Dear HCN,
Thanks for highlighting
the long-term, extremely costly damage that hardrock mining has
caused to America’s West in “Can Mining Come Clean?” (HCN,
5/30/94).
David Mullon, the Mineral Policy
Center’s Southwest Circuit Rider at that time, worked together with
the Salt Lake County Water Conservancy District to oppose Utah’s
sweetheart settlement with Kennecott of natural resource damage
claims. Mullon and the Water Conservancy District objected to the
state’s willingness to settle for “replacement costs.”
We felt that Kennecott should restore the
resources it had damaged, not simply pay a much lower “replacement”
value. The courts had already held that our doctrine was the
correct interpretation of the law.
The state of
Utah could be forgiven for having sided with Kennecott on the
initial interpretation of what the law required. However, when
Judge Greene upheld the Water Conservancy District’s
interpretation, Utah should not have joined with Kennecott to
appeal the decision. At that point, the state had a moral
obligation to join with the Water Conservancy District, not oppose
it.
The state’s coziness with Kennecott on that
issue makes us skeptical of its vigilance if Bingham Canyon is not
put on the Superfund list.
But, as the French
historian told us, the one thing that people learn from history is
that people don’t learn much from history.
Persevere.
Philip M.
Hocker
Washington,
D.C.
The writer is president
of the Mineral Policy Center.
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Doubts about Kennecott in Utah.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
