A controversial bill introduced in the Legislature Wednesday that would open an iron mine in northern Wisconsin was met by a sea of conflicting responses as advocates stressed job creation and opponents looked to detrimental environmental effects.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Jeff Fitzgerald, R-Horicon, was introduced to the Wisconsin Assembly Jobs Committee and will be brought to official debate sometime early next year.

John Jagler, Fitzgerald’s spokesperson, said the bill is designed to streamline the process mining corporations are required to go through to obtain mining permits.

According to Jagler, it is currently difficult for companies to commit to mining in Wisconsin because of the time it takes to obtain a permit in the state.

“It discourages companies from coming here and doing business in what has been a big part of Wisconsin heritage, that is, mining,” Jagler said.

Jagler said the bill has positive implications for the state as it creates jobs not only where the mine would be located in northern Wisconsin, but also in southeast Wisconsin for companies producing mining equipment.

He said the bill would have an initial $2 billion economic impact and create nearly 5,000 jobs in mining.

“Our commitment has been jobs this whole session and beyond,” Jagler said. “The jobs that will be created by this bill are amazing.”

Still, there are some groups that strongly disagree with the bill. Glenn Stoddard, attorney for the Bad River Band Chippewa Tribe, said the tribe is opposed to the bill because of environmental concerns.

According to Stoddard, the bill is written in the interests of a company that wants to develop the land in West Allis for mining and ignores the threats posed to water quality and environmental standards.

He said the tribe is particularly opposed to the mine’s proposed location in the Bad River area, upstream from the tribe, arguing the location is not appropriate for this type of mine.

“The tribe has been willing to work with the legislators on mining legislation that is responsible and balances development with environmental protection, and this bill doesn’t do that,” Stoddard said.

University of Wisconsin environmental studies professor Calvin DeWitt said the bill would be given a priority position, meaning it can override any other law that might conflict with it. He said this is concerning because the generic nature of the bill means it is difficult to know exactly what laws would be trumped by it.

He also said the bill treats the Department of Natural Resources as an adversary to the government and does not appreciate the interactive role it has played in the past with other mining jobs.

“It is an affront to the state Department of Natural Resources and treats it as an incompetent agency, which it is not,” DeWitt said.

DeWitt said the bill also fails to address jobs already present in the northern part of the state where the mine will be, claiming there is a lack of consultation with locals in that area regarding the mine.

He said it seems like an outside-the-state maneuver with little care for local people.

“This is not a Wisconsin bill. It is not on with citizens of the state, and it is an affront to the democratic process of our state,” DeWitt said.