Monday, Dec. 11, 2006 | 7:30 a.m.
WASHINGTON - With Democrats about to take control of Congress, the Nevada mining industry and its chief environmental critics are readying for possibly the biggest changes to the nation's mining law in nearly a century.
Hard rock mining is the heart of rural Nevada's economy, but is also a source of toxic pollution targeted by environmentalist organizations. Those groups see their first chance in more than a decade to push for revisions to the 1872 Mining Law that still governs most mining in the United States.
Environmental groups say reforms are long overdue, and some mining companies agree - in part.
Reform advocates want mining companies to pay mining royalties, just like the oil and gas industries do. They essentially mine on federal lands for free.
Environmental groups also want to give federal agencies the ability to bar mining in sensitive areas. Washington currently has little authority to stop proposed new mines.
None of this comes as a surprise to the industry. Mining companies say they know it's time for a change in an industry that still operates under the old law. They also want to mute growing complaints that they are ruining the environment across the West.
Russ Fields, president of the Nevada Mining Association, said the industry is dusting off old versions of mining law reform bills to get ready for the Democrats. "Certainly everybody is mindful (that) after the first of the year there's going to be a lot of discussion on this," he said.
The industry says it already is willing to yield in some areas, starting with possibly paying fees for mining on federal land. But the industry and reform advocates diverge widely on the nature of those fees.
Despite the Democratic victory in November, the deck is hardly stacked against mining in Congress, especially given one powerful trump card: Harry Reid. While the Democratic takeover sidelined some of mining's most influential lawmakers, the power shift elevated Reid, son of a miner and a strong ally of mining in Washington, to Senate majority leader.
Reid, who has received more than $100,000 from mining-related political action committees since 1998, has no patience for the shrill battles of the past, say those who have worked with him on mining and environmental issues. He says he is interested only in "reasonable" changes to the 1872 Mining Law.
On that point, he is in agreement with Glenn Miller, co-founder of Great Basin Mine Watch, a Nevada watchdog group. "I would hope we don't go back over the same ground and the same rhetoric," said Miller, an Earth sciences professor at UNR. "I would hope we have a new look at this issue."
Nevada is the world's third largest producer of gold, much of which is turned into jewelry. The state's nearly $3 billion annual industry has ballooned in recent years as gold spiked to $640 an ounce. New mining claims in Nevada have doubled since 2000.
Those riches make mining rural Nevada's biggest employer, with 10,000 jobs paying an average salary of $60,000. Another 48,000 jobs are mining-related.
But those jobs come at a price to the environment. A report released last week by the conservation group Earthworks and 10 Western states shows that water pollution from mining activity nationwide is much greater than regulators expected.
Environmentalists had their last true chance to reform mining laws during the Clinton administration. Legislation, written by Rep. Nick J. Rahall, D-W.Va., won House approval, but stalled in the Senate.
The Clinton administration ultimately adopted new regulations giving federal agencies greater authority to deny new mining operations on federal lands, but the Bush administration later reversed the restriction.
Now, Rahall is taking over as chairman of the House Resources Committee, replacing environmentalists' foe Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif. Also gone from that committee is Nevada Gov.-elect Jim Gibbons, another friend of mining who tried and failed to pass a mining bill last year that was widely opposed as a giveaway to the industry.
Rahall has pledged to make mining law revisions a priority.
Environmental activists want to get the issues into the spotlight, even if it means foregoing legislative victory. With Reid perceived as an obstacle in the Senate, environmentalists would be satisfied with action in the House that sets the stage for 2009, when Bush leaves the White House.
"While this new Congress is going to be much better on the environment and mining in general, we still have Sen. Reid and President Bush to deal with," said Lauren Pagel, policy director at Earthworks.
"What we would hopefully be doing is setting something up, educating members, and getting those issues back out there," she said. "We waited 12 years. We can wait a couple more."
Fields of the Nevada Mining Association said that giving the federal government veto power over where companies can mine, as the Clinton administration sought to do, is a "nonstarter."
The National Mining Association is pushing provisions it wants, such as streamlining the environmental review process - a step environmentalists worry would chisel away at protections.
Reid told reporters shortly after the November election that he would consider revisiting the 1872 Mining Law. For instance, he supports requiring companies to pay to mine on federal land.
"I think there are things we can do to make it better - make it better for industry, certainly make it better for the consuming public, including the people of the state of Nevada," Reid said.
A supporter of many other environmental causes, Reid infuriates environmentalists on mining. They say he helped block Rahall's reforms in the 1990s and he also aided in stalling the Clinton administration's work.
Miller of Great Basin Mine Watch remains hopeful that Congress will set the stage for environmental reforms. "I fully realize that he's going to be protecting the mining industry," Miller said of Reid, "but I also believe he realizes there has been tremendous destruction from mining in the West and that has to stop."
archive
