Mountains. It is in an area that has been considered for Wilderness. One proposed access route would wind through the only major roadless and trailless drainage in the Tobacco Roots, while the other proposed access route bisects critical Mountain Goat habitat. The Tobacco Roots contain the highest concentration of peaks over 10,000 feet in Montana. They are becoming an important recreation area for both motorized and non-motorized recreation. The wildlife and water quality values are high. Nevertheless, the Forest Service tells us it has no power to consider whether the value of these other resources outweigh the potential mineral value from the mine. Even if those other values are high, the Forest Service cannot consider denying the permit. It can only decide which access route the miners will use.

In short, there are places where mining is simply incompatible with other public resource values. The land management agencies must be able to consider mining on equal terms with all other resources - and, when necessary, have the authority to deny a permit. Anything short of that will only allow the disproportionate primacy of mining to continue at great expense to the public. H.R. 918, must address this inequity.

In conclusion, MEIC applauds Chairman Rahall for seeing the need to reform the mining law. Reform will not come easily. As the Missoulian editorial included with my testimony states, "(d)on't blame the miners for resisting change they've got a good deal and they know it". However, I urge the Subcommittee to ask the mining industry why they should not be subject to all the same environmental rules that apply to anyone else operating on the public land. They will not, of course, be able to give you an answer. I also respectfully suggest that H.R. 918 must be further strengthened to ensure that environmental values will not be damaged by mining.

MEIC applauds you for leading an informed and open discussion on the 1872 Mining Law. Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee.

MISSOULIAN EDITORIAL

Scrap the Hard Rock Act

19th-century federal law gives mining companies unfair break

t'sabout time the mining industry joined the 20th Century.

To be sure, miners have space-age technology at their disposal for locating and extracting valuable minerals; they certainly enjoy modern-day prices for the products they produce. But mining on public lands is done under rules laid down by an archaic 19th Century law that long ago outlived its usefulness. Today's miners live in a kind of NeverNever Land where their rights on public lands supersede those of all others, where public assets are almost free for the taking and the government actually encourages speculators and amateur prospectors to tie up resources that might otherwise be developed by serious miners.

Hardrock mining is governed by the federal 1872 Mining Law, an act that declares mining to be the highest and best use of each and every acre of public land. The mining law was created at a time when settlement of the untamed western wilderness was a national priority. The law came out of an era that also saw vast regions of the West opened to homesteading or given away to railroads to encourage westward expansion. Timber, in those days, was free for the taking from public lands—as was virtually every other resource.

Under the 1872 law, miners continue to have free rein to explore for minerals on public lands. Anyone can lay claim to a chunk of national forest or Bureau of Land Management land, and they can treat the land much as their own private property so long as they make at least $100 worth of "improvements" annually. A miner who finds profitable deposits of minerals owns them and, for as little as $2.50 an acre, can obtain title to the land.

Once a claim is staked or later patented, there's no obligation to ever mine the property. As a result, amatuer miners can actually prevent serious miners from extracting valuable ore. Speculators, too, can obtain claims with the hope of selling them at great profit, rather than mining themselves. For example, the federal General Accounting Office this year reported that speculators acquired 82,000 acres of oil shale claims under terms of the 1872 law, then sold 17,000 acres of the claims for which the government received a paltry $42,500 - for $37 million.

In contrast, the oil and gas industry plays by an entirely different set of rules. An exploration company must lease public lands before drilling for oil or gas. If recoverable deposits are discovered, the company may pump them out and sell them but they must also pay a royalty, which is shared by the state and federal government. The same holds true for coal

mining, geothermal development and every other kind of resource extraction.

Americans are giving away billions of dollars worth of gold, silver, copper and other minerals each year, without collecting a dime in royalties. Meanwhile oil, gas, coal and other resources from public lands generate billions of dollars in royalties. Montana collects royalties on oil, gas and coal extracted from state lands, as well as a share of the royalties generated from those resources on federal lands. Last year, those royalties totaled nearly $28 million, a large percentage of which went into the School Trust Fund.

Mining is important to both the Montana and national economies. The industry produces the raw materials for many things our society wants and needs. Done properly, mining is compatible with many other uses of state and federal lands. But shouldn't hardrock miners pay their fair share through royalties? Of course they should. What's more, shouldn't the public retain ownership of its lands, even though the mineral deposits under ground are extracted? Yes, of

course."

Unlike miners, loggers can't assume ownership of public lands when they find harvestable timber. Neither can ranchers who find livestock forage on public lands. They must buy or lease the resources. Even commercial outfitters must pay a fee to do business on public lands. No one but a miner has the right to claim ownership of valuable public land for a nominal fee.

Sen. Dale Bumpers, D-Ark., has introduced legislation intended to bring the nation's centuryold mining law up to date. Although existing patented mining claims wouldn't be affected, new mines would have to be developed under rules comparable to those followed by other public-resource users.

Miners contend that their industry is unique, that they pay plenty through taxes, wages and has high capital costs, and that paying royalties reclamation. They also argue that their industry could make marginal mines unprofitable.

Yet the same arguments could be made by the other resource-extraction industries, which seem to prosper despite being governed by modern laws that aren't nearly as generous as the law governing miners. The simple fact is that it once was in the public interest to give miners the rights bestowed by the 1872 Mining Law, but that day's long past.

Don't blame the miners for resisting change in the law they've got a good deal, and they know it. Blame Congress and the federal bureaucracy for giving away public resources without due compensation to the American taxpayer.

Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, I appreciate this opportunity to speak today, your invitation and your willingness to listen to the thoughts and concerns of myself and The Cabinet Resource Group that I am representing here today. Our group is small compared to most of the groups represented here today. We have been 150 to 200, depending on how many people have currently paid their dues. But, in rural Montana that is a significant number of people.

You have my written testimony, so I am not going to read it to you. Instead I would like to give you some specific examples from our experience to refute a couple of arguments that have been made against this bill today and to illustrate the need for decisionmakers to be able to modify or even possibly deny mining.

I live on Lake Creek, which is downstream from the tailings pond of Asarco's Troy Project in northwestern Montana. It is the largest silver-copper mine operating in the United States. Across Lake Creek about 1 mile is the boundary of the Cabinet Mountain Wilderness, within which two mines, also copper-silver, are currently under development by Noranda and Asarco. There are in addition approximately, I believe, 15 other known outcroppings of this mineralization that could lead to other large mines and it promises to become, perhaps, the largest mining district in the world.

I will take the pledge with everybody else. We are not opposed to mining, even in our own backyard. Members of our group are working in the mine. One of our board members holds claims. We have worked closely with the United Mine Workers of America and bought a computer with a grant from them. We are working now with Noranda in a very amicable relationship thus far on a citizens advisory committee.

We are opposed to mining in a manner, as it has been done in the past, that will damage our water, our wildlife, and most especially our lifestyles and the economics of our communities. An argument has been brought up today that all the problems of mining are in the past and that things have changed and we don't have those problems any more. The Asarco mine is touted often as a state-of-the-art mine, and when it came in we were told there would be no problems. We were concerned because of the history of mining in Montana and also in the Silver Valley nearby in Idaho. Lake Creek, when it was tested before the mine came in, was the cleanest water ever tested up to that point in the State of Montana. It was the source of my drinking water and it was a classic clear mountain stream. Since it has been in operation at least a half a dozen times Lake Creek has run chocolate brown from various slumps and spills from the mine. It is now coated with silt and there is large algae blooms in it.

Some years later when we had hearings on the proposed Noranda mine we were again told that, "Well, those were problems in the past but now things are different." And I submit that we are always told, in 13 years of watching mining in Montana, that the problems are in the past but today we don't have those problems any more, and we haven't seen the problems go away.

Mr. Leonard in the first panel today stated that we didn't need to have authority to deny or modify mining because other laws,

State laws in particular, would allow not granting a permit, even though they didn't specify that mining could be denied. In theory this is true, but in actuality in our State, and I imagine it is very similar in other States in the West, the agencies are grossly underfunded and understaffed, lacking in the expertise. It is hard to find the spine to go up against a mining company that has spent a lot of money and has professionals and say, "Well, we think that this might be too detrimental to the water and so we are not going to let you mine." That just doesn't happen. And these State laws are not effective. You cannot prohibit the mining, I don't believe.

The problems with the tailings pond I have mentioned at the Troy Project. The Montana State Fish and Department of Wildlife and Parks some years ago brought a consultant, Donald Rackmuth, with Geomax, looking at the tailings pond, and he predicted that there would be problems of seeps and possible failures at one par ticular quadrant of the tailings pond. Subsequently we have had seeps appear exactly where he predicted-there is a hole there right now you can drop a couple of cars in-and it is coming into the creek.

Meanwhile, Noranda is proposing a mine with a very similar type of tailings pond, and so is Asarco. This is in a very steep mountainous area. Within 2 miles of where I am there is about 1 mile difference in elevation. We have also very heavy rainfall. Of all the possibilities of where Noranda could put their tailings pond, the best is an area that is essentially a marsh with artesian water, and the same consultant predicts that it will fail. A tailings pond there will fail.

Now, this isn't unanimous opinion by everybody looking at it, but there is an awful lot of people, including in the State agencies, very, very worried about the stability of a tailings pond. The site that Asarco is considering that would go into the Clark Fork, already the largest Superfund site in the country, is even worse.

So, it doesn't make sense, if it should turn out in the course of studies that siting a tailings pond there is almost inevitably or very, very possibly going to lead to failure, that we go ahead and allow mining there. There should be authority in this case to say no. Or more importantly, there has been a lot of talk about the authority to just say no, but in actual practice what would more often be necessary is that things could be modified, perhaps putting tailings back into a mine or a new-in this particular case with Nor anda, new technology for treating the water. There is no authority there now, or recognized at least by the agencies, to require that this new technology be implemented or that tailings be put back into the mine, and this authority needs to be there.

And I guess that is about all I have got to say right now. I will be glad to answer any questions or elaborate on anything I have said. Thank you very much.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Martin follows:]

Bill Martin, Vice President
Cabinet Resource Group

Mr. Chairman, Members of the House:

Thank you for this opportunity to express frustration with the 1872 Mining Act in a constructive manner. It is long past time to update this antiquated law, and I hope my comments may be of some use to you in that regard.

My name is Bill Martin. I live in Lincoln County, in the Northwestern corner of Montana, where I make my living as a forestry contractor. I am a member and current vice president of the Cabinet Resource Group, a citizens involvement group of approximately 175 members, and it is on their behalf that I am speaking here today.

I live on Lake Creek, downstream from the tailings pond of Asarco's Troy project, the largest silver-copper mine in the United States. On the east side of this drainage is the Cabinet Mountains. Wilderness in which two larger mines are currently being developed by Asarco and Noranda. A number of other copper-silver deposits are know to occur in this area, which promises to become the largest mining district in the country, if not the world.

I'd like to make it clear at the outset that our group is not opposed to mining, even in our own backyard. Some of our members are employed by Asarco, one of our board members is a small miner, and we purchased our computer with a grant from the United Mine Workers of America. While not opposed to mining, we are opposed to its continuance in a manner that is detrimental to our wellbeing, our water, and our wildlife.

Montana was

once famous for Butte, "the richest hill on earth." That hill is now a huge pit filling with toxic water. Buttes' economy is struggling out of collapse, and Montana is now infamous as the home of the largest super-fund site in the country. This situation should be an amply sufficient example of the inadequacies of the 1872 Mining Law.