What is it, exactly, that
makes the West special? There are certainly many answers to that
question, but perhaps the one that Westerners would give more than
any other is our “wide open spaces.”
Despite much
development, there is still open space in the West: space to hike,
to hunt, to breathe free, to escape the hemmed-in life that most of
us lead too much of the time. That space is our birthright: It is
America’s public land, held in trust by the U.S. Forest
Service and the Bureau of Land Management. The region is what it is
because there is so much publicly owned land.
California
Republican Rep. Richard Pombo, chairman of the House Resources
Committee, wants to change all that. Working behind the scenes, he
succeeded in attaching a series of amendments to the Deficit
Reduction Act (that is, the Budget Bill) that was recently passed
by the House. These provisions, adopted with little debate, have
the potential to destroy the West as we know it.
The
amendments are ostensibly reforms to the Mining Law of 1872, the
antiquated statute that still governs mining claims on public land.
But their impact would extend far beyond mineral extraction. For
starters, Pombo’s proposals would re-open public land to the
private purchase of mining claims. A moratorium on such “patenting”
of claims was adopted by Congress in 1994, and it has been renewed
every year since in recognition of the outrageously obsolete
provisions of the Mining Law of 1872, which allowed such purchases
at the rate of $2.50 to $5 per acre. Pombo would raise that rate to
$1,000 per acre or “fair market value,” whichever is greater.
That may sound like an improvement, but the amendment is
written to ensure that that is all the purchaser would have to pay.
This “fair market value” does not count the value of any mineral
resources under the property, and the new property owners are
exempted from paying any royalties on minerals extracted from the
land — even if those minerals are worth hundreds of millions
of dollars. Furthermore, once the land is transferred to a private
owner, that owner could resell it to developers without conducting
any mining at all.
That is bad enough. But in section
6104 of his proposal, Pombo opens up an entirely new way to
privatize public land. This section would allow public land to be
purchased for any purpose that would “facilitate sustainable
economic development,” a term that Pombo leaves undefined. Land
purchased under 6104 would not even have to contain valuable
minerals, as long as part of the land is “contiguous to patented or
unpatented mining claims or mill sites where mineral development,
including mining, has been conducted…”
In the past
150 years, mining claims have been filed virtually throughout the
West, and “mineral development” is defined so loosely that simply
staking a claim could qualify. This provision could open to
claiming and purchase almost all public land not specifically
withdrawn for another purpose. According to the Bureau of Land
Management, the amount of land that could be sold off is 15-20
million acres. Citing the extremely vague language of the Pombo
amendments, however, many analysts believe that the total public
land at risk comes to hundreds of millions of acres.
Here
is a small sample of what Pombo’s proposals could mean in
southern Oregon. The Forest Service estimates that there are 580
active mining claims on the Siskiyou National Forest, covering
about 11,600 acres. One of these areas is Rough and Ready Creek, a
22,000-acre mostly roadless watershed that has the highest
concentration of rare and sensitive plants in Oregon. For more than
10 years, a miner named Walter Freeman has been battling the Forest
Service over 4,360 acres of claims in this watershed, where he
wants to develop nickel-laterite strip-mining, ore processing and
roads for giant ore trucks that would cross the pristine creek and
its tributaries at 17 different places.
If Pombo’s
provisions stand, not only would 4,360 acres of Rough and Ready
Creek be available for immediate purchase by Mr. Freeman, but his
$600 million “takings” lawsuit against the Forest Service would
receive a tremendous boost. Rep. Pombo is one of the chief
promoters of the concept of compensation for “takings.”
Fortunately, Pombo’s privatization scheme is not yet law. His
amendments are not part of the Senate version of the Budget Bill,
and on Dec. 1, six Western governors signed a letter opposing
Pombo’s changes, calling them “ill-conceived” and with
“sinister intent.” Several senators, including Wayne Allard of
Colorado and Max Baucus of Montana, have also expressed their
concern.
We must make sure that the Senate rejects any
conference budget bill that contains these disastrous amendments.
The public lands of the West are not Richard Pombo’s to
dispose of. They are ours, and it is our responsibility to defend
them.
Pepper Trail is a contributor to Writers
on the Range, a service of High Country News
(hcn.org). He is a biologist and writer who lives in Ashland,
Oregon.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
