A wave of mining reform bills… but what direction will our legislators follow?
Stibnite Mine site near Yellowpine, ID is just one of hundreds of landscapes and watersheds detrimentally affected by the archaic Mining Law of 1872. PC: IRU staff
In the environmental-based world of mining, there has been a broad spectrum of discussions on the topic of mining reform. Some ideas on the future of mining look at implementing environmental safeguards and financial assurances for reclamation while others look to expedite the permitting process. It is clear that a change needs to be made to mining laws, but advocates also need to be thoughtful about the kind of reform that is pushed forward.
A wave of mining reform bills… but what direction will our legislators follow?
On one end, Grijalva (D-AZ) and Heinrich (D-NM) are introducing a bill called the Clean Energy Minerals Reform Act, which aims to modernize and reform the mining law of 1872. This antiquated law has remained virtually unchanged since its enactment, and it is long overdue for reform. The Clean Energy Minerals Reform Act would bring much-needed updates to the hard rock mining industry’s regulations:
Establishing a leasing system to level the playing field for other public land uses
Require the mining industry to clean up abandoned mines
Set clear environmental and reclamation standards
Establish a royalty program to ensure a fair return to taxpayers
Require meaningful tribal consultation
Protect crucial places from mining projects
Countless mining projects have degraded landscapes across the country, especially in the West. Grijalva and Heinrich’s bill works to build sustainable mining practices by updating the Mining Law of 1872 to reflect the environmental priorities our society has today.
On the other hand, we have Senator Masto’s bill (D-NV) and Senator Risch (R-ID) who introduced the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act. The act amends the 1993 Omnibus Reconciliation Act, by aiming to address the recent Rosemont decision to make it easier for mining companies to stake claims on public lands. The bill would be regressing to the outdated mining practice of allowing mining-support activities to occur on public lands without proof of valid mining claims on those lands.
Masto and Risch claim this bill will support mining projects and help with retrieving minerals needed to build a “green” energy future. However, overlooking environmental protections and making it easier for mining companies to stake claims on public land that is critical for the ecosystem doesn’t align with the purpose of having cleaner energy resources.
According to the EPA, mining for metals is the #1 toxic polluter in the U.S., altering our watersheds and landscapes forever. We can no longer afford to recklessly mine and not restore our public lands. Expediting the permitting process and making it easier for the mining industry to stake claims on public lands without proof of valuable minerals will not result in the clean energy future that these companies advertise. Mining laws need to evolve to include protections for our watersheds, wildlife, and their habitats, not to make it easier for ecosystems to be ruined for lifetimes to come.
With the overwhelming push for extracting raw materials for new technologies and decarbonizing energy sources, countless mining companies are trying to capitalize on the increase in demand. Now is the time to put policies in place that vet these mining projects for their necessity and hold the companies accountable for the damage they cause to the environment.
