Editorial: Back to the drawing board

Thursday, Dec. 15, 2005 | 7:08 a.m.

Two Republican congressmen this week withdrew a controversial mining proposal from a massive budget bill after widespread opposition that united environmentalists with hunters, Western lawmakers and even representatives from the jewelry industry.

Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., chairman of the House Energy and Mineral and Resources Subcommittee, on Tuesday withdrew the mining proposal he authored with Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif., chairman of the House Resources Committee, citing "hurdles" the measure would face in the Senate budget reconciliation process. The Senate's budget bill, passed in October, has no mining provisions.

The House measure, which sought to overhaul the federal laws that have governed mining since 1872, would have allowed an individual or company with a mining claim on public land to buy or "patent" that land, along with adjacent public parcels, on which owners could eventually build such projects as homes and shopping centers.

The proposal protected by exemption some public lands, such as national parks, monuments and wildlife areas. But it was vague in protections offered to millions of acres of other undefined and potentially sensitive public lands and could have allowed mineral and gas speculators to purchase patents for unlimited amounts of land, as long it touched a portion of their actual mining claims.

The measure, which also prohibited the federal government from collecting royalties on the resources mined from the land, was quietly inserted into the 600-page budget reconciliation bill without the usual committee hearings or opportunities for public review and comment.

After abandoning the package Tuesday, Gibbons said he is "committed to working with our friends in the House and Senate" to update the mining law. But we've seen what kind of proposed legislation we get when Gibbons and Pombo work only with their friends -- a vague measure that favors private mining interests and is hammered out in secret.

The 1872 mining law needs revision. But it's a complicated issue that calls for input from all stakeholders and a thorough public review, so that we can retain high-paying mining industry jobs for rural Nevadans while adequately protecting our environment and access to public lands.