Today’s hardrock mines are nothing
like the pick-and-shovel operations of the mid-19th century, but
they are still governed by 19th century laws. Under the General
Mining Act of 1872, anyone who stakes a claim on public land for
metals such as gold, silver and uranium can extract the ore
royalty-free and, until a moratorium 13 years ago, could buy the
land for $5 an acre or less. Since 1867, the government has sold
more than 3.4 million acres of federal land to mining interests at
bargain-basement prices. By some estimates, miners have extracted
at least $245 billion in metals without returning anything to
taxpayers.
On May 10, Congressman Nick Rahall, D-W. Va.,
introduced a bill to reform the General Mining Act, which he called
“the Jurassic Park of all federal laws.” It would,
among other things, charge an 8 percent royalty on the value of
extracted metal, close some categories of land, such as wilderness
and roadless areas, to mining, protect the environment from
“undue degradation,” and create a cleanup fund. Rahall
has introduced reforms every year since 1985; in 1993 the House and
Senate each passed reforms, but couldn’t reconcile their
differences (see our earlier story “You
can’t say no to mining”). Rahall and his allies think
this year will be different.
The time is ripe now, says
Jane Danowitz, director of the Pew Campaign for Responsible Mining,
because of the shifting political landscapes of both Washington,
D.C., and the West. “The role of public lands has
changed,” she says. “Protection of public land is
making sustainable economies possible.” Groups ranging from
sportsmen to the Tiffany Company are supporting Rahall’s
effort. Plus, she says, this Congress is
“cash-strapped,” and the lure of $100 million in annual
royalties could provide the incentive needed to boost the bill to
passage.
The mining industry recognizes the need for
reform, but has reservations about Rahall’s bill.
“There are some areas of agreement” with it, says Luke
Popovich, vice president of the National Mining Association.
“We may get legislation this year.” There are
disagreements, though, chief among which is the proposed royalty.
Popovich says the industry doesn’t oppose extraction
payments, but wants them to be based on net income, not the gross
value of the metal. And companies are concerned about the proposed
environmental regulations, which Popovich says would overlap
existing laws.
The bill has good chances in the House,
especially with Rahall chairing the committee responsible for it,
but its fate in the Senate is less certain. Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid, D-Nev., is known as a staunch defender of the mining
industry, and has blocked reform efforts in the past. Danowitz is
hopeful, pointing to Reid’s otherwise strong environmental
record and his responsibilities as a member of Senate leadership,
which charge him with the welfare of the entire nation, not just
Nevada. Many in the mining industry, however, expect him to protect
their interests. And no one is willing to speculate yet on what
President Bush might do, should the bill make it to his desk. As
Danowitz says of the White House, “They’re preoccupied
with a few other things.”
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
