Editorial Mining under attack in South Dakota

A proposed moratorium on new mine development in South Dakota is not the first political blow to be felt by the mining industry in the U.S., but it could prove to be one of the most telling. Many in the industry are watching closely to see how this one develops.

The situation in South Dakota is unique in many ways. The Black Hills, where mining has such a long tradition, are undeniably special — a topographical curiosity measuring roughly 150×50 miles, an island of relief in the flat expanse of the Great Plains.

What is not unique, however, is the battle that has developed over the Black Hills. As in other mining areas, the large population centres are removed from where mining takes place. Communities where mining has long been a way of life are supportive of future development within reasonable environmental limits. The population centres, not directly affected by mining, want the area to remain untouched. Similar divisions can be found in almost all jurisdictions.

In the past, South Dakota’s legislators have taken some strong actions to assure that environmental standards are maintained, but the mining industry has always been able to live within those standards. Every significant study has found that mining in the state offers significant economic benefit while maintaining adequate environmental controls.

In 1989, as part of the state’s centennial, the legislature initiated a cumulative environmental evaluation due to be completed in December of this year. Because the industry is confident it will meet any reasonable environmental limits, it has supported that evaluation process.

In fact, the mining industry supports South Dakota Governor George Mickelson’s proposed 2-year moratorium on new mining development in order to give interest groups and legislators time to digest the findings of that evaluation.

One may be inclined to dismiss the moratorium in South Dakota as being of little consequence. After all, many of the mining companies working the area support the moratorium.

What’s more, this is seen as a small concession that would appease the environmental lobby. Giving in on one small area of South Dakota couldn’t have that big an impact, defenders of the moratorium say.

But this particular ban could easily go beyond one isolated area. If it sets a precedent that other states follow, the mining industry wants to be sure that it is seen to have acted responsibly and fairly, not with knee-jerk, anti-environment reactions.

What’s more, although Mickelson’s moratorium is limited in scope to the Black Hills area, the real issue is federal public lands, the lands that are governed by the Mining Act of 1872. The Black Hills area has a long history of mining and the laws governing it are a mixed bag. Because the Black Hills includes federal public land, a broader ban on mining would require the approval of Congress. Democratic Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota has said he may propose in Congress just such a moratorium on all federal land, nation wide.

Limiting mining’s access to those lands would go against the very nature of multiple use of federal public lands in the U.S. It was in 1960 that the concept of multiple use was enshrined by Congress, but in the 30 years since, mining’s access to public lands has steadily eroded. In 1985 a joint study by four U.S. government agencies (Bureau of Mines, Bureau of Land Management, Forestry Service and Geological Survey) indicated that only about half of the federal public lands were available for mineral exploration and development. Since then, the percentage has undoubtedly declined.

The debate over mining’s rights when it comes to land use has become highly emotional and highly political. Support for the two sides in the debate — environmentalists on one side and pro- mining advocates on the other

population centres on one side and mining communities on the other — has split evenly, virtually down party lines.

But mining is not anti-environment. It is not bent on destroying the landscape. Exploration is barely noticeable in the remote regions of either Canada or the U.S. When a mineral orebody is located, however, mining should have the right to exploit that natural resource provided mine development complies with reasonable and prudent laws to avoid undue harm to the environment.

There has to be a balance. Society cannot do without mining any more than it can do without the natural environment.

The Ontario Mining Association uses an interesting comparison that is probably valid for other jurisdictions. It points out that in Ontario, Canada’s largest mineral producing area, more land is paved over by Highway 401 than is affected by all the mines in the province. And most of the land lost to the highway is prime farmland. The public accepts that, for society to function, highways are necessary but not mines.

Mining companies active in South Dakota have chosen to back this moratorium because they believe it will provide a cooling off period for the two sides in the debate. The danger is that this gesture of goodwill, an attempt to place the debate on a higher level of reasoning, will likely go unnoticed. The moratorium could be just one more step in the ever declining ability of the mining industry to find and develop new ore deposits in the U.S.