News

Print this story | |

Comment (1 comment(s)) |

Rate |

Text Size

U.S. House committee passes mine reform bill

By Dick Kamp, Wick News Service

Published: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 9:13 PM MST

WASHINGTON, D.C. — A bill reforming the 1872 Mining Act, which regulates mining on federal land, was sent to the full House for a vote after passing the Natural Resources Committee Tuesday on a 23-15 vote.

Passage of the bill, HR 2262, and sponsored by committee Chairman Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., was expected, although the substance had changed several times, based partly on concerns over what would be acceptable to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., when the bill moves from the House to the Senate.

Reid has said he would support “balanced reform.”

The current Rahall bill would:

Establish an 8 percent gross royalty on profits from mining on Federal land for new mines and a 4 percent royalty on existing mines. Currently there are no royalties. Profits would be used for reclamation, that has been estimated by EPA to cost as much as $50 billion on all public lands, and to assist mining communities.

Establish environmental and reclamation criteria that could, if not met, result in the denial of a permit to mine “hydrological balance” (over-pumping) is to be protected off the mine site, as well as water quality and a closed mine must meet all water quality standards without treatment no more than 10 years after closing.

Allow states, counties, cities and tribes to request federal withdrawal of lands from new mining if in conflict with local values, land use plans or other regulations. The secretaries of Interior or Agriculture must approve withdrawal requests in the case of Forest Service lands unless they can demonstrate that “it is against the national interest.” Existing mine claims would be affected on withdrawn land only if they are shown to not have valid ore deposits, as is currently the case.

Set maximum time limits for mining permits of 20 years before renewal is required. All “patenting” or privatization of public land that was used for mining will be permanently ended. Before to a 1994 moratorium, these lands could be purchased for $5 an acre.

Prohibit mines from being permitted where they could impact scenic, water or other values within National Parks and Monuments.

Republicans on the committee warned that the bill would:

Cost jobs, unfairly impact private property rights, move mining to foreign countries by raising the costs prohibitively and make the costs of solar and renewable energy impossible and serve to increase global warming.

Democrats, for the most part, argued that mining was dirty, needed to be regulated, and to pay royalties on public lands.

The only amendment that passed unanimously was proposed by Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., to give Indian tribes the right to request withdrawal of federal lands from mining that are off the reservation but are considered “sacred sites” or otherwise are essential to Indian cultural values.

Grijalva expressed gratitude for the vote and added, “We took some good steps today on something considered sacrosanct for so many years. There’ll be a big fight on the floor of the House.”

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., said she “supports the bill as amended.” She added, “I congratulate Mr. Rahall for shepherding this bill along and dealing with all the complexities as well as he has.”

Rahall promised to work with committee members concerned with uranium poisoning of Indians, with assuring that adequate funds for mine reclamation go to state cleanup efforts as well as federal, and to refine language meant to prevent “bad actors” (who have been in violation of laws related to mines) from getting permitted.

Provisions most likely to be debated and/or altered on the floor of the House or in the Senate include the amount of royalties paid, language governing environmental protection and reclamation and the length a permit may be issued.

Dick Kamp is Wick Communications’ environmental liaison. Contact him at bepdick@att.net.


Illegals in GV robbed, kidnapped		Halloween greeter

Article Rating

Reader Comments

The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of gvnews.com.

M Goldsmith wrote on May 28, 2009 9:38 PM:

" How can one speed up the process of a short sale after the lender has received the short sale package and has it on his desk for a long while? "

Submit a Comment

We encourage your feedback and dialog, all comments will be reviewed by our Web staff before appearing on the Web site.

Return to: News « | Home « | Top of Page ^

Today's Weather

Green Valley, AZ