Congress would allow mines to be dumped on public land. Don't let them

Congress wants to roll back protections in an already weak and outdated mining law. Don’t let them.

Thomas Wiewandt
| opinion contributor

Arizona’s water laws are very outdated on several fronts, so changes to federal laws that affect the safety and security of our disappearing water supplies should concern all Arizonans and deserve careful review.

On May 8, the United States House of Representatives voted to approve House Resolution 2925Mining Regulatory Clarity Act of 2024 –– a bill strongly opposed by the Biden administration and still awaiting approval in the Senate.

Politicians and mining executives came up with this bill to overturn the Rosemont decision, an Arizona District Court decision that was upheld by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2022.

The decision temporarily blocked the proposed Rosemont copper mine in southern Arizona that wanted to dump its waste in a national forest.

Bill would allow mines to be dumped on public land

HR 2925 – written under the guise of “reforming” the Mining Act of 1872 – represents a step backwards from an already outdated law. It loosens regulations needed to protect our public lands and water supplies.

If signed into law, the legislation would allow large-scale mining companies to dump tailings and other mining byproducts on our public lands, including sites sacred to Native Americans, that are outside the boundaries of original mining claims allowed under the General Mining Act of 1872.

Oak Flat is sacred: But it can fall on money, politics

The 1872 law, written to encourage westward expansion during California’s Gold Rush days, still regulates most hard rock mines in the West.

It allows individuals and companies – domestic and alien – to stake claims to exclusive rights to hard rock mineral deposits on our federal “public domain”.

Most hard rock mines are thus located on properties belonging to the American public. And mining companies pay no royalties to the federal government for this privilege.

Mining legislation is already too weak when it comes to pollution

Additionally, this outdated law does not require mining operators to disclose the amount or value of the minerals they extract – so what they take cannot be properly monitored or regulated.

In September 2018, there were 748 mining on federal land –– many of them controlled by foreign companies that can ship their loot overseas.

our”land that is public property” – mostly in 11 western states – is now managed by the Bureau of Land Management (77%) and the US Forest Service (18%).

In 2004, the EPA estimated that the backlog of cleanup costs for hard rock mines across the country could amount to 54 billion dollars. New BLM regulations added in 1976, 1981 and 2001 have tightened environmental controls and cleanup requirements.

But regulations now require that the mining companies self-monitoring water quality on site –– really?!

This can affect air and land for miles around

To reach ore deposits through surface mining, thousands of hectares of waste rock must be removed, which requires a lot of blasting, crushing and hauling.

Copper oxide ore, for example, rarely contains more than 2% copper by weight. Waste is thrown into huge waste heaps, where minerals, which are harmless underground, can become toxic in the presence of air and water.

The wind can carry toxic dust from waste over great distances.

To concentrate copper, oxide ores must be finely ground and leached into a solution of water and sulfuric acid, a process known as high leaching. So it’s no surprise that acid mine drainage is a major source of surface and groundwater pollution.

Runoff after a heavy summer monsoon storm can quickly spread toxins to off-site water bodies, and “containment” plans rarely work as hoped.

A 2019 audit of the West’s 15 operating copper mines (10 in Arizona) revealed that all but one failed to capture and control wastewater, resulting in substandard water quality in nearby communities and environmental safety hazards.

Don’t vote for someone who would weaken it more

To make matters worse, a 2023 US Supreme Court decision — Sackett v. EPA — restricts waters that the federal government has the authority to protect under the Clean Water Act of 1972. The court ruled that the EPA can only protect wetlands and waterways with a year-round surface connection to rivers, lakes and other navigable waters.

In effect, then, none of Arizona’s intermittent surface or underground water sources can benefit from federal oversight, creating the conditions for corporate abuse.

So now it is entirely up to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality to decide what is allowed and what is not.

The mining industry is fully aware of loopholes in our federal and state regulations, and one can expect hollow or impossible promises of environmental protection in their proposals.

They will cut back wherever possible to save money. Non-compliance appears to be the norm rather than the exception.

The takeaway? If you think Arizona has a shot at a safer and more sustainable future, review the candidates carefully before you vote.

According to the Harvard Law Review, Trump’s 2016-2020 administration weakened or invalid at least 80 regulations and climate policies needed for the expansion of clean energy and environmental protection. These changes have had a big impact at Arizona.

Your vote in the 2024 presidential election could affect environmental funding and bipartisan protections that have taken decades to establish.

Thomas Wiewandt is a field ecologist and educational media producer at wildhorizons.com. He graduated with an MS in Zoology from the University of Arizona and a PhD in Ecology & Evolutionary Biology from Cornell. Reach him at [email protected].

Congress would allow mines to be dumped on public land. Don’t let them