Editorial: New BLM rules hurt mining

Wednesday, Nov. 29, 2000 | 9:13 a.m.

Because mining is the largest industry in rural Nevada many communities north of Clark County will collapse if the ability to extract gold, silver and other metals becomes severely restricted. We fear that will be the case if the federal Bureau of Land Management is allowed to enforce new rules scheduled to take effect Jan. 20.

As reported by the Sun's Benjamin Grove, the agency could close proposed mines based on "substantial irreparable harm" to the environment or to historical landmarks. But that is an overly broad phrase that leaves room for abusive interpretation by heavy-handed regulators. Marginal environmental protection is not worth it if the result is a loss of thousands of jobs and elimination of revenue that is the lifeline of rural communities.

Particularly troublesome is a rule that would allow the government to nix a mine proposal even after a company spends millions of dollars on exploration and planning. Forcing companies to throw money away hurts not only the mining outfits but also local and state governments that receive a share of industry revenue.

One thing worth supporting in the BLM rules is a provision that would require mining companies to clean up polluted ground water. But even that rule should be enforced only if it can be proven that the company in question polluted the water. Priority obviously should be given to water used by humans and livestock. If polluted drinking water cannot be traced to particular mining operations, the cleanup should be paid for by state or federal environmental funds.

With sluggish gold prices cutting into mining profits, the new rules could not have come at a worse time. It is one thing to clean up the environment to protect public health. But without the mining industry, many rural towns would have no people to worry about.

archive