Unchanged (for the Worse) Since 1872

A New York Times editorial making the case for reforming the 1872 Mining Law.

Unchanged (for the Worse) Since 1872

The New York Times, 8/20/2007
Editorial

The General Mining Law of 1872 is among the last
statutory survivors of the boisterous era of westward
expansion. Essentially unchanged since Ulysses S.
Grant signed it into law, it sets the basic rules for
mining hard-rock minerals like gold, copper and
uranium on public lands. Useful in its day, it is a
disaster now. It requires no royalties from the mining
companies and contains no environmental safeguards,
allowing mines to wreak havoc on water supplies and
landscapes.

Representative Nick Rahall, a West Virginia Democrat,
has been trying to bring this law into the modern era
since 1985. He will try again this fall, and
Congress' Democratic leadership should help him out.

The bill would require mining companies to pay
royalties on minerals extracted from federal land,
just as coal and oil producers do. It would place
sensitive wilderness lands and other areas of
critical environmental concern off limits to mining,
require reclamation afterward and create a fund to
clean up the law's most unattractive legacy - the
estimated 500,000 abandoned mine sites that continue
to leak cyanide, lead, mercury and other toxic wastes.

Mr. Rahall's latest effort could not be more timely.
An exhaustive report last week from the Environmental
Working Group and the Pew Campaign for Responsible
Mining noted a dramatic jump in mining claims
throughout the West, from 207,540 at the beginning of
2003 to almost 376,500 today. An alarmingly high
number have been staked within five miles of 11 major
national parks and monuments, including Grand Canyon
National Park in Arizona and Death Valley National
Park in California.

Much of this increase appears to have been driven by a
quintupling in uranium prices over the last several
years, which in turn is driven by a renewed interest
in nuclear energy as an alternative to dirtier fuels
like coal and increasingly costly fuels like natural
gas.

The mining industry has long argued that because it is
covered by other environmental laws, like the Clean
Water Act, its does not need special safeguards. But
it does. The Clean Water Act, for instance, does not
cover subsurface water. And of course the companies do
not like the idea of paying royalties. Even so, prices
are so strong now that some of the big companies are
beginning to sense that there is a point at which
opposition begins to look ridiculous.

Which leaves one enduring obstacle: Harry Reid, the
Senate majority leader, whose home state of Nevada
depends far more on mining than any other state. Mr.
Reid now seems willing to listen, as he should. One
can live in the 19th century for only so long.