To the editor: Many of us living near Hyperion's proposed site have repeatedly asked for an environmental impact study conducted by an independent and unbiased third party before rezoning. However, local, state, and federal politicians have ignored our concerns.

Those of us familiar with the area know that the massive tar sands crude oil refinery will sit directly over two major aquifers, which provides drinking water for many people. Tributaries, including Brule Creek, drain the area by flowing into the Big Sioux River, which empties into the Missouri. Statistics show us that all refineries pollute the soil and water beneath and around their sites. Wild life and aquatic life will certainly be impacted to some degree. The many chemicals released from the refinery will likely affect communities downstream who get their drinking water from the Missouri River.

An ecologist at the University of Minnesota believes that the Loess Hills along the SD-IA border could act as a funnel to channel air pollution to Sioux City during certain prevailing weather patterns.

Gov. Rounds father, Don Rounds, currently serves on the Water and Natural Resources Board of the SD Department of Environment and Natural Resources. The DENR issues the water and air permits that Hyperion needs to operate. Don Rounds was also the executive director of the SD Petroleum Council.

Since Gov. Rounds is an enthusiastic sponsor of this refinery, how can we, the citizens of Union County, trust any SD state government agency to produce an unbiased evaluation for this proposed project? Dan Weigel
Rural Elk Point

Poor behavior

To the editor:

For the last few months my family and I have been trying to make sense out of the arguments presented against the Hyperion Energy Center. We have attended the hearings and have listened to several presentations that spoke out against the project.

While we understand - and even appreciate - the emotional nature of the opponents, it is hard enough to evaluate the facts without the rhetoric and statistical manipulation we have been presented with. We continue to listen, and have decided to support the project because of the great benefits it brings to our state, county and town. Poor behavior.

One only needs to look at the emigration of our best and brightest to other states to recognize that we cannot continue to survive this level of brain drain. Our infrastructure needs to be updated, and our population needs the revitalization.

The vilification of those who have come to South Dakota to build this project is inappropriate and uncivilized. We hope for a return to fair and balanced presentations, but we are not holding our breath.

GS Jade Barrett,
Elk Point

Preposterous

To the editor:

Preposterous! Incredible! A sandbar for the birds! We have now achieved our quintessence of lunacy! The mighty Mo will put sandbars where it wants them and move them if it decides to. The money could be much better spent elsewhere!

Yours,

George F. Ufford
Vermillion