One of the many old mines in the Silverton area sits idle in the Cement Creek drainage. As mining makes a gradual return to Southwest Colorado, the U.S. Congress is considering a bill that would lighten the impacts of hardrock mining and return royalties to American taxpayers./Photo by David Halterman

by Will Sands

Efforts are under way to lighten the impacts of digging in the dirt. The push is on in Washington, D.C., to reform the General Mining Law, an act that has given hardrock mining carte blanche since 1872.

The General Mining Law, or Hard Rock Mining Act, was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant more than 135 years ago. The law not only encourages mining on public lands, it effectively gives companies a right to mine and deems hardrock mining the “highest and best use” of Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management property.

In the last 135 years, the law has also undergone little change and continues to allow the sale of claimed lands for $5 an acre, imposes no federal royalties, and contains no environmental standards. With this in mind, critics and conservationists have alleged that the 1872 Mining Law is among the most destructive on the books.

Bill Simon is the coordinator of the Animas River Stakeholders Group, a coalition that has labored for more than a decade to undo damage from hardrock mining to the Upper Animas watershed. The group has remediated dozens of abandoned mine sites that were leaching toxins and heavy metals into the river and its tributaries. However, Simon remains an advocate for mining and recognizes the place of metals in modern life, as long as mining becomes much more environmentally responsible.

“We need mining, and we need to support mining,” he said. “We just need to do it right.”

Simon noted that the 1872 Mining Law is inadequate in numerous ways. The fact that mines can acquire public property and mineral rights for $5 an acre has long been one of the most contentious pieces of the legislation.

“One of the major problems is the ability of mining companies to purchase land for ridiculously low prices,” Simon said. “Plus, the law makes it difficult to stop a mine. There’s really no way in the present environment to stop a mine from occurring at a given location.”

Mark Pearson, executive director of the Durango-based San Juan Citizens Alliance, agreed that an overhaul to the 1872 Mining Law is long overdue. Pearson highlighted the lack of a royalty structure as another of the law’s failings, noting that mining companies are not required to reimburse American taxpayers for any4 of the value of the minerals they are extracting.

“We have to be the only country in the world that gives our gold away for free to foreign corporations,” he said. “Many of these gold-mining companies are Canadian and Australian, and they are allowed mine our metals free of charge. That’s always been a gigantic loophole.”

However, there is movement to close many of the General Mining Law’s loopholes. Last week, on Nov. 14, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 2262, a re-write of the General Mining Law sponsored by Congressman Nick Rahall, D-W.V. Among other things, the rewrite would create a royalty structure and provide Americans with a return for development of gold, silver, uranium and other hardrock minerals. It would also tighten the environmental standards that mines must meet, and allow local and tribal governments to petition to bar mining that would affect them adversely.

“The bill would bring the 19th century mining law into the 21st century,” said Stephen D’Esposito, president of the Washington, D.C.-based conservation group Earthworks. “With the bill passing the House, we’re halfway toward achieving badly needed reforms that work for Western communities, taxpayers, the environment and responsible mining companies.”

Simon concurred, saying, “I think many people agree that 1872 mining law reforms need to happen. We need regulations that are meaningful and can minimize the environmental impacts from mining.”

The U.S. mining industry, however, is not a big fan of the rewrite. The National Mining Association (NMA) has joined the Bush Administration and gone on record in opposing to the bill, saying it would create an undue hardship on American mining companies.

Kraig R. Naasz, president and CEO of the NMA, commented, “The enormous costs that would be imposed on the hardrock mining industry by the bill and the failure to provide mining companies with greater security when operating on federal lands will only increase the nation’s growing reliance on imported minerals vital to our economy and our national defense.”

Naasz added that the bill would levy the world’s highest royalty for mineral mining; would impose “redundant environmental standards;” and does not provide investors with security from arbitrary federal regulations. In the end, the NMA and its concerns may carry the day.

Following last week’s passage in the House, the bill goes before the U.S. Senate. There, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., a longtime supporter of the mining industry, has pledged to oppose the bill because it would require royalties of existing mines.

“We’re all hopeful that the reform will pass,” Pearson concluded. “But right now, I’m not sure I see it getting around the Senate.” •