Houston County commissioners moved one step closer to ending their moratorium on new sand mining applications on Jan. 27. After hearing reports from the Houston County Planning Commission (PC) — which recently reviewed an updated mineral extraction ordinance — the board voted to hold its own public hearing on the matter on Wednesday, Feb. 18, at 10 am.
County Attorney Samuel Jandt told commissioners that a 10-day notice of the board's intent to change the mining ordinance must be published prior to a final vote. The last regular meeting before the interim ordinance (moratorium) expires is March 17.
The interim ordinance to give the county time to study the effects of frac sand mining took effect on March 20, 2012. Originally set for one year, it has been renewed ever since.
The issue has been contentious from the start. The county began by forming a study committee on frac sand mining, but that group was disbanded when it could not agree on a plan. A second committee was later formed to draft a revised ordinance, which takes the burgeoning frac sand industry into account. That document was completed recently, then changed before the PC met.
During the “public comment” session, several citizens spoke in opposition to those changes.
Michael Fields of Winnebago Township challenged a statement by a PC member that “sand is sand” when it comes to high-silica content material. “Sandbox sand won't give you silicosis,” he said.
Yucatan Township resident Bryan Van Gorp said that in its current state, the proposed ordinance is no longer restrictive enough. “The new ordinance throws open the doors and says, 'Have at it boys,'” (to prospectors), he stated.
Bruce Kuehmichel of Caledonia said the altered document represents “the shredded remnants of good intentions...”
Commissioner Justin Zmyewski questioned some of the last-minute alterations as well. As a member of the ordinance-drafting committee, he noted that the process was not always “quite as transparent as it could be,” and that the group “was not in 100 percent agreement” on the final draft.
Contacted by the Herald to explain those comments, he said that he discovered four members meeting behind closed doors late in the process — before the rest of the nine-member panel was scheduled to arrive. While that did not necessarily represent an effort by a minority to control the process, some alterations were apparently put forward that lacked the consensus of the entire group, Zmyewski noted.