protestbarrick.net is now an archive of Protest Barrick's work from 2007 until 2016.
For updates on Protest Barrick's current work, go to: https://protestbarrick.org

  Protest Barrick
Home About us Issues International Campaigns Press Actions

US: Bush opposes rewrite of mining law

by Jaime Richardson and Jim LambGreen Valley News

The Bush administration on Thursday came out against a proposed revision of a 135-year-old hard-rock mining law that would impose the first-ever royalty fees and environmental restrictions for mining on public land.

Bush�s opposition is significant. If Congress were to pass revisions to the 1872 mining law and the president signed them, opponents say it would help them stop development of the Rosemont Mine in the Santa Rita Mountains east of Green Valley.

Augusta Resource Corp. which submitted plans for mining in the Santa Ritas to the U.S. Forest Service two weeks ago, was unavailable for comment Thursday. But the Canadian company stands to benefit from Bush�s opposition to reform. It hopes to begin operations in 2010.

Congressional plans to revise the mining law would let the government assess royalty fees for the first time on the extracted minerals. And it would give more power to environmentalists who think the mining industry has despoiled the environment for too long.

The U.S, Bureau of Land Management says the proposed new regulations could hurt the mining industry, the economy and U.S. security.

There�s concern that small mining communities across the West would wither and mines might shutter operations or scale them back.
Despite the administration�s opposition, Democratic lawmakers say they are determined to revise the General Mining Act of 1872, which was originally written to help settle the West and has remained largely unchanged.

Environmentalists have lobbied for decades to rewrite the law. They say it has allowed companies mining gold, copper, uranium and other minerals to pollute rivers, scar the landscape and leave abandoned mines throughout the West � all without paying a royalty fee.

This year, with Democrats in control of Congress, advocates hope they will be successful. Even lawmakers from mining states have said they believe some changes are necessary.

�The people of the United States deserve to receive a payment in return for the disposition of the resources we all own,� said House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., who introduced the proposed rewrite with support from Congressman Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz.

Harold Metz, vice president and controller of Twin Buttes Properties in Green Valley, said imposing royalty fees would have a major impact, although he said the companies now pay a severance fee for the minerals they extract.

In a short interview, Metz worried that royalty fees might increase more and more over the years.

Pima County Supervisor Ray Carroll said the mines could never pay enough to undo the damage they�ve done.

�There are certain areas where mining is welcomed and supported and economically important, but then there are areas like Pima County, where that type of royalty would never be enough,� he said.

Carroll is leading the opposition to halt development of Rosemont. There�s also much local opposition to it.

Besides the lack of royalty fees and environmental regulations, the current law allows public lands to be sold to mining companies for as little as $5 an acre, although Congress has annually prohibited that. It also elevates mining�s importance above other uses of public land, making it difficult for federal agencies to deny mining applications.

News of Thursday�s hearings by House Energy and Minerals Resources subcommittee came late in the day after many mining company offices were closed. A spokesperson for Augusta said many of those who could talk were traveling and couldn�t be immediately be reached at airports or aboard planes.

Carroll also said: �If the mine is upsetting our ecosystem, that royalty wouldn�t be enough. I am still strong opposed to the Augusta Mine.

We could never get that natural area back once it�s gone.

�It would affect the water and the air, it would bring in toxic pollution, and would destroy Davidson and Box Canyon.�

 

Join our e-mail list