MINING BILL CALLED DANGER TO INDUSTRY.

Byline: Jason Takenouchi Staff Writer

A one-paragraph congressional bill designed to kill a controversial Santa Clarita Valley mining plan could have repercussions across the country, mining officials say.

The bill, by Rep. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, R-Santa Clarita, would outlaw mining on a 460-acre Soledad Canyon site, negating a 9-year-old contract between Houston-based cement giant Southdown Inc. and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.

The $336 million project already faces a mountain of opposition from valley residents over health, traffic and environmental issues. McKeon said he drafted HR 3060 in response to those concerns.

But mining industry officials say the bill is irresponsible and dangerous.

``This really is an unprecedented, reactionary response to non-science issues,'' said Steve Bledsoe, president of the Southern California Rock Products Association, an industry trade group.

According to Bledsoe and others in the industry, the bill could have a chilling effect on the industry because it invalidates a standing contract and is unusually specific to a single target.

``It affects the whole of the mining industry,'' Bledsoe said. ``If this happens in this particular area, what's to keep it from happening again and again and again with each and every mining operation in any state?''

Southdown spokesman Brian Mastin said the legislation, if passed, could cost his company millions of dollars. And it will send a message to other mining companies as well, he said.

``Who would want to bid on a project, spend a bunch of money pursuing it, and have the federal government not honoring its commitments at the last minute?'' Mastin said.

The bill has been sent to the House Committee on Resources, and McKeon spokesman David Foy said it likely will not proceed further this year.

Foy acknowledged the bill faces an uphill battle in Congress, where Southdown - the country's second-largest cement manufacturer - and the mining industry have heavy influence.

Southdown contributed $156,200 in soft money and political action committee money to Republicans and Democrats between Jan. 1, 1997, and June 30, 1999, according to Common Cause, a Washington, D.C.-based watchdog group. The mining industry contributed $1.27 million to Republicans and $428,078 to Democrats in soft money and PAC money over the same period.

But Foy said that McKeon considers the bill a top priority despite possible heavy opposition.

``He considers the bill to be recognition that the project must have the support of the community to move forward,'' Foy said.

Southdown began investing in the project in 1989, when it won the BLM's court-ordered competitive bid for mining rights on the parcel.

Southdown signed contracts with the BLM in 1990. As part of the deal, it agreed to pay $28 million in royalties to the federal government; Los Angeles County would receive about $560,000 of those royalties.

Since then, the project has wound its way through the county and the BLM environmental approval processes, facing heavy opposition from valley residents along the way. The comment period for the federal environmental impact study ends Jan. 3, and the county planning commission has not yet voted on the mining proposal.

Project supporters say the plan is needed to replenish dwindling supplies of sand and gravel aggregates that are used to construct roads, houses and schools.

If the BLM and the county approve the plan, Southdown subsidiary Transit Mixed Concrete Co. of Azusa would mine 83 million tons of material from the Soledad Canyon site over a 20-year period.

About 56 million tons would be sold as aggregate. The remaining material, called ``fines,'' would be stored on-site.

The company estimates that the site would save about $170 million in transport costs - and millions of truck miles - compared to alternative sites in Orange County and the Antelope Valley. Much of those savings would be passed on to public works projects.

The mine is especially important, they say, because the San Fernando Valley will run out of aggregates by 2001, according to estimates by the state Department of Conservation.

Opponents counter that the plan's environmental effects - including air pollution and the fouling of the valley's water supply - outweigh its benefits.

The project is expected to create thousands of pounds of air pollutants daily, including carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and PM-10s. PM-10s, or dust particles smaller than 10 microns in diameter, are blamed for a range of respiratory problems.

The nearest residential area - a small mobile home park - is within a quarter-mile of the project, and thousands of people live within three or four miles of the site.

Opposition goes far beyond the so-called ``Not In My Backyard'' position, said Jim Duzick, president of the town council for Agua Dulce, a nearby community.

``It's a case of appropriate land use, of industrial mining next to residential areas,'' he said. ``The public was not served in this situation.''

Duzick and other anti-mine activists applauded McKeon's move, comparing it to his 1996 action against a proposed dump in the nearby Elsmere Canyon area.

But both McKeon and mining industry officials agree the current situation is significantly different than the Elsmere situation.

In this case, the federal government has already signed contracts with Southdown, and the company said it has invested millions of dollars based on those contracts.

The Soledad Canyon site also has a history of mining - albeit with smaller operations - and the site is within a state-designated significant resource area for construction aggregate.

Southdown lawyer Kerry Shapiro said the project's fate should be determined by the ongoing environmental reviews, not legislation.

``This type of legislation could have a chilling effect on the industry and the whole process by which the BLM puts out its public land minerals to bid,'' he said.

William D. Kelleher, vice president of government affairs for the National Stone Association, agreed.

``It would make it extremely difficult for an industry that had to make long-term capital investments to operate,'' he said. ``You need some certainty.''

The legislation also puts McKeon - a self-described conservative Republican and champion of property rights - in an unusual position.

While the BLM owns the mineral rights in the project area, another company - Curtis Sand & Gravel - owns the surface rights. Curtis Sand owner Ben Curtis has also come out against the legislation, calling it a ``taking'' of his rights to develop the property in the future.

``It's far too broad,'' said Curtis, a Santa Clarita resident.

If the community is willing to accept a smaller mining project, Curtis said, ``I don't think we should be precluded from being able to do that.''

Foy countered that McKeon's bill would actually help Curtis by forcing out Southdown. Curtis - the losing bidder in the 1989 BLM mining rights auction - is an outspoken critic of the Southdown plan.

``Congressman McKeon very strongly believes in property rights,'' Foy said. ``He doesn't do this sort of thing lightly.''

CAPTION(S):

Map

Map: (color in AV edition only) Proposed project site on Soledad Canyon Road