Mining, the Environment and Your Pocketbook

Our global economy thrives on natural resources obtained from mines throughout the United States and mining technology has moved from the pick and shovel to land moving and digging equipment but our mining laws still basically revolve around the General Mining Act of 1872. The result has been a tremendous loss of money for U.S. taxpayers. In the United States, "private mining companies haven't paid royalties to taxpayers for an estimated $245 billion dollars worth of minerals extracted from public lands in 135 years" (Miller, 2007). In fact, even the National Mining Association supports reform of the outdated Act. "A representative of the U.S. mineral mining industry told a congressional panel today that essential reforms of the 1872 Mining Law must ensure a fair return to taxpayers and to mining investors" (NMA, 2007).

Images

Conjure up an image of a mine and most people think of huge trenches in the Earth that are dug out for resources like coal. In reality, "approximately two-thirds of today's coal production results from surface rather than underground mining" (NMA, 2007). Most people do not realize it but minerals are in every product that we use in our daily routine. For example, "A television requires 35 different minerals, and more than 30 minerals are needed to make a computer" (NMA, 2007). Each of these minerals must be mined in some manner from publicly controlled lands before it is turned over to a company for mining.

Royalties

Various companies pay royalties and other fees to mine minerals from the ground. "In 2005, the mining industry paid approximately $21.3 billion in taxes, royalties and fees to federal, state and local governments combined" (NMA, 2007). How much companies should be paying is open to debate because statistics in this area often conflict with economic data. "NMA spokesman Luke Popovich added, "Royalties are not the only way and maybe not the best way to ensure that the public receives fair market value for its resources." (Straub, 2007). In fact, "Rep. Stevan Pearce, R-N.M., ranking Republican on the minerals subcommittee, said raising the cost of business only drives jobs overseas" (Straub, 2007). For example, cheap royalties and land may help companies pay workers more money and invest more money in worker safety. Higher royalties may decrease profits and result in less on-the-job protection for workers. How can royalties, taxes and fees be set so that taxpayers benefit while Mining companies still retain a fair profit?

Highest and Best Use

The central problem under the 1872 Act is that mining is determined to be the highest and best use of the land under the provisions of the law. "The act elevates mining's importance above other uses of public land, making it difficult for agencies like the U.S. Forest Service to deny any mine applications" (Miller, 2007). The result is dangerous surface and pit mines spread all over the country with Mining Companies claiming they are not responsible for cleanup, despite being required to set aside funds for such programs to do so. "Mining companies argue they comply with the existing federal law, as well as state regulations, and say many existing mines have set aside adequate bonds worth millions to cover responsible cleanup and reclamation once their operations are shuttered" (Miller, 2007).

Calls for reform have increased since renewed safety and environmental issues have come to light in recent years and Democrats have retaken control of the congress with promises to reform the act. "Industry problems, including abandoned mines that leak cyanide and heavy metals, make the timing right for change, critics say" (Miller, 2007).

Changes

There are several other aspects of the law that also need reform and many attempts have been made to amend the law. In 2001, President Bush and his Cabinet suggested a reform of the Act. "Without giving details, Norton indicated she wants to tackle the biggest points of contention over the General Mining Law of 1872: Making mining companies pay for minerals they take; and increasing the prices mining firms pay to privatize public land containing gold, silver, platinum and other precious metals. Currently they pay the government $2.50 to $5 an acre" (McClure, 2001). In 2007, a new group called the "Pew Campaign for Responsible Mining launched a media and grassroots campaign on May 10th to foster public support for legislation that would reform mining laws" (McKenna, 2007).

Debate over changes in the law range from balancing between cheap mineral rights to claims on land. Various mining associations want stronger title rights to claims if they are to pay more in royalties and fees. "A bill should provide certainty by ensuring title from the time of location through reclamation" (Straub, 2007).

Changes created by Election results and several recent mining disasters have fueled calls for change in the industry. "Amazingly enough, a change has also taken place in the attitudes of the proponents and the opponents of HR 2262, who now actually discuss compromise and working together, rather than beating each other to a bloody pulp in the arena of public opinion. Hardrock mining's ever-loyal opposition, EARTHWORKS, has been awfully quiet after the introduction of HR 2262, but then again, so have the very politically activist members of the Northwest Mining Association" (Kosich, 2007).

The Big Winner

Reform of the Mining Act of 1872 seems possible within Congress this year but President Bush seems unlikely to sign the bill if it does reach his desk. However, the reform efforts are unique in that the public - for the first time - will become more involved in the mining claims process under proposed sections of the bill. " For the first time, the Mining Law would mandate public participation requirements, and allows any person to commence a civil action against any person alleged to have violated any provisions of the act. Administrative and judicial review of the mining law is included in the legislation along with the ability to impose fines on those who don't comply with provisions of the mining law." (Kosich, 2007).

References:

Kosic, D. (2007). First U S Mining Law Reform Hearing Kicks Off Today MineWeb retrieved August 11, 2007 from http://www.mineweb.co.za/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page60?oid=24072&sn=Detail

McClure, J. (2001). Overhaul of Mining Law Called Sham Reform Seattle PI retrieved August 1, 2007 from http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/44264_mine26.shtml

McKenna, T. (2007). New Group Campaigns for Reform of 1872 Mining Act PR WEEK retrieved August 1, 2007 from http://www.prweek.com/us/news/article/658347/New-group-campaigns-reform-1872-mining-act/

Miller, J. (2007). Time to Clean Up the 1872 Mining Act Associated Press published in theMedford Mail Tribune on Sunday, July 22, 2007.

Miller , J. (2007) Fight Brews over revamp of 1872 Mining Law retrieved August 12, 2007 from http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070720/1872_mining_reform.html?.v=1

National Mining Association (2007). NMA Official Supports Careful Reform of 1872 Mining Law retrieved August 1, 2007 from http://nma.org/

Rickert, E. (2007). Can Congress Drag the 1872 Mining Bill into the 21st Century? High Country News retrieved August 1, 2007 from http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Article?article_id=17025#

Straub, N (2007). Bill Targets Mining Law StarTribune.net retrieved August 20, 2007 from http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2007/05/12/news/wyoming/647277d147f3a208872572d800001087.txt