Elkhunter
New member
Mining bill raises alarms
Critics say budget provision would result in federal land "giveaway."
By Rebecca Huntington
Wyoming's political leaders are getting an earful from sportsmen angered by a provision to lift a ban on selling land tied to mining claims a move hunters say could erode access to public lands.
The outcry has Wyoming's two Republican senators vowing to keep tabs on the provision and possibly seek its removal from a budget bill now before Congress.
"Sportsmen are really concerned about it," said Sen. Craig Thomas' spokesman Cameron Hardy, who said hunters have been calling and stopping by the senator's Washington, D.C., office.
"We need to really shed some light on this," Hardy said Tuesday. The senator is considering holding public hearings and looking for ways to amend or strip the provision from the budget bill before it returns to the U.S. Senate for a final vote, he said.
U.S. Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., is also wary. Enzi wants to ensure that hunting and fishing access would be protected and the provision would not be "exploited" for purposes other than mining, according to his spokesman.
"He's going to be watching it," said spokesman Coy Knobel.
In contrast, U.S. Rep. Barbara Cubin, R-Wyo., who voted for the provision, defends it as a way to raise money for federal coffers and create mining jobs. In a statement Tuesday, Cubin said the provision would not threaten multiple uses on public lands and estimated it would affect only 15,000 acres of Bureau of Land Management land in Wyoming and 360,000 acres of public land nationwide.
"The amount of misinformation and outright lies put out on this by the environmental obstructionists is their typical modus operandi," Cubin said in an e-mail answer.
Cubin said the provision fixes the 1872 mining law by raising land sale prices and prohibiting sales in national parks and wilderness areas. Critics counter that the law would still allow sales of pre-existing claims, which include about 18,000 acres in national parks.
Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif., and Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., wrote the provision, which would overturn a 1994 ban on the sale of mining lands.
The purpose of the provision appears to be as much about rural economic development as it is about mining per se.
Based on committee hearing testimony prior to the provision being tacked onto a budget bill, witnesses testified that selling public lands to mining companies would encourage economic development in hardscrabble Western towns, particularly in Nevada. Under the provision, once mines are played out, the infrastructure and land could be sold to another industry or developers to sustain rural communities economically. Under current law, mining companies are required to fully restore sites on public land by ripping out infrastructure, such as roads, power lines and office buildings. Moreover, private ownership also would mean landowners, not taxpayers, would be responsible for environmental clean-up costs, supporters say.
National Mining Association spokesman Luke Popovich said his group did not request the lifting of the moratorium and the industry's first priority would be to speed up the federal permitting process on public lands instead. Even so, his group supports lifting the moratorium because it would encourage investments in mining and create jobs, he said.
But critics say lawmakers are ignoring the reasons why the ban went into effect in the first place. The ban was enacted following the publicity of a sale that gave a Canadian mining company title to public lands containing an estimated $10 billion worth of minerals for less than $10,000, according to John Leshy, solicitor general of the Interior Department under President Clinton and author of a book on the history of the mining law. Prior to the ban, mining lands sold for no more than $5 per acre, a price set in 1872 to encourage Western settlement.
Pombo and Gibbons have tried to deal with that concern by raising land prices to a minimum of $1,000 per acre or fair market value, whichever is greater. However, fair market value would be based only on the land surface and would not account for the value of minerals underground, critics say.
Sen. Thomas agrees with Pombo and Gibbons that the mining law is in need of reform. But he's not convinced that selling public land is necessary to encourage hard-rock mining, according to his spokesman. Thomas would rather see the provision considered as part of a larger package of mining law reforms rather than tacked onto a budget bill, Hardy said.
In a statement Tuesday, Thomas vowed: "I won't stand by and let a band-aid fix to the Mining Act become a chronic injury to land use in our state."
Critics say the provision could open up as many as 350 million acres of public land for sale and eliminate requirements that mining claim holders demonstrate valuable mineral deposits under the land. Wyoming currently has mining claims on 353,499 acres of public land. Nearly 31 million acres of public land in the state could be sold under the new, ambiguous legal standards, critics say.
Pombo calls such estimates ridiculous. Pombo countered that the provision's language restricts sales to claims that have "a plan of operation or pending plans of operation."
While 5.7 million acres have mining claims, only 360,000 acres meet the operation planning criteria, according to Pombo. Of those acres, the Congressional Budget Office has determined about 140,000 acres are likely to be purchased, resulting in $158 million in federal revenue over five years and $326 million over 10 years.
Pombo and other proponents argue that specific requirements are in place to prevent the privatization of millions of acres. The National Mining Association estimates that less than 1 percent of federally owned lands, which total more than 700 million acres, would be or have been affected by mining.
But Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal and the Wyoming Wildlife Federation disagree, saying they had their own attorneys review the provision's language, which is overly broad. Freudenthal opposes the provision and is circulating a letter among Western governors to garner more signatures before sending his concerns to Congress, according to spokeswoman Lara Azar.
Freudenthal is concerned in particular about language in one section of the bill that allows the sale of land contiguous to mining claims or mill sites where "mineral development work" has been performed. With the broad definition for "mineral development work," nearly any mineral-related activity qualifies parcels for sale, according to the governor's office. The lands would not have to contain minerals to be sold, his office concluded.
According to the governor's interpretation, someone could stake a claim, survey the land, build a road or do something else related to mining, and then purchase the federal land and land adjacent to it. Such a move could create a wrinkle for the state's booming oil and gas development, according to Azar. Azar suggested the provision could allow someone to stake a claim in the middle of a natural gas field and then build a road to the claim, find no hard-rock minerals but still purchase the surface and subsurface minerals of the claim and lands around it.
Cubin's spokesman Joe Milczewski disagreed.
"I can tell you that's not right," he said, arguing that federal law would prohibit the purchase of a gas field under a hard-rock claim.
But Popovich of the National Mining Association agreed with critics that the language that opens the door to purchasing adjacent lands might be ambiguous.
"That's something that should be examined to be sure that it's not abused," Popovich said.
Sportsmen, meanwhile, fear that mining companies will purchase the lands, including adjacent properties, and erect no trespassing signs. Hunting access already is greatly restricted by private property ownership in eastern Wyoming, said Dave Gowdey, executive director of the Wyoming Wildlife Federation, which is opposing the provision. Other opponents include the National Wildlife Federation, Trout Unlimited, Taxpay-ers for Common Sense, the Colorado Wildlife Federation, conservation groups and Jewelers of America, a retail jewelry trade association.
"This is going to be the worst piece of environmental legislation in a hundred years," Gowdey said. "It's just a big giveaway."
Critics say budget provision would result in federal land "giveaway."
By Rebecca Huntington
Wyoming's political leaders are getting an earful from sportsmen angered by a provision to lift a ban on selling land tied to mining claims a move hunters say could erode access to public lands.
The outcry has Wyoming's two Republican senators vowing to keep tabs on the provision and possibly seek its removal from a budget bill now before Congress.
"Sportsmen are really concerned about it," said Sen. Craig Thomas' spokesman Cameron Hardy, who said hunters have been calling and stopping by the senator's Washington, D.C., office.
"We need to really shed some light on this," Hardy said Tuesday. The senator is considering holding public hearings and looking for ways to amend or strip the provision from the budget bill before it returns to the U.S. Senate for a final vote, he said.
U.S. Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., is also wary. Enzi wants to ensure that hunting and fishing access would be protected and the provision would not be "exploited" for purposes other than mining, according to his spokesman.
"He's going to be watching it," said spokesman Coy Knobel.
In contrast, U.S. Rep. Barbara Cubin, R-Wyo., who voted for the provision, defends it as a way to raise money for federal coffers and create mining jobs. In a statement Tuesday, Cubin said the provision would not threaten multiple uses on public lands and estimated it would affect only 15,000 acres of Bureau of Land Management land in Wyoming and 360,000 acres of public land nationwide.
"The amount of misinformation and outright lies put out on this by the environmental obstructionists is their typical modus operandi," Cubin said in an e-mail answer.
Cubin said the provision fixes the 1872 mining law by raising land sale prices and prohibiting sales in national parks and wilderness areas. Critics counter that the law would still allow sales of pre-existing claims, which include about 18,000 acres in national parks.
Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif., and Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., wrote the provision, which would overturn a 1994 ban on the sale of mining lands.
The purpose of the provision appears to be as much about rural economic development as it is about mining per se.
Based on committee hearing testimony prior to the provision being tacked onto a budget bill, witnesses testified that selling public lands to mining companies would encourage economic development in hardscrabble Western towns, particularly in Nevada. Under the provision, once mines are played out, the infrastructure and land could be sold to another industry or developers to sustain rural communities economically. Under current law, mining companies are required to fully restore sites on public land by ripping out infrastructure, such as roads, power lines and office buildings. Moreover, private ownership also would mean landowners, not taxpayers, would be responsible for environmental clean-up costs, supporters say.
National Mining Association spokesman Luke Popovich said his group did not request the lifting of the moratorium and the industry's first priority would be to speed up the federal permitting process on public lands instead. Even so, his group supports lifting the moratorium because it would encourage investments in mining and create jobs, he said.
But critics say lawmakers are ignoring the reasons why the ban went into effect in the first place. The ban was enacted following the publicity of a sale that gave a Canadian mining company title to public lands containing an estimated $10 billion worth of minerals for less than $10,000, according to John Leshy, solicitor general of the Interior Department under President Clinton and author of a book on the history of the mining law. Prior to the ban, mining lands sold for no more than $5 per acre, a price set in 1872 to encourage Western settlement.
Pombo and Gibbons have tried to deal with that concern by raising land prices to a minimum of $1,000 per acre or fair market value, whichever is greater. However, fair market value would be based only on the land surface and would not account for the value of minerals underground, critics say.
Sen. Thomas agrees with Pombo and Gibbons that the mining law is in need of reform. But he's not convinced that selling public land is necessary to encourage hard-rock mining, according to his spokesman. Thomas would rather see the provision considered as part of a larger package of mining law reforms rather than tacked onto a budget bill, Hardy said.
In a statement Tuesday, Thomas vowed: "I won't stand by and let a band-aid fix to the Mining Act become a chronic injury to land use in our state."
Critics say the provision could open up as many as 350 million acres of public land for sale and eliminate requirements that mining claim holders demonstrate valuable mineral deposits under the land. Wyoming currently has mining claims on 353,499 acres of public land. Nearly 31 million acres of public land in the state could be sold under the new, ambiguous legal standards, critics say.
Pombo calls such estimates ridiculous. Pombo countered that the provision's language restricts sales to claims that have "a plan of operation or pending plans of operation."
While 5.7 million acres have mining claims, only 360,000 acres meet the operation planning criteria, according to Pombo. Of those acres, the Congressional Budget Office has determined about 140,000 acres are likely to be purchased, resulting in $158 million in federal revenue over five years and $326 million over 10 years.
Pombo and other proponents argue that specific requirements are in place to prevent the privatization of millions of acres. The National Mining Association estimates that less than 1 percent of federally owned lands, which total more than 700 million acres, would be or have been affected by mining.
But Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal and the Wyoming Wildlife Federation disagree, saying they had their own attorneys review the provision's language, which is overly broad. Freudenthal opposes the provision and is circulating a letter among Western governors to garner more signatures before sending his concerns to Congress, according to spokeswoman Lara Azar.
Freudenthal is concerned in particular about language in one section of the bill that allows the sale of land contiguous to mining claims or mill sites where "mineral development work" has been performed. With the broad definition for "mineral development work," nearly any mineral-related activity qualifies parcels for sale, according to the governor's office. The lands would not have to contain minerals to be sold, his office concluded.
According to the governor's interpretation, someone could stake a claim, survey the land, build a road or do something else related to mining, and then purchase the federal land and land adjacent to it. Such a move could create a wrinkle for the state's booming oil and gas development, according to Azar. Azar suggested the provision could allow someone to stake a claim in the middle of a natural gas field and then build a road to the claim, find no hard-rock minerals but still purchase the surface and subsurface minerals of the claim and lands around it.
Cubin's spokesman Joe Milczewski disagreed.
"I can tell you that's not right," he said, arguing that federal law would prohibit the purchase of a gas field under a hard-rock claim.
But Popovich of the National Mining Association agreed with critics that the language that opens the door to purchasing adjacent lands might be ambiguous.
"That's something that should be examined to be sure that it's not abused," Popovich said.
Sportsmen, meanwhile, fear that mining companies will purchase the lands, including adjacent properties, and erect no trespassing signs. Hunting access already is greatly restricted by private property ownership in eastern Wyoming, said Dave Gowdey, executive director of the Wyoming Wildlife Federation, which is opposing the provision. Other opponents include the National Wildlife Federation, Trout Unlimited, Taxpay-ers for Common Sense, the Colorado Wildlife Federation, conservation groups and Jewelers of America, a retail jewelry trade association.
"This is going to be the worst piece of environmental legislation in a hundred years," Gowdey said. "It's just a big giveaway."
