after three years of lawsuits, legislative wrangling and one of the most comprehensive scientific investigations ever conducted on behalf of a single species, it turns out he was right.
This week, in a decision with far-reaching implications for the state’s mining industry and the preservation of its most famous plant, state pollution officials are expected to announce their recommendation for a “sulfate standard” — how much of that salt Minnesota industries can discharge into the clear, calm waters across the state where wild rice likes to grow.
If scientific findings are the guide, which has been the one unifying principal among all the opposing interests, then hundreds of mines, wastewater treatment plants and other facilities may have to come up with new and expensive ways to reduce a pollutant that was long regarded as fairly benign.
“There will be a lot of screaming about this, I’m sure,” said Nancy Schuldt, a water quality expert with the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, which has pushed the state for years to enforce its long-standing rule to protect wild rice from the mineral salt called sulfate.
Craig Pagel, president of the Iron Mining Association of Minnesota, said the industry cannot estimate the costs of complying, but said: “I’m sure it would be extremely costly. And not just for us.”
It’s also clear, now, that it’s not just wild rice that suffers from too much sulfate. The toxic reaction that occurs in the muck around the plant’s roots can affect virtually all types of aquatic flora, or any type of living thing that relies on oxygen, scientists say.
“It’s going to affect everything out there,” said John Pastor, a biologist at the University of Minnesota Duluth, who ran one of the wild rice studies. “It’s going to affect the whole food web.”
The decision next week by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) will pertain only to wild rice, however, and will mark a turning point in what has been an unusually contentious debate.
The MPCA will recommend whether the state’s existing standard should remain where it is, or go up or down, or even vary by season. Next, the standard is likely to be reviewed by a scientific panel convened by the agency, according to Shannon Lotthammer, an MPCA director — a step that industry groups said they applaud. The public will have a chance to weigh in as well. A final decision will probably be made by the end of the year, she said.
That may be just the beginning. The rule will apply to waters where wild rice grows — or has grown, or could grow. In the land of 10,000 lakes, where wild rice used to be ubiquitous, determining the reach of the new standard is in many ways a far more complicated question than the chemistry.
A second process will determine which and how many lakes, rivers and wetlands will be defined, and then protected, as a wild rice water.
“And that,” said Schuldt, “Is where the biggest battles over implementing this rule will fall.”
In the 1930s and 1940s, state biologist John Moyle paddled through lakes and rivers across Minnesota, studying the relationships between naturally occurring stands of wild rice and the concentration of sulfate. The plant grows best in shallow, mucky water with a gentle flow, and it was once common throughout the marshy areas of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ontario and beyond.
Indian tribes say that historically it was instrumental in their settlement around the region, and remains a foundation of their diet, culture and spirituality.
Today most of the wild rice grows in northeast Minnesota.
Naturally occurring sulfate is not common in the region. In northeast Minnesota, the primary source of sulfate is what leaches off piles of waste rock and tailings ponds from a century of iron and taconite mining on the Range.