Minnesota. Attorney General. Natural Resources Division.

• 1947 June - October 1947: : The Minnesota Department of Conservation conducts hearings on granting a tailings discharge permit for Reserve Mining Company (RMC).
• December 1947:: Permits for taconite tailings discharge are issued to Reserve by the Department of Conservation (Dec. 18) and the Water Pollution Control Commission (Dec. 22).
• April 1948:: Reserve also receives a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers for construction of docks, breakwater, and for the dumping of taconite tailings into Lake Superior.
• 1951:: Construction begins on the E.W. Davis taconite pelletizing plant at Silver Bay, development of the Peter Mitchell mine in Babbitt, and of the 47-mile railroad from Babbitt to Silver Bay.
• 1956:: The first full year of taconite pellet production begins at Babbitt and Silver Bay. Taconite tailings, at the pace of up to 67,000 tons per day, are dumped into Lake Superior at the E.W. Davis Works at Silver Bay. The original permit is amended to allow Reserve to increase use of Lake Superior water from 130,000 gallons per minute to 260,000 gallons per minute.
• September 1960:: Permit is amended a second time to allow Reserve to use 502,000 gallons per minute.
• October 1965:: The Federal Water Pollution Control Act is amended by adding provisions providing for the promulgation of federal-state and inter-state water quality standards. Minnesota files a letter of intent to comply with the federal act.
• 1967:: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Interior Department agree to review Reserve's permit, and Charles Stoddard, Interior's regional coordinator, is designated head of a special Lake Superior taconite tailings study group.
• December 1968:: The report of the tailings study group (known as the Stoddard Report) finds that Reserve's tailings have increased the turbidity of Lake Superior, accelerated algae growth, raised certain chemical percentages in lake water to dangerous levels, and decreased fish food and habitat. The report recommends that Reserve be given three years to construct an on-land disposal system. By the time the Stoddard Report is made public in April 1969, however, the Interior Department claims that the report is only a preliminary departmental memo and is not the official policy of the Interior Department.
• April 1969:: The Minnesota Pollution Control Agencey (PCA) adopts water pollution control regulation 15 (WPC 15). It is approved as a federal regulation in November 1969.
• May 1969:: The U.S. Secretary of the Interior, Stewart Udall, convenes a conference pursuant to Section (d) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act for the purpose of considering the interstate pollution of Lake Superior. This conference, which meets several times over three years, is known as the Lake Superior Enforcement Conference and includes representatives from the federal government and from the states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
• September 1969:: The Enforcement Conference unanimously concludes that "there is presumptive evidence in the record to indicate that the discharge from the Reserve Mining Company endangers the health and welfare of persons in states other than Minnesota."
• September 1969:: The Sierra Club obtains a writ of mandamus from Judge Barbeau of the Minnesota District Court, Fourth Judicial District. The writ requires PCA and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to hold permit revocation hearings in light of evidence developed at the Lake Superior Enforcement Conference.
• December 1969:: Reserve appeals the adoption of WPC 15 to District Court, Lake County, Sixth Judicial District. Reserve challenges the general validity of WPC 15 and its specific application to Reserve.
• April 1970:: On petition from Reserve, Judge Eckman of the Lake County District Court, stays the permit revocation hearings ordered previously by Judge Barbeau.
• May 1970:: The Minnesota Supreme Court takes no action on the petition of state agencies and the Sierra Club to restrain Judge Eckman with respect to his stay of permit revocation hearings.
• September 1970:: Following the second session of the Lake Superior Enforcement Conference, held in April and August 1970, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator William D. Ruckelshaus recommends that Reserve submit a preliminary plan for an abatement program by December 1, 1970, and a final plan by September 1, 1971.
• December 1970:: Judge Eckman issues his Findings, Conclusions and Orders on the Reserve case. Eckman drew no conclusion as to whether Reserve was polluting Lake Superior, ruled that WPC 15 was a valid regulation but that WPC 15 (c) (6) was invalid as applied to Reserve. He also ordered the PCA to grant a variance to Reserve and ordered RMC to present to the PCA plans for modification of its discharges.
• January 1971:: Reserve submits its "Plan to Modify Tailings Discharge System" to the Lake Superior Enforcement Conference. The plan calls for tailings to be pumped 150 feet below the surface of Lake Superior through pipes.
• April 1971:: The technical committee of the Lake Superior Enforcement Conference concludes the discharge plan as presented by RMC was an unacceptable method of waste disposal. The U.S. EPA notifies Reserve that they are in violation of federal-state water quality standards. The Minnesota PCA appeals the December 1970 decision of Judge Eckman to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
• October 1971:: Roy F. Weston, Inc., a private consultant hired by the U.S. EPA, completes its study of 19 alternative methods of disposal of Reserve's tailings as well as some of their own on-land sites. Reserve responds that the Weston Report does not provide preliminary engineering on the alternatives and that none of the alternatives would be able to meet water quality standards.
• February 1972:: The United States, at the request of its EPA, files suit against Reserve in U.S. District Court in Minneapolis seeking abatement of Reserve's discharges into Lake Superior. The suit is brought under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Refuse Act of 1899, and the common law of nuisance.
• August 1972:: The Minnesota Supreme Court issues an opinion stating that the district court exceeded its jurisdiction in compelling negotiations between the PCA and Reserve regarding issuance of a variance. The Supreme Court upheld the finding of WPC 15 as a valid regulation and remanded the whole issue of a variance back to the PCA for administrative proceedings.
• 1972:: Numerous environmental groups and the States of Wisconsin and Michigan intervene as plaintiffs in the federal suit against Reserve.
• April 1973:: Upon motion of Reserve, the State of Minnesota and its PCA are ordered by the U.S. District Court to be joined as parties plaintiff in the federal suit. As a result of this joiner, state administrative and court proceedings against Reserve are dropped.
• June 1973:: Asbestiform fibers are found in the Duluth, Minnesota, water supply. Bottled water is trucked in and made available, free of charge, to those who wish to use it.
• August 1973:: The nine month federal trial, Judge Miles Lord presiding, begins in U.S. District Court in Minneapolis.
• January 1974:: Judge Lord orders Armco Steel Corporation and Republic Steel Corporation, co-owners of Reserve, joined as defendants. Armco and Republic appeal the joiner order to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, where it is overturned. The Court of Appeals, however, allows the plaintiffs to seek a joiner order again at a later time.
• April 20, 1974:: Judge Lord issues his final order. He finds that Reserve's discharges into the air and water contain carcinogenic asbestos-like particles and constitute a serious health hazard. He orders that the discharges be halted immediately.
• April 22, 1974:: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit grants the defendants a temporary stay of the district court injunction until the issue could be fully briefed and argued before the Court of Appeals. A hearing was scheduled for May 15, 1974, before a three judge panel (Judges Bright, Ross and Webster).
• June 4, 1974:: The Court of Appeals grants a "conditional" stay for 70 more days. A decision on whether to continue the stay further would be based "upon a good faith preparation of an acceptable plan" for abatement.
• July 5, 1974:: The State of Minnesota, along with Michigan, Wisconsin and the environmental groups, applied to the U.S. Supreme Court for an order vacating the stay granted by the Court of Appeals.
• July 9, 1974:: The U.S. Supreme Court denies the plaintiffs' application for a vacation of the stay.
• 1974 June - August 1974: : Reserve presents a plan for an on-land dumping of its tailings at the Palisade Creek area north of Silver Bay. The U.S. District Court holds evidentiary hearings and receives comments from both sides on the "Palisade Plan."
• August 3, 1974:: Judge Lord issues findings relating to the "Palisade Plan." He finds the plan unacceptable from both an ecological and engineering point of view. He recommends that the stay not be continued.
• August 9, 1974:: The Court of Appeals (Judges Bright and Ross) hold a pre-hearing conference in St. Paul. Judge Bright asks the State of Minnesota to outline a site, suggesting Lax Lake, close to Silver Bay that the State might accept for an on-land dump. The Court orders a hearing on the issue of a continuance of the stay to be held on August 20, 1974.
• August 16, 1974:: Governor Anderson writes a letter to the presidents of Reserve, Armco, and Republic indicating the State's position regarding Lax Lake and other possible dump sites. The letter indicates that any dump at Lax Lake would involve substantial problems but that the State would fully and fairly consider any permit application for a Lax Lake dump.
• August 20, 1974:: The Court of Appeals holds a hearing on the stay issue in St. Paul. The Court directs most discussion toward the Lax Lake site and the Governor's letter. The Court recessed for a week and ordered the plaintiffs and defendants to come back with a decision as to whether they would agree to an on-land dump at Lax Lake.
• August 27, 1974:: The Court of Appeals continues its hearing in St. Paul. Reserve indicates it probably could agree to building a tailings dump at Lax Lake. The State repeated its position that it would consider a Lax Lake permit but that, given applicable state statutes and the obvious difficulties with the site, the State could not at the present time guarantee its agreement to the site.
• August 28, 1974:: The Court of Appeals orders that the stay of the District Court injunction, closing down Reserve, be continued until disposition of the case on its merits.
• September 1974:: The plaintiffs apply again to the U.S. Supreme Court for an order vacating the latest stay order of the Court of Appeals. The United States submits a similar application.
• October 1974:: The United States Supreme Court denies the applications to vacate the stay order. However, five justices indicate that applications should be filed again if the litigation is not fully decided by the Court of Appeals by January 31, 1975.
• October 1974:: The Court of Appeals sets up a briefing schedule for the appeal on the merits and orders oral argument for December 9, 1974.
• November 1974:: Reserve Mining Company submits permit applications to the Minnesota DNR and PCA for permission to build an on-land tailings dump at Mile Post 7 (Lax Lake).
• December 1974:: Robert Herbst and Grant Merritt write a letter to Reserve in which they indicate that the DNR and PCA find Reserve's permit applications unacceptable in their present form.
• December 10, 1974:: The Minnesota Environmental Quality Council (MEQC) resolves that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be prepared on the proposed Mile Post 7 plan.
• March 14, 1975:: The U.S. Court of Appeals issues its opinion and order on the merits of Reserve's appeal of the U.S. District Court order closing the plant. The Court of Appeals found that Reserve's discharges did contain asbestiform fibers and that abatement was justified. However, the court held that no harm to health had occurred to date and the danger to health was not imminent. The court ordered that Reserve stop its discharges but that it must be given a reasonable opportunity and a reasonable time to construct facilities to accomplish abatement. The resolution of the controversy over an on-land site was to be governed by state administrative procedures under certain constraints given by the opinion. Certain issues were remanded back to the District Court for further consideration.
• May 1975:: MEQC formally notifies the DNR and PCA that they have been designated joint responsible agencies for the preparation of an EIS for the Mile Post 7 plan.
• June 23 - July 11, 1975: : The permit hearings begin in Silver Bay. Reserve presents its case 1975:in support of the Mile Post 7 proposal. Testimony is presented on technical, economic and environmental issues. The permit hearings are recessed for a period of time to allow the State to continue preparation of an EIS and to prepare for the cross-examination of Reserve witnesses.
• September 8 - 12, 1975: : The permit hearings resume in Silver Bay. These hearings deal largely with cross-examination of Reserve witnesses knowledgeable about the technical aspects of the Mile Post 7 proposal.
• September 16 - 19, 1975: : The permit hearings resume in Roseville, Minnesota at PCA headquarters. The State presents direct testimony from its three private consultants on dams. The State continues with limited cross-examination of Reserve's technical witnesses.
• [ Oct. 24, 1975?]:: The State's draft environmental impact statement on the Mile Post 7 proposal is completed.
• Nov. 12, 1975:: The permit hearings continue with the cross-examination of Reserve witnesses.
• November 1975:: Judge Lord holds several hearings relating to the issues of the effectiveness of temporary water filtration efforts and the nature of the health implications of asbestos exposure.
• December 1975:: The State presents testimony of consultants who explain their analysis of the draft EIS for Mile Post 7.
• January 6, 1976:: The Court of Appeals removes Judge Miles Lord from hearing the Reserve case on issues which had been remanded back to District Court. Jurisdiction on remand issues was given to Judge Edward Devitt, Chief Justice of the District of Minnesota.
• January 23, 1976:: Judge Devitt holds his first hearing on the remanded issues in the Reserve case. Issues remaining before the court were: (1) To assume that safe filtered water continued to be available to residents of the North Shore. (2) To continue to hear new evidence which might become available on the health hazard. (3) To determine reimbursement for the expenses of providing filtered water. (4) To consider the assessment of fines and sanctions against Reserve. (5) To supervise the court's abatement orders.
• February 21, 1976:: The District Court (Judge Devitt) issues an order holding that Reserve and its parent companies are liable for the costs of the provision of filtered water to affected North Shore communities until either permanent filtration facilities are available or until Reserve ceases its discharges into Lake Superior.
• May 4, 1976:: The District Court issues an order holding Reserve had violated state permits and assessed $837,500 in penalties against the company. The Court also assessed sanctions of $200,000 against Reserve for violating court rules and orders with regard to discovery during the trial.
• May 6, 1976:: Reserve appeals the May 4th order assessing fines and penalties to The U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
• 1976 May - June 1976: : The hearing officer issues Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations on the siting of an on-land tailings basin. He concludes that the Midway site (Mile Post 20) is the most appropriate location for Reserve's disposal facility. He recommends that permits for Mile Post 7 be denied.
• July 1, 1976:: The DNR and PCA accept the hearing officer's findings and deny permits for Mile Post 7. Reserve immediately appeals this decision to Lake County District Court.
• July 7, 1976:: Judge Devitt orders Reserve to halt its discharges into Lake Superior by July 7, 1977, because Reserve and the State can not agree on an on-land disposal site. Reserve appeals this order to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
• October 28, 1976:: The Court of Appeals affirms the orders of Judge Devitt assessing fines and penalties on Reserve, as well as the July 7, 1977 termination order.
• January 28, 1977:: Lake County District Court reverses the DNR and PCA permit decisions and orders issuance of permits for Mile Post 7.
• February 1, 1977:: The DNR and PCA appeal the Lake County District Court decision of January 28, 1977, to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
• April 8, 1977:: The Minnesota Supreme Court upholds the Lake County District Court and orders the state to grant Reserve permits for Mile Post 7.
• May 26, 1977:: Judge Devitt stays the July 7, 1977 termination order because the Minnesota Supreme Court has ordered Reserve be granted permits for Mile Post 7. Devitt orders all discharges into Lake Superior halted by April 15, 1980.
• June 1, 1977:: Construction begins on Mile Post 7 even though permits have not been officially granted and all the land acquired.
• Late July 1977:: After a couple of months of dispute over monitoring asbestos levels on the site, the DNR and PCA grant permits for Mile Post 7.
• 1977 August - November 1977: : Reserve acquires land required for Mile Post 7 from federal, state and private owners.
• February 1977:: Judge Devitt excuses himself from the remaining issues in the Reserve case since his daughter was appointed executive director of the Minnesota PCA. Judge Donald Alsop is appointed to see that Reserve meets the April 15, 1980 deadline and to settle reimbursement of filtration costs issues.
• March 16, 1980:: Mile Post 7 is completed a month ahead of schedule and dumping of taconite tailings into Lake Superior is halted. However, many Reserve workers are laid off until late June while the problems with the disposal system are resolved and full production begun.

From the guide to the Reserve Mining Company case files., 1895-1990 [bulk 1947-1980]., (Minnesota Historical Society)