June 15, 1999

The Saga of the Millsite Issue Continues:

The June 15th Senate Hearing on Millsites and the Crown Jewel Mine Proposal.

The saga of the millsite decision continues. At the behest of the mining industry, Senator Slade Gorton (R-WA) attempted to overturn the millsite decision with an anti-environmental rider to the Kosovo/Disaster Relief emergency funding bill. He was partially successful; he permanently exempted Crown Jewel from the millsite decision, and postponed application of the millsite decision everywhere until the end of the fiscal year (September 30th). He did not succeed in amending the 1872 Mining Law to permanently overturn the millsite decision. During "debate" in conference committee, Gorton vowed to attach a rider to the FY2000 Interior appropriations bill (he's chair of the Senate Interior appropriations subcommittee), and Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) promised to consider this issue before his Forest and Public Land Management subcommittee of the Energy and Natural Resources committee.

On June 15th, Craig made good on his promise and held a hearing to discuss the millsite decision and the Crown Jewel mine proposal. The hearing was quite the staged spectacle. It had three purposes: (1) to provide cover for the Interior subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations committee to potentially amend the mining law;* (2) to whitewash over the Crown Jewel mine proposal's problems; (3) to impugn the integrity of the millsite decision and of John Leshy, the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior.

On issues (2) and (3), they were decidedly unsuccessful. Despite a testifier list stacked with industry sympathizers, Dave Kliegman of the Okanogan Highlands Alliance demonstrated for the umpteenth time that the Crown Jewel mine proposal wouldn't be good for the environment, wouldn't be good for the water table, and wouldn't be good for the community. And despite industry and Craig's best efforts, no one from the pro-mining camp could demonstrate that the millsite decision wasn't the law --- in 1960 Congress specifically acknowledged that the millsite limitation on waste dumping was the law. That's why industry is seeking legislative remedy instead of pursuing this through the courts.

At the end of the hearing, Senator Craig announced that John Leshy didn't make law, the Congress did -- studiously ignoring that Congress had in fact made this law to which he was objecting. He then announced he would recommend that the Interior appropriations committee deal with the issue --- essentially giving the authorizing committee's blessing for the appropriations committee to amend the mining law. So, we know we have an anti-environmental rider fight on our hands in the coming weeks and months. Stay tuned.

Excerpts of the testimony of Mineral Policy Center, the Okanogan Highlands Alliance, and the Western Mining Action Project follow this article. For complete testimony, visit our website at http://www.mineralpolicy.org/law&reform_links.html. For more information about the millsite decision, get our millsite fact sheet at http://www.mineralpolicy.org/law&reform_links.html and check MineWire v2n11 at http://www.mineralpolicy.org/minewire.html or call MPC at 202-887-1872.

* A QUICK AND DIRTY PRIMER ON ANTI-ENVIRONMENTAL RIDERS

There are two major types of committees in Congress: authorizing committees and appropriating committees. Appropriating committees are responsible for funding bills. The money that pays for the activities of each cabinet department (e.g. the Department of Interior) is provided by a bill created in appropriations committee. Without that bill, the department runs out of money and shuts down. That's why the government shut down during the 104th Congress ? appropriations bills that funded the federal government did not pass. EVERY YEAR an appropriations bill for the Interior department MUST pass or money can't be spent. Importantly, appropriations bills are meant to fund government actions that are the consequences of laws, they are not supposed to MAKE law.

Making government policy/law is the province of authorizing committees: their purpose is to consider issues within their bailiwick in an open and public process, and to apply legislative remedy where they find it necessary by introducing a free-standing bill that can be voted upon independent of other policy concerns. Each authorizing committee is responsible for a particular policy area. For example, in the Senate, the Energy and Natural Resources committee is responsible for making law regarding hardrock mining.

If the 1872 Mining Law were to be amended to overturn the millsite decision, the Energy committee would be the proper place to do it. It would create a bill amending the 1872 Mining Law which could be considered and voted upon on its own merits.

However, since the Republicans became the majority in Congress, they haven't been able to get their "environmental" legislation passed on its own. By and large, the American people support environmental protection, more rather than less. So, instead of trying to repeal environmental protections via stand-alone bills created in the authorizing committee, Republicans have attached anti-environmental riders to appropriations bills. Because appropriations bills MUST pass, these riders get passed along with them, without debate on their merits. It's an underhanded, undemocratic way to make law.

TESTIMONY EXCERPTS

The Crown Jewel Mine has been extremely controversial because it would blast off the top of one of the highest mountains in the picturesque Okanogan Highlands and leave a toxic lake in an open-pit in the place of five clean, healthy, headwater streams. It would also dump 100 acres of tailings 250 feet deep behind an earthen dam on top of one of those creeks.

....From the testimony of David Kliegman, Director of Okanogan Highlands Alliance

The 1872 Mining Law is a two-edged sword for the hardrock mining industry. On one hand, the "free access" provision grants a benefit unequaled on the public lands. However, the Law's limitations on mining and millsite claim validity present real challenges to low-grade open pit mining proposals.

.....From the testimony of attorney Roger Flynn, Western Mining Action Project Executive Director

Today, at this hearing, we are looking at this problem from the wrong side. The problem is not the millsite limit. The millsite limit is a symptom, the problem is that the 1872 Mining Law is outdated. It does not fit today's mining industry, it does not protect taxpayers, and it does not protect the environment. Congress , and those in industry, should see this decision as an opportunity to address the fundamental problem of the 1872 Mining Law. The industry should not be granted one-time exemptions to the parts they do not like or that no longer fit.

.....From the testimony of Stephen D'Esposito, President of Mineral Policy Center