http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/248143_mining12.html
Seattle Post-Intelligencer --- Saturday, November 12, 2005
Bill would open public land
Thousands of acres could be privatized
By ROBERT McCLURE <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER
More than 50,000 acres of old mining claims in Washington -- including
some inside Mount Rainier, Olympic and North Cascades national parks --
could be converted to private land under legislation expected to pass the
U.S. House next week.
The proposal also would open up millions of acres in Washington's
national forests -- and more than 350 million acres across the West -- to
be newly privatized under a revision of the 1872 Mining Law tucked into a
184-page budget bill.
Critics who have dissected the language of the bill say it would make it
easy to use a law passed 133 years ago to speed development of ski
resorts, golf courses and the like in the backcountry today.
"It could be the biggest privatization of public lands in a hundred
years," said John Leshy, a law professor considered one of the nation's
experts on the mining law, who worked to limit its effect as a Clinton
administration official. "This is all written in terms of mining claims,
but it's really a real estate development law."
A major criticism of the 1872 law has been that it allows mining
companies to take gold, platinum, silver and other valuable minerals off
public land for free. Stung by public protests, the mining industry has
long said it would be willing to pay a fair royalty when the law is
updated.
But the legislation by pro-mining House members makes no provisions for
such payment.
Carol Raulston, a spokeswoman for the National Mining Association, said
her group did not draft the legislation but understands Congress' intent.
"A royalty would in effect be an added cost," Raulston said. "The U.S. is
a high-cost producer of almost all these metals on federal land, and
we've been increasingly dependent on international sources for metals we
need."
The legislation was written by the House Resources Committee, whose
chairman, Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif., wants rural towns to turn land
that has been mined into useful developments.
"The important thing here is that we're trying to provide sustainable
economic development," said Matt Streit, a spokesman for the Resources
Committee.
Critics, though, note that the bill would allow someone to claim 20
acres, perform $7,500 of work on it -- easily blown through in a
consultant's study or some drilling work -- and then sell the land for
development.
"They could turn it over to real estate speculators, foreign companies --
whoever wants to buy it," said Dusty Horwitt, an analyst for the
Environmental Working Group, which makes its points through
data-crunching.
EWG has analyzed all the nation's mining claims and said there are 50,632
acres covered by them in Washington. The two top holders are Canadian
firms, Vancouver-based Teck Cominco with 7,830 acres and
Toronto-headquartered Kinross Gold Corp. with 3,292.
Mining claims abound in Washington's backcountry. The North Cascades in
particular are shot through with them.
Under the bill, much of the land managed by the Forest Service or the
Bureau of Land Management could again be converted to private land. In
1995, that practice was halted by Congress, which has renewed the ban
annually in budget legislation.
That ban was sparked by abuses in which some claims became ski resorts,
housing subdivisions, hotels and even a brothel, in Nye County, Nev. The
legislation under consideration would legalize that activity, critics
say, although proponents say that would not happen.
"It's not realistic or honest to claim that mining companies will
suddenly turn into real estate speculators ... and apply for a patent
(privatizing the land) only to sell the land for a hotel or other
business development," said Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., chairman of the
House Resources energy and mineral resources subcommittee. He said local
governments' tax base would expand through the privatization of land,
providing money for schools and other needs.
A 1999 National Academy of Sciences study said about 363 million acres
managed by the government would be in play if the conversions to private
land were authorized again.
The bill would not allow new mining claims inside national parks or
national forest areas declared wilderness. But it would allow old claims
to be converted into private land.
In the past, the National Park Service has used provisions of federal
land management laws to keep miners at bay in pristine areas, including
Shi-Shi Beach, the stunning shoreside portion of Olympic National Park.
The provisions used to battle miners there and elsewhere would be
reversed or eased under the bill.
"They want to give away the taxpayers' gold," said Rep. Jay Inslee,
D-Wash., and a member of the Resources Committee. "If somebody went to
Fort Knox and took gold out, they'd be in jail for the rest of their
lives. But in national forests, people can take gold (under the bill) and
be considered friends of the Republican Party."
A Seattle-area Republican, Rep. Dave Reichert, is portrayed by
environmentalists as a "swing vote" in the mining controversy. But
Reichert probably won't be doing much to stop the mining provision. He
already went against the Republican House leadership to remove from the
pending legislation a provision allowing drilling in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge.
"There are other parts of the bill we're going to work on, but you can
only do so much," said Mike Shields, Reichert's chief of staff. "There
are some things that Dave likes about the bill. He's going to vote for
it."
The bill seeks to help balance the federal budget, in part by cutting
spending and in part by increasing revenue. The Congressional Budget
Office estimates that the mining provisions would raise about $326
million over 10 years. That compares with a projected $1.6 trillion
budget deficit over the next five years.
The budget bill expected to pass the House next week would still have to
be meshed with the Senate's version of the same legislation. It remains
unclear how senators might react to the mining-law provisions, but
environmentalists say a budget bill is no place to debate mining policy.
"This isn't even a wolf in sheep's clothing. It's a werewolf in wolf's
clothing," said Roger Flynn of the Western Mining Action Project.
This story includes information from The Associated Press and P-I
Washington correspondent Charles Pope. P-I reporter Robert McClure can be
reached at 206-448-8092 or [log in to unmask]
<mailto:[log in to unmask]> .
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see:
http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp
|
