U.S. Mining Law reform back on agenda

After a fruitless attempt last year, lawmakers are again trying their luck at reforming the U.S. Mining Law of 1872. What has yet to be determined is whether the new political makeup of Congress will have the effect of breaking the stalemate reached at the end of the previous legislative session.

Three bills currently before Congress are aimed at amending the outdated legislation. The first, the Mineral Exploration and Development Act of 1995, was submitted by Democratic Sen. Dale Bumpers of Arkansas and is similar to last year’s version. Accompanying this is a House bill by Democratic Rep. Nick Rahall of West Virginia.

The third is a bipartisan effort led by Republican Sen. Lawrence Craig of Idaho, Democratic Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada and Republican Sen. Frank Murkowski of Alaska. Known as the Mining Law Reform Act of 1995, the bill is sponsored by 13 senators in all, representing nine western states. A companion bill is expected to be introduced in the House by Republican Reps. Ken Calvert of California and Barbara Vucanovich of Nevada.

A stumbling block in discussions over Mining Law reform is the issue of whether to impose a net or a gross royalty on production from mines on public land. Under the 122-year-old law, no royalty is required. This, combined with the fact that the government receives no compensation for use of federal lands, accounts for most of the criticism which the law has received. The Bumpers bill calls for an 8% gross royalty on production, whereas the Craig-Reid-Murkowski version proposes a net royalty of only 3% (with an exemption for small miners). Royalties go to the federal and state government, and into a state fund for abandoned mine reclamation. Where the bills differ most strongly is in the area of environmental protection. Each places a different priority on environmental and resource management.

The Bumpers bill includes a plan that ensures the protection of some public lands (not already protected) which are deemed unsuitable for mining because of their scenic value, ecological sensitivity, etc.

The Rahall bill includes a provision whereby citizens can call a halt to a mining operation which might be considered unsafe. Work would resume only after a thorough inspection. Citizens would also be able to file suit against the government for permitting alleged violations.

While no provisions for unsuitable land use assessment or lawsuits are included in the Craig-Reid-Murkowski version, it does call for regular inspections (at least once a year).

The bill also contains a clause that requires compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. (Environmental laws and reclamation regulations already mandate compliance with federal and state standards; nevertheless, the 1872 Mining Law has been criticized for not addressing the issue.) The patent process, as outlined in the Mining Law, has also come under fire, with most of the notoriety centring around the US$2.50-per-acre fee for patenting a claim. The meagre fee has been cited frequently by mining opponents to illustrate what they consider to be the archaic character of the 1872 law.

In place of a flat rate fee, the Craig-Reid-Murkowski bill favors charging a fair market price for the surface estate, whereas the Bumpers bill would do away with the patent process altogether.