Critics Dig in for Hard-Rock Mining Reform
Another push for changing the 1872 mining law to end the giveaway of natural resources
It's a simple fact of Washington: Laws can take a long, long time to enact, not to mention change once they're in place. For example, America's immigration laws currently roiling Congress were last altered significantly in 1986. That, however, is recent by some standards. The Jurassic of them all, in one pol's words, might well be the obscure law governing hard-rock mining. It's been on the books since 1872—President Ulysses S. Grant's day—without too much revision, despite the repeated efforts by advocacy groups and lawmakers.
What does the 1872 General Mining Law do?
The law was enacted to encourage Americans to head west. It was passed after the 1849 Gold Rush but carries the legacy of that era. Under the law, Americans can go onto federal land and prospect for hard-rock minerals—gold, silver, copper, uranium, etc. If they find a valuable deposit, they can then "claim" the land and continue mining without paying much further. Originally, if they wanted to acquire the land, they could "patent" it for a fee of $2.50 to $5 an acre (there has been a freeze on new patents since 1995).
Why is it an issue now?
Hard-rock mining is a booming industry. According to the Environmental Working Group, a Washington nonprofit that wants the law changed, claims for public land increased 50 percent between 2002 and 2006. Gold prices have skyrocketed to above $650 an ounce, and other commodities are booming too. Uranium, for instance, has been in heavy demand for anticipated growth in the nuclear power industry. The image of the iconic miner has given way to an industry largely run by foreign companies. Five of the top 10 mining companies in the United States are owned by Australian or Canadian firms, according to EWG—and mining is heavily automated. "The hard-rock mining industry today is a far cry from the lone prospector with a pick ax," says Rep. Nick Rahall, a West Virginia Democrat who has spent two decades pushing for reform.
What is so harmful about this policy?
The industry says the law encourages the development of needed natural resources. But opponents point to three big problems: First, the federal government has lost billions of dollars in potential revenue without a royalty system. Second, hard-rock mines are the No. 1 source of toxic pollution. Cyanide and lead, for instance, seep into waterways. The cost to clean up abandoned mines is estimated at $32 billion by the Interior Department. Third, advocates for reform say the law gives mining priority over recreational uses of federal land. In 1989, the last time the Government Accountability Office studied the law at length, it concluded: "The Mining Law of 1872 needs revision." Rahall's bill includes an 8 percent royalty, the closure of some land to hard-rock mining, and a fund for communities affected by abandoned mines.
Why has it taken so long to revise?
"A lot of the mining happens out of view of most people," says the EWG's Dusty Horwitt. Mining interests have had powerful friends in Congress for a long time. Many efforts to reform the law since the early 1980s led to only modest changes: the patent moratorium, for example. The mining industry—not just hard-rock mining—gave $4.3 million in political contributions in the 2006 campaign cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The industry has given $1.96 million since 1989 to senators from the seven western states with the biggest mining interests: Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. The money heavily favors Republicans, but there are some key Democrats, too. A top recipient getting $270,000 since 1989 is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the son of a hard-rock miner and native of a mining town named Searchlight, Nev. He's the owner of more than $100,000 in mining patents and father-in-law of a Washington lobbyist who has represented hard-rock mining interests, according to federal records. Reid has been resistant to reform, though this year he says he's open to discussions.
Is change likely soon?
Rahall expects to have a bill through the House this year before the Senate considers it in 2008. Cathy Carlson of the nonprofit Earthworks sees progress after being invited by the National Mining Association for talks in April about potential changes. Rahall, too, is more optimistic and has a few new allies, including Tiffany & Co., a big gold buyer. Still, Rahall says, "it's an uphill battle."
This story appears in the July 2, 2007 print edition of U.S. News & World Report.
advertisement
