http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1011-05.htm
Published on Saturday,
October 11, 2003 by the Los Angeles Times
White House Eases Land Rules for Miners
by Elizabeth Shogren
QUOTE:
"(The decision is an) open invitation to dump massive quantities
of toxic mining waste on unlimited amounts of our public lands.
It puts clean water and community health at increased risk."
Steve D'Esposito, Mineral Policy Center
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration announced Friday that it
would
start allowing companies that mine gold, silver and other precious
metals as much public land as they need to help them develop their
claims.
The decision, a reinterpretation of the 1872 Mining Law, came
in response
to pressure from the mining industry and members of Congress in
big mining
states. They argued that because of the requirements of modern
mining,
it takes more space to work a standard 20-acre claim than the
five acres
allowed for "mill sites" in the 130-year-old law.
National Mining Assn.
President Jack Gerard said the new policy
"is good for jobs, mining communities and the American economy."
But environmental groups
assailed the decision as the latest in
a long string of actions by the Bush administration to roll back
environmental protections.
Steve D'Esposito, who
represents the environmental group Mineral
Policy Center (http://www.mineralpolicy.org/),
called the decision
an "open invitation to dump massive quantities of toxic mining
waste
on unlimited amounts of our public lands It puts clean water and
community health at increased risk."
The 1872 law allows
for five-acre "mill sites" for activities
"ancillary" to mining standard 20-acre claims.
Starting in the late
1970s, mining companies expanded their operations
to take advantage of new techniques, such as cyanide leaching,
that
make mining economical even when it takes several tons of ore
to yield
an ounce of gold. But the mining companies needed much more space
for
processing the ore and for dumping the leftover rock.
Concerned that government
regulators were failing to restrict the size
of mining sites, John Leshy, the Interior Department's solicitor
in the
Clinton administration, issued an opinion in 1997 stressing that
only
one five-acre mill site should be allowed for every 20-acre mineral
claim.
The Bush administration's
action overturns that decision. A legal opinion,
released in Nevada on Friday evening, argued that the 1872 law
does not
limit how many five-acre mill sites could be granted along with
a mining
claim.
"The Mining Law
has sufficient flexibility to allow for evolving mining
practices and does not, at least in the mill site provision, impose
rigid
limitations that would make modern mining practices unworkable,"
states
the opinion by Deputy Solicitor Roderick Walston.
Bush administration
officials said the 1997 legal opinion played a role
in the significant decline of metal mining on public lands in
recent
years. From 1999 to 2001, exploration dropped 57%, mine development
54% and metal mining jobs 22%, the Interior Department said.
"We believe the
1997 opinion had a chilling effect and contributed
to a significant decline in exploration for new minerals and new
mine
development," said Rebecca Watson, assistant Interior secretary
for
land and minerals management.
Members of Congress
who had been pressing the administration for years
to make the change were delighted with the announcement.
"I applaud President
Bush's leadership, his actions to support Nevada's
No. 2 industry and his commitment to strengthening our economy,"
said
Rep. Jim Gibbons (R-Nev.).
Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.)
said that the 1997 opinion had had "a disastrous
effect on the mining industry" and that the Bush administration
decision
would help the industry.
"It doesn't make
sense that only five acres of land should be allocated
to provide facilities for every 20 acres of ore," Reid said.
"That's like
trying to pour a gallon of milk into a 10-ounce glass. It can't
be done.
Under those restrictions, new mineral resources cannot be developed
on
our public lands."
But Leshy, who now
teaches at UC Hastings College of the Law, said
the environment would suffer from increased pollution.
The decision is not
likely to have much impact in California because
recent state mining rules have made metal mining prohibitively
expensive,
environmentalists and industry officials said.
Copyright 2003 Los
Angeles Times
###
