JEFF GLAZE jglaze@madison.com,
"A new bill being circulated in the state Legislature could
settle a years-long legal fight over the protected status of Native American
effigy mounds located in a limestone quarry in the town of Blooming Grove.
The bill from Sen. Chris Kapenga, R-Delafield, would force
the Wisconsin Historical Society to allow property owners to excavate in order
to prove whether human remains exist in effigy mounds on their land, but
opponents of the legislation contend that allowing excavation defeats the
purpose of mound preservation entirely.
The proposed legislation has implications in Dane County,
where Wingra Stone and Redi-Mix, a producer of stone and concrete, has for more
than two decades mined around a 3-acre plot containing effigy mounds inside its
Kampmeier Quarry, just north of McFarland.
Today, the mounds sit atop a peninsula that stretches about
50 feet above the quarry floor. But as mining has exhausted other parts of the
57-acre quarry, the company has challenged the existence of human remains at
the site in an effort to prove it should be removed from the state’s registry
of protected burial sites.
Removal from the state’s burial site catalog would allow the
company to extract between $10 million and $15 million in limestone aggregate
that lies beneath the mounds, said Wingra president Bob Shea.
“The fact of the matter is there is no proof that there’s
any burial materials there,” Shea said. “We certainly wouldn’t disturb a known
burial site. But there needs to be some definitive means to be mostly certain –
if not completely certain – that there are remains at the site.”
The mounds at Kampmeier Quarry are part of the once-larger
Ward Mound Group, which has mostly been destroyed.
Wingra began operating the quarry in 1962, but the Ward
mounds remained unprotected until a 1986 law gave the Historical Society the
power to identify and catalog potential burial sites and their surrounding
lands for preservation. Destruction of the remaining mounds was stopped when
the Ward mounds were officially catalogued as a burial site in 1990.
But in recent years, Wingra and the Ho-Chunk Nation have
disputed the findings of multiple surveys that have used ground-penetrating
radar and magnetometry to glean information about what lies below the surface.
“Those anomalies are what’s up for debate — whether there are
or aren’t remains,” said Collin Price, a spokesman for the Ho-Chunk Nation.
“For us, our oral traditions and history tell us those are human remains.”
Those disputes have played out in state administrative
offices and court rooms since 2010, when Wingra asked that the site be removed
from state burial site catalog. In 2012, the Historical Society ruled there was
insufficient evidence to determine the mounds do not contain human remains.
Both sides agree that a partial excavation of the site is
the only way to make an absolute determination, but the Historical Society
sided with the Ho-Chunk in its belief that excavating to make that
determination runs contrary to the purpose of the burial preservation law.
“These mounds, to our people, represent so many things. They
are a huge part of our culture and what would essentially happen is they’d be
destroyed,” Price said. “To excavate their remains is grotesque to even
consider.”
Wingra is also pursuing a permit to excavate the site under
the existing law. The state’s Division of Hearings and Appeals (DHA) denied the
permit in July 2014, but Wingra appealed and in May, a circuit court overturned
DHA’s decision.
That ruling prompted an appeal from the Historical Society
and the Ho-Chunk Nation. All three appeals are now being consolidated as
cross-appeals.
The delays are why Shea said he’s pursued a legislative
solution.
Kapenga’s office declined to comment Friday on the bill.
1 comment :
It is disgusting that the gravel co. has already denuded the whole area right up to the mounds. This is just as absurd as walking into a modern cemetery and asking to prove that there are burials there! It's sad that most of these mounds have already been destroyed, hopefully what remains can be preserved.
Another thought is, it is disturbing that despite conservation efforts, he-who-has-millions-of dollars can always lobby to try and develop/ destroy "protected" sites. maybe some of our conservation sites, in future generations, aren't as safe as we would believe in the face of these developers.
Post a Comment