Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2005 | 8:24 a.m.
Jim Gibbons, a Republican, represents Nevada's 2nd Congressional District. He is a member of the House Committee on Resources.
Unfortunately, the Las Vegas Sun's Nov. 30 editorial entitled "Public lands up for grabs?" does not accurately portray the reasons for or the consequences of the mining provisions which I authored with House Committee on Resources Chairman Richard Pombo, R-Calif.
As the Las Vegas Sun may be aware, there is limited opportunity for economic growth in rural Nevada. This is largely due to the fact that the federal government owns and regulates seven of every eight acres in Nevada.
Mining operations bring economic opportunity to rural communities, and these provisions will allow that economic opportunity to continue beyond mine closure while upholding all current environmental laws and regulations.
Nevada's mining industry -- our state's second largest -- provides tax revenue to communities to fund schools, emergency services, roads and other vital infrastructure. Current provisions in America's mining law are insufficient in allowing for the sustainable development projects that can keep communities economically viable long after a mineral resource is depleted.
This is what motivated me to pass responsible mining reform legislation in Congress. Unfortunately, these provisions have become the subject of gross and willful misinterpretation by opponents of mining. Ironically, the same people who oppose the provisions rely on the products of mining every day -- from shampoo and computers to the roof over their heads.
The charge that the provisions will make unlimited amounts of public land available for purchase regardless of mineral potential is completely false. The provisions specifically require that any land made available for purchase must contain a mineral deposit.
Further, my proposal requires would-be buyers to prove the existence of a profitable mineral deposit by performing extensive mineral development work.
The Sun further, and falsely, claims that the bill offers "no protection to millions of acres of other sensitive public lands." The provisions in this bill do not apply to areas withdrawn from mineral entry. Areas withdrawn from mineral entry include lands already identified in Clark County for disposal, as well as national parks, monuments, wilderness and other special areas. Additionally, the proposed provisions still mandate compliance with all provisions of the Endangered Species Act.
Your readers should also know that my proposal will not interfere with land sales under the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA). This area has been off limits to new mining claims since 1998. Consequently, these mining law provisions do not apply to any lands inside the disposal boundary.
Simply put, my proposal allows miners to purchase mine sites so they can be mined. Later, these mine sites may be redeveloped for secondary productive uses after the mining is completed.
Currently, when a mine shuts down in Nevada, not only do all the jobs leave, but companies must remove all valuable infrastructure -- such as roads, power lines, water lines, substations and buildings. All of these facilities could -- and most certainly should -- be used for future economic sustainability.
These responsible reforms will generate significant revenue for the U.S. Treasury. Mining companies will now pay $1,000 per acre or fair market value -- whichever is higher -- for lands they wish to purchase.
This is certainly a whopping increase over the $2.50 to $5 per acre provided for under current law. You can buy a cup of coffee today for that price; certainly our public lands are worth more.
Increases in other fees in the bill will generate $158 million to the federal treasury in the next five years and will yield even more to states and local governments in payroll and other tax revenues as mines come into operation.
Radical environmental groups -- most of which are headquartered outside Nevada -- seek the complete outsourcing of Nevada's mining industry ... and the jobs and revenue they provide our state. I prefer to keep these high-paying jobs in Nevada.
These groups also cherish the fact that the federal government controls more than 85 percent of Nevada. Such federal control over Nevada is harmful to our state and our citizens (Yucca Mountain comes to mind as a prime example).
This boils down to the major philosophical dispute seen all over the West ... that the federal government -- based 2,600 miles from Nevada -- knows best how to manage our lands better than we do. I disagree. I always have and I always will.
archive
