Bill to End All Mining in the U.S.

[vector7]

Rahall Proposes Bill to End All Mining in the U.S.

by Scott Harn

Nick Rahall, chairman of the House Resources Committee, reintroduced mining reform legislation in the House of Representatives on January 27, 2009. The Congressman has obviously been away from real work for far too long. H.R. 699, the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2009, should be labeled H.R. 666 because it appears to have been written by the Devil himself. If it passes as written, it will completely destroy an entire industry.

Here are a few “highlights” from H.R. 699:

• Casual use would be redefined to allow only those activities that do not cause “any disturbance of public lands and resources.” The collection of samples, use of gold pans and non-motorized sluices would be the only activities allowed without a Notice or Plan. Taking a vehicle off-road would also require a Notice or Plan. Any extraction of minerals for sale or use would require a Notice or Plan.
• H.R. 699 would be retroactive. Existing mining that is not already operating under a Notice of Plan would require proof of a valuable discovery to retain a mining claim, and those operating under a Notice or Plan would have ten years to bring their operation under compliance with the new regulations.
• The patenting of mining claims, which has been suspended by yearly legislation since 1994, would be permanently discontinued.
• The federal government would be entitled to an 8 percent gross royalty for all locatable minerals for any new mining operation. Even if the miner is unable to make a reasonable profit at current commodity prices, he would have to give 8 percent to the federal government. Existing operations at the time the bill is passed would be subject to a 4 percent gross royalty, and any federal lands added to the operation after enactment of the bill would be subject to the 8 percent royalty.
• The reporting requirements are absurd. Anyone transporting a locatable mineral, concentrate or product derived from a locatable mineral shall carry documentation declaring the amount, origin and intended destination. Miners shall create and maintain reports relating to the quantity, quality, composition, volume, weight and assay value of all minerals extracted from a mining claim. Failure to produce these reports when requested by any officer or employee designated by the federal government may result in involuntary forfeiture of the mining claim.
• The federal government would be authorized to conduct audits of all claim holders, operators, transporters, purchasers, processors, or other persons directly or indirectly involved in the production or sales of locatable minerals.
• Mining claim maintenance fees would be raised to $150 per claim, and would be adjusted at least every five years based on the Consumer Price Index. The location fee would be increased to $50 per claim.
• Tens of millions of acres would be added to existing areas that are already off-limits to mining, including Wilderness Study Areas; areas of critical environmental concern; areas designated for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; areas designated for potential addition, or eligible for inclusion; and any area identified in the set of inventoried roadless maps contained in the Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2, dated November 2000.
• Any State, political subdivision of a State, or Indian tribe could petition the Secretary of Interior to withdraw areas based on drinking water supplies, wildlife habitat, cultural or historic resources, scenic vistas or other similar values. Indian tribes could also petition for the withdrawal of areas for religious or cultural value.
• The bill would give the Secretary the authority to deny any operation that may cause undue degradation.
• To get an approved Plan, the operator would have to be able to show that no treatment of discharged water will be necessary 10 years after mine closure, and any Plan could be changed or halted if additional information about scientific, cultural or biological resources becomes available.
• The miner would have to submit an application to the federal government to request any cessation of operations greater than 180 days. A miner would have to obtain consent of the federal government to transfer ownership of any operation, and the transfer would require a fee to be paid to cover the government’s administrative costs.
• Financial assurance (bonding) would be required for any operation—presumably this would also apply to suction gold dredging—and the amount would be evaluated and adjusted every 3 years. Where water treatment is necessary, financial assurance funds would not be released until there is 5 full years where treatment is not necessary.
• States would be allowed to implement regulations that exceed the regulations in this bill.
• The federal government would be allowed to collect administrative fees to cover expenses incurred while regulating mining operations.
• Mining operations would be subjected to a minimum of one complete inspection per year.
• The bill would provide environmental lawyers an unending source of income. Any citizen would be allowed to file a civil lawsuit against the miner or the federal government to force compliance with the mining laws after giving sixty days written notice. The court would be allowed to award the costs of litigation, including attorney and witness fees, as the court deems appropriate.
• Any miner who fails to comply with any portion of a permit would be subjected to a fine of $25,000 per day.
• Any citizen who believes they are being adversely affected by a mining operation could request an inspection. If the Secretary agrees that an inspection is warranted, the complainant would be allowed to join in the inspection. Complainants could remain anonymous if desired.
• Any person who engages in mineral activities without the required permit, if convicted, would be punished by a fine of not less than $5,000 per day or by imprisonment for up to 3 years or both.
• Designated employees of the Department of Interior and Department of Agriculture would be given full law enforcement powers over permitted miners, including the power to subpoena miners to force attendance, testimony, and disclosure of all paperwork, and warrantless searches of vehicles and buildings expected to contain locatable minerals or products derived from them would be allowed.
• The Secretary would be forced to prevent mineral activities that could have an adverse impact on the resources and values of National Conservation System Units.

H.R. 699 would completely wipe out all small-scale mining in the United States. Small-scale miners do not have the time and resources to handle the fees, lawsuits and reporting requirements.

Large-scale mining would be also phased out as mining companies would be unable to deal with the unattainable requirements of these regulations, citizen lawsuits, thin profit margins, reporting requirements, and the uncertainty that comes with the federal government’s new authority to halt a mining operation when “undue degradation” is occurring or a scientific, biological or cultural resource is discovered. Many areas that may have potential would be inaccessible. No one in their right mind would provide funding for exploration or operations under the proposed conditions.

The most likely outcome would be that the environment would suffer as mining companies move all operations to countries with little or no regulations.

Like the current situation with oil, Americans would be forced to obtain natural resources overseas, sending money to countries that don’t like Americans and would love to control our prices.

The legislation is co-sponsored by Reps. George Miller (D-CA), Henry Waxman (D-CA), Ed Markey (D-MA), Howard Berman (D-CA), Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), Rush Holt (D-NJ), Jim Costa (D-CA), Donna Christensen (D-VI), Pete Stark (D-CA), Dale Kildee (D-MI), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), Ron Kind (D-WI), Lois Capps (D-CA), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Mike Honda (D-CA), John Salazar (D-CO), Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Niki Tsongas (D-MA), and Gerry Connolly (D-VA).

The legislators who have sponsored this bill should be labeled as un-American, voted out of office, and sent packing for attempting to decimate one of the few industries that has managed to stay afloat and provide an honest paycheck during these tough economic times.

Please take a minute to contact your Representative and Senator to let them know your stance on H.R. 699. Better yet, why not start a recall effort if one of the bill’s sponsors is in your area, or stop by their local office for a bigger impact?

Contact information for each of the bill sponsors:

• Nick Rahall (D-WV) phone 202 225-3452
• George Miller (D-CA) phone 202 225-2095
• Henry Waxman (D-CA) phone 202 225-3976
• Ed Markey (D-MA) phone 202 225-2836
• Howard Berman (D-CA) phone 202 225-4695
• Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) phone 202 225-2435
• Rush Holt (D-NJ) phone 202 225-5801
• Jim Costa (D-CA) phone 202 225-3341
• Donna Christensen (D-VI) phone 202 225-1790
• Dale Kildee (D-MI) phone 202 225-3611
• Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) phone 202 225-6335
• Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) phone 202 225-4811
• Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) phone 202 225-4911
• Ron Kind (D-WI) phone 202 225-5506
• Lois Capps (D-CA) phone 202 225-3601
• Adam Schiff (D-CA) phone 202 225-4176
• Mike Honda (D-CA) phone 202 225-2631
• John Salazar (D-CO) phone 202 225-4761
• Anna Eshoo (D-CA) phone 202 225-8104
• Niki Tsongas (D-MA) phone 202 225-3411
• Gerry Connolly (D-VA) phone 202 225-1492

[Segestan]

These demo-rats are scum, along with their handlers.

[Malsua]

I see that Rush Holt, one of the disgraces from NJ is on the list.

[vector7]

Interior calls 'time out' on mining

Valerie Richardson (Contact)

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced Monday that he will place a two-year hold on the filing of new uranium and other hard-rock mining permits on 1 million acres near the Grand Canyon, prompting charges from mining groups of compromising U.S. energy security and of encouraging more dangerous mining abroad.

Mr. Salazar said the department would spend those two years studying whether the lands should be withdrawn on a more extensive basis from new mining claims in order to protect the watershed, species and plants from possible contamination. Mining exploration or extraction that has already been approved for permitting would not be affected by either the two-year moratorium or a permanent ban, he said.

"I am calling a two-year 'time out' from all new mining claims in the Arizona Strip near the Grand Canyon because we have a responsibility to ensure we are developing our nation's resources in a way that protects local communities, treasured landscapes and our watersheds," Mr. Salazar said.

Mining near the Grand Canyon National Park has long been controversial because of the region's iconic status and its significance among some Indian tribes as a sacred site. At the same time, the area is known for its substantial deposits of uranium, an element with important military and commercial uses, including as fuel for nuclear-power plants.

Luke Popovich, spokesman for the National Mining Association, said he saw "no justification whatsoever" for the two-year ban, which he called a "de facto land withdrawal."

"It certainly doesn't do anything to strengthen our economy or energy security by taking these rich uranium deposits off the table," Mr. Popovich said. "It seems that both of the administration's goals were taken off the table in this one ruling."

He cited a 1999 study by the National Academy of Sciences concluding that regulations governing hard-rock mining had been effective in protecting the environment. About five years ago, those rules were strengthened even further, he said.

"These are small mines, like bore holes. They're very discrete," Mr. Popovich said. "They're not like coal or copper, where you have these big holes."

Grand Canyon mining had recently been the subject of a feud between House Democrats and the George W. Bush administration. Last year, the House Resources Committee attempted to stop any new claims for up to three years by passing a rarely used emergency resolution.

Then-Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne refused to acknowledge the resolution and continued to allow the approval of new permits, prompting a lawsuit from a coalition of environmental groups.

Richard Mayol, spokesman for the Grand Canyon Trust in Flagstaff, Ariz., one of coalition partners, said his organization was "quite happy" with the Interior Department's change of direction and that settlement talks would begin immediately.

"We'd been working very hard to see these lands withdrawn by the previous administration," Mr. Mayol said. "Once the new administration came in, we felt our chances were a little better."

Rep. Raul M. Grijalva, the Arizona Democrat who had led the fight against mining in and around the Grand Canyon National Park, hailed the decision and called on Congress to make the ban permanent.

"The Grand Canyon is too important to waste, and the Obama administration recognizes that," Mr. Grijalva said. "Whether we talk about its significance to Arizona's economy, the Grand Canyon watershed or future generations of Americans, this is a treasure that we cannot risk contaminating."

His subcommittee is slated to hold a hearing Tuesday on the Grand Canyon Watersheds Protection Act of 2009, which would cordon off the 1 million acres from future mining claims in perpetuity.

That stance isn't unanimously held by members of the Arizona delegation, according to a spokesman for Republican Sen. Jon Kyl.

"Sen. Kyl opposes Secretary Salazar's action and believes that a reasonable and healthy balance between the environment and mining can be achieved under existing law without abandoning the collaborative agreement that allowed for the successful 25-year old Arizona Wilderness Act to become law," spokesman Andrew Wilder said. "The Obama administration's action administratively disrupts that balance, and without any input from Congress."

More than 10,000 mining claims are in the moratorium area, and several uranium mining operations are awaiting environmental permits from the state of Arizona, according to the Interior Department.

The department published a notice in Monday's Federal Register initiating a 90-day comment period on the proposed withdrawal.

Mr. Popovich called the actions shortsighted, predicting they would push uranium mining overseas, where environmental protections are often less stringent.

"We're increasingly dependent on imports," Mr. Popovich said. "It's not an isolated incident - it's part of an agenda where we seem to be discouraging an industry and sending jobs offshore, where the environmental impact isn't going to be mitigated like it is here."