GIVE US A MEANINGFUL, VETO-PROOF BILL

Tester, Take the Lead on Mining Law

By Bill Schneider, 3-06-08

Last November, I wrote about mining law reform being a no brainer and that the U.S. House of Representatives had just passed a bill spiking the most uncivilized sections of the 135-year-old law. The House bill ends the archaic policy of giving way our public land to mining conglomerates with billions in assets and actually makes them pay royalties for taking public resources, like everybody else does.

Now, the Senate is working on its version of mining law reform, and newly elected Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) is in a position to be the leader in correcting a century-old injustice and getting the Mining Law of 1872 off the books.

On March 12, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee will hold its third hearing on issue of mining law reform. According to Land Tawney, representing Sportsmen United for Sensible Mining (a partnership between the National Wildlife Federation, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, and Trout Unlimited), Senator Peter Domenici (R-NM), ranking republican on the committee, along with Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), ranking democrat on the committee, will officially introduce the Senate bill a few days after this hearing.

But will it be a toothy bill giving us meaningful reform or will it be industry-written legislation that perpetuates the status quo?

Tawney is confident the Senate will pass something. Senator Domenici has said out loud that he’d support an end to patenting and accept some type of royalty payment with the money going to reclaim abandoned mines.

House-passed bill includes a 4 percent royalty on existing mines and 8 percent on future mines. “My guess that is a non-starter in the Senate,” Tawney predicts. “We probably won’t get existing mines, but we should get future mines.”

But existing mines are the biggest problem. They will end up paying no royalties on billions in extracted resources and can keep expanding for decades, still paying nothing.

“The mining companies wrote their business plans for existing mines when gold was $300 per ounce,” Tawney reminds us. “Now it’s over $900, so they can afford to pay royalties.”

As far as Senator Tester goes, Tawney says, “He’s supportive of mining reform, but it’s not a priority for him, yet. We in the hunting and fishing community have been meeting with him and encouraging him to be more of a leader on mining law reform.”

Montana’s junior senator has a highly prized position on the committee, which essentially decides whether or not we have meaningful and long-overdue mining law reform or whether we will continue to live in the Dark Ages of Public Resource Management. I couldn’t get through to the Senator himself, but I did ask Tester’s press secretary Arron Murphy if his boss would take a leadership role in mining law reform, and Murphy said, “As a U.S. Senator and member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, he already has a leadership role.”

Murphy talked to Tester about this issue, and assured me that his boss takes this issue seriously and Tester believes, “We’ve come a long way since Ulysses S. Grant was president, and it’s important to update any law that hasn’t changed since then. Right now we’re working on the nuts and bolts of the new legislation. I’ll work to make sure that any reform is good for Montana’s industry and our environment.”

As for that last sentence, well, it scares me. I’m not sure it rhymes with “leadership.” Instead, it sounds a bit like what we hear from mining industry lobbyists, exploring for a coveted common ground that no mining exec or politician has been able to discover for 135 years.

Let’s face it. Any meaningful reform must include mining companies paying royalties, an end to land giveaways (called patenting), and more agency control over the permitting process, including the ability to reject permits. Miners oppose these reforms and most other environmental protections, so sorry, Senator Tester, the mining industry is never going to agree to meaningful reform. If you want a bill that’s good for the mining industry, well, it looks we’re facing another decade or two in the Dark Ages. The miners have had their century of free reign to siphon off public resources and leave horrific messes behind for taxpayers to clean up. Now, for once, we need a bill that’s good for the rest of us.

This is our chance, Senator Tester, please do what you can in the committee to bust out a bill similar to the House-passed version instead of trying to please mining lobbyists because you won’t be able to do this and have anything left worth passing.

“The industry is well aware that mining reform is going to happen,” Tawney notes, “so the industry is coming to the table like never before. I’m positive something is going to happen in the Senate this year, but if the mining industry doesn’t like what comes out of the committee, it will need to be veto-proof to become law.”

Now, that’s the crux of it, isn’t it? We have a lame duck in the White House who will do whatever the mining industry wants him to do.

The House passed its bill by a 244-166 margin with 24 republicans crossing the aisle to vote for it, but we need 289 votes to override a veto. The Senate would need 67 votes. So, we have some work to do, and I hope Senator Tester helps us by giving this issue the priority it deserves.

Related articles: Mining Law Reform is No Brainer, Nature’s Salmon Factory Threatened, The Legacy of Crow Creek Falls.

Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.