Reform mining law.

Byline: The Register-Guard

If U.S. Rep. Nick Rahall wants to persuade fellow lawmakers to support his proposed overhaul of the nation's 19th century mining law, the West Virginia Democrat should give them a tour of the Oregon backcountry, where abandoned mines - and the environmental nightmares they can create - abound.

As The Register-Guard's Diane Dietz described in a series of articles last year, the list of polluted mining sites includes the Formosa mine on Silver Butte at the headwaters of an Umpqua River tributary. Each year, an estimated 5 million gallons of acidic water laden with toxic metals gushes from a maze of shafts on the 76-acre site. The water flows into nearby streams, posing what the Environmental Protection Agency calls a "serious, ongoing threat" to humans and the environment. The federal agency has proposed adding the site to the Superfund list of the nation's worst toxic waste sites.

For the past 135 years, hard-rock mining on public lands in the West has been governed by a law signed by President Ulysses Grant. Enacted to promote mineral exploration and development in the West, the General Mining Law of 1872 has become what Rahall rightly calls the "Jurassic Park of all federal laws."

The federal government requires the oil, gas and other industries that extract natural resources from public lands to pay royalties. But the mining law gives metal mining companies a pass. Under the law, federal land can even be sold for a $2.50 or $5 pittance per acre, although Congress has wisely maintained a moratorium on such sales in recent years.

The law lacks even rudimentary environmental safeguards and provides no mechanism for the public to halt a mining operation on federal land, even if it's believed to be causing irreparable harm. As a result, 135 years of mining have saddled the nation with polluted sites that would cost an estimated $50 billion to clean. In the few instances when mine sites are actually cleaned up, taxpayers usually end up footing the bill.

Rahall's bill would require hard- rock miners to pay an 8 percent royalty that would go into a fund to clean up abandoned mine sites and to assist mining communities. It would establish an environmental standard for mining on federal land and require companies to have an operations plan, a reclamation plan and evidence of financial assurances to carry them out.

It would limit operations permits to 10 years, subject to renewal, and mandate that mining sites be restored after operations cease. Finally, the bill would provide inspection and enforcement requirements and allow citizens to enforce them through civil lawsuits, if necessary.

While previous reform efforts have failed, there's reason to hope Rahall can succeed. With the industry thriving - mining claims have soared 50 percent in the past five years and commodity prices are at record highs - it's hard for the industry to argue that reform will drive it out of business. The National Mining Association recently stated that it's willing to work with Rahall to ensure passage of a "fair, predictable and efficient" mining law.

The shift to a Democratic majority in Congress also bodes well for mining reform. Rahall heads the pivotal House Natural Resources Committee, which previously was headed by Rep. Richard Pombo. Pombo was a California Republican whose idea of mining reform was a mercifully short-lived proposal to lift the moratorium on the sale of federal land to mining companies and make millions of acres available at bargain basement prices.

The most formidable obstacle facing Rahall's proposal may be Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a gold miner's son from Nevada, the top gold-producing state in the nation. During the Clinton administration, Reid played a key role in defeating several attempts to overhaul federal mining law, although he now says he recognizes the need for reform and intends to work closely with Rahall on his proposal.

If Reid's commitment to reform falters, Rahall might consider offering Reid a tour of Oregon's back- country.