Mining reform bill to overturn land sales is pulled

WASHINGTON — A piece of controversial mining reform legislation that would overturn a congressional ban on selling some public lands for their mineral deposits has been pulled by its sponsor.

The proposal to end the ban on "patenting" — buying public land at cheap prices if the land contains deposits — is being revised to appease environmentalists as well as Western congressmen and governors who oppose it.

At least three Republican senators, several Democratic Western governors, hunters, anglers, ski area representatives and legal professors have criticized the original language. Several Western senators have indicated they may not support the budget bill, designed to cut federal spending, if the provision is not removed.

Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., pulled a "direct sale" provision of pending changes to the 1872 Mining Laws that would allow companies to buy land near an existing mine.

Opponents called it a land grab and feared the public lands would be sold off and rules inappropriately changed. The House Resources Committee Republicans, who wrote the language, called it "hysteria" that led many to believe the provision removed the mining law's requirement to show a mineral deposit before patenting.

The committee said it just allowed the Interior Department to sell a mining company land that is contiguous to its operation and only after meeting the strict requirements.

Gibbons said he pulled the proposal because the issue needs more time and debate. But environmental groups, sportmen's organizations, ski resorts and other outdoor recreationers still don't like the proposed changes that remain.

"I don't see how Mr. Gibbons has solved the problem," said Velma Smith, mining campaign director at the National Environmental Trust, noting that he has removed the most poorly written part of the bill. But the proposal to lift the federal ban on mining patents without royalties for taxpayers to collect on the minerals pulled out of the mines remains.

The Environmental Working Group did an analysis this fall that found 367, 244 acres of public land in Utah that could be sold were the proposal approved, and 32.4 million acres would be at risk because someone could file a mining claim even without minerals on the land. Opponents also claim that once the land is purchased, even if mineral work is done, the land could just be sold to developers who want to build anything from houses to ski resorts.

Carol Raulston, spokeswoman for the National Mining Association, which supports the reforms, said those who want a patent on federal land still have to show a mineral is there before buying it.

The proposed changes still raise patenting costs from between $2.50 to $5 an acre to a minimum of $1,000 an acre or fair market value, whichever is more.

A company would have to do $7,500 worth of mineral assessment work — work that is generally done by mining companies or experts — before it would have the option to buy the land, Raulston said.

---

E-mail: suzanne@desnews.com