Commentary: Mining Law of 1872 no longer applies to today’s world

Monday, May 7, 2007 | 8:39 a.m.

Mike Kowalski

This Thursday marks the 135th anniversary of the Mining Law of 1872, providing an opportunity to reflect on the past, present and prospects for hard rock mining in America. As an industry, jewelry uses more than four of every five ounces of gold mined today, so we have a substantial stake in the Mining Law reform debate, which is beginning to take shape in the U.S. Congress.

Since 1837 Tiffany & Co. has looked to the beauty of the natural world for creative inspiration and to the bounty of that world for the precious materials that give form and life to our designs. We depend on domestic mining for the raw materials that support 800 American manufacturing jobs at our fabrication and artisan workshops in Rhode Island, New Jersey and New York. A healthy, environmentally responsible and stable mining industry matters to my company.

Enlightened self-interest motivates me to agree with many mining industry leaders, members of Congress and environmental organizations: the Mining Law of 1872 is long overdue for an overhaul. At a minimum, such reforms should include: 1) enhanced regulatory certainty; 2) strengthened environmental protection and restoration; 3) improved returns to taxpayers for mineral resources mined from public lands; and 4) expanded post-mining development opportunities for communities.

As a businessman, I value business certainty. So I am sympathetic to the predicament of the hard rock mining industry in America which operates under the auspices of an indefensible law. Given the capital-intensive nature of modern mine development, predictable siting and regulatory regimes are critical to mining companies. However, what made sense in 1872 does not make sense in 2007.

As a conservationist, I believe that the environmental effects of mining should be minimized and that the privilege of mining on public lands should be assessed in the context of alternative uses, including recreation and conservation. The toxic legacy of abandoned mines in the American West is a matter of great concern to Tiffany & Co.

Under current law, private parties, nonprofit groups and government entities may incur liability for voluntarily cleaning up mine-related pollution they did not cause. This should be changed so that "Good Samaritans" will put their time, treasure and talent into beneficial mine restoration work.

As a taxpayer, I believe that those who benefit from the extraction of mineral resources from public lands should pay fairly for that use. Ultimately, this cost will make it more expensive to produce jewelry but it is the right thing to do. It makes sense to reinvest these revenues in the conservation of waters and public land that will be our true legacy to future generations.

In 2005 then-Reps. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., and Richard Pombo, R-Calif., proposed major revisions to the Mining Law of 1872. Together, sportsmen, taxpayer advocates, environmentalists, state and local governments, academics, retired federal officials, Western governors and others vigorously opposed these provisions because they threatened to take mining and mineral speculation backwards.

However, the failed Gibbons-Pombo Mining Law provisions served two valuable functions: 1) they catalyzed the debate about the importance of updating the Mining Law; and 2) they identified the importance of helping communities across the West ensure a sustainable future after the mines play out.

Myriad businesses depend on mining and countless families from Nevada to New York City depend on a healthy, respected, responsible mining industry. The broad and strong opposition to the Gibbons-Pombo mining provisions reflected and now catalyze an emerging consensus that we need to reform the Mining Law of 1872, but we need to do it right. I, for one, stand ready to work on such reforms - in the light of day - so that mining's future is even brighter than its past.