Environmental Groups Call on Congress and Administration to Place New Priority on Comprehensive Mining Law Reform-Protect America's Public Lands and Resources from Abusive Mining Activities

Washington, D.C. (May 21, 1999) - Congress passed the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill to provide relief funding for Kosovo and victims of Hurricane Mitch. The bill contains a rider, attached at the request of Senator Slade Gorton (R-WA), that would exempt a cyanide process gold mine in his home state from current legal limits on mine waste dumping. The bill could be voted on by the Senate, and signed by the president, today or tomorrow.

Senator Gorton's gold mine rider illustrates the mining industry's scandalous hold on Congress. For years, Congress has rejected efforts to reform the outdated 1872 Mining Law and protect America's public lands and resources from irresponsible and inappropriate mining. The damage to date: more than $240 billion mineral giveaways from public lands, with $0 return to U.S. taxpayers; more than 500,000 abandoned mines (with a cleanup cost of $32 billion to $72 billion); 12,000 miles of polluted streams; and 180,000 acres of polluted lakes.

Not only does this "gold mine rider" set a potential precedent for exempting mines from waste-dumping limits, it would result in a giveaway of an estimated $500 million in gold reserves to mining company Battle Mountain Gold, with a $0 return to taxpayers.

Environmental groups are calling on the Clinton-Gore Administration to stop the giveaways to mining companies, and address the 1872 Mining Law through open public debate, not behind closed doors. "The great gold heist continues, but now it goes behind closed doors. Another $500 million in public gold given away to a gold mining company, a valuable piece of public land in Washington State decimated, and no-limits on mine waste dumping. It's time for the Clinton-Gore Administration to draw a line and end the special favors to mining companies," said Stephen D'Esposito, president of Mineral Policy Center. "Stealth attacks on environmental protection should not be tolerated, not by this administration, not by any administration. Those in Congress who seek to roll-back environmental safeguards should have the courage to do it in the open," he added.

"They want to blast away Buckhorn Mountain and dump cyanide-saturated waste over a creek bed. But rather than debate this openly, the rider was attached behind closed doors and drafted by mining industry attorneys. For the sake of our mountain, our streams, and good public policy, the Administration and Congress must draw the line on irresponsible and inappropriate mining," said Dave Kliegman of the Okanogan Highlands Alliance, a community group made up of members who live near the proposed Crown Jewel mine site. "The Colville Tribe, Governor Locke, and community leaders across the state oppose deciding this issue with a closed-door rider," he continued. TOP

Money and politics wins over truth and justice

Judge rules Heath District can exempt BMG from Solid Waste permit

On January 21, 1999 Superior Court Judge for Okanogan County, Jack Burchard dismissed a lawsuit brought by the Okanogan Highlands Alliance against Okanogan Health District and County for exempting Battle Mountain Gold's proposed gold mine from needing solid waste permits for it's tailings and waste rock facilities for what would be Washington States first large scale open-pit, cyanide-leach gold mine.

Washington State Superior Court ruled that Okanogan County Health District could exempt the tailings and waste rock from needing a solid waste permit because the state legislature had validated the the right of local jurisdictions to grant exemption irregardless if the exemption was right or wrong. However, in his decision the judge said that the Health Dept was probably wrong in saying that the waste rock was inert and that the mine waste was exempt from solid waste laws. He states that "BMG conceded at one point that 10% to 15% of the waste rock has the potential for generating acid or metals leachate." So even though the water quality permit indicates that the waste rock will not be inert and that the discharge from it will not meet state standards, the legislature overrode the ability of the court to hear substantive issues of the case.

This mine has been delayed this long because it has not been able to meet clean water standards. Instead of accepting this reality lobbyists and politicians created a loophole for the company to crawl through to exempt it from the law that everyone else has had to follow. To top it off, BMG has proposed a permanent water treatment plant because their promised "pristine alpine lake" will not meet standards either.

The state has issued permits even though the mine is predicted not to meet standards and Okanogan Health District was wrong in it's reasoning for exempting the waste rock facility. Is this pollution an acceptable price for everyone to pay in perpetuity for some short term jobs? Any reasonable person would insist, that the water quality would be protected and that our local government would act with integrity and correct the mistake.

Waste rock and tailings should not be dumped on top of a creek. Runoff from these sources is one of the major killers of streams in the West. A decision that could injure the health and safety of County residents shouldn't be issued by the Health Department. Battle Mountain Gold proposes to dispose of 9,000,000 tons of tailings material in Marias Creek and its associated wetlands as well as 135,000,000 tons of waste rock in unlined waste rock dumps. This material is not inert and is potentially dangerous. TOP

Lacey, Washington, May 11, 1998, Attorneys for OHA, the Washington Environmental Council, the Center for Environmental Law & Policy (CELP), and the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation presented evidence before the Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB) regarding the inequity of granting large water rights to Battle Mountain Gold Co. (BMG) of Houston, Texas while denying even small quantities of water to local farmers and ranchers.

Two weeks before this trial, Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) and BMG, in response to our experts' criticism, changed their streamflow depletion predictions and their precipitation estimates, forcing them to increase their mitigation quantities up to 50%. They also added an additional mitigation pipeline to release water from the pit lake into Nicholson Creek for previously undetected permanent reductions. On cross examination by Rachael Paschal of CELP, Carol Fleskus, the water rights decision maker for Ecology, admitted that she did not know how much water was available for appropriation in Myers or Toroda Creeks, how much water was already appropriated, or how many exempt wells there are in the basins, and did not consider the impact of BMG's water right on future water rights applications. Ms. Fleskus did not consider wetlands as part of the public interest test or the impacts to wetland recharge, nor did Ecology determine flows necessary for channel maintenance.

In an outline of the Pros and Cons of a yes or no decision about BMG's water rights, Ms. Fleskus wrote that mitigation is not a proven system; therefore it could fail. The problem is unlike other mitigation systems, the impacts like the pit lake are not tied to a water withdrawal that could be terminated to stop the impact . The only recourse is through a financial security system, but no surety has yet been established for the recently added changes to the mitigation plan. She admitted that administering the mitigation system would take a long-term commitment of agency monitoring and enforcement even though no financial surety is in place. On the pros side of a no decision she states, "That the mitigation proposal pushes the envelope beyond what is in the public interest." She admits that the perpetual part of the mitigation proposal is unique in the agencies experience and that she had no policy standards or guidance from Ecology. In a surprising confession, Ms. Fleskus admitted not knowing whether she was required to consider impacts to senior water rights holders in Canada other than Mr. Harpur.

Throughout the remainder of the seven day hearing Adam Berger, of Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund did a skillful job at getting BMG's and Ecology's expert witnesses to admit that there could still be a fair amount of uncertainty in their predictions.

TOP