**Statement of Dusty Horwitt, JD**

Public Lands Analyst, Environmental Working Group

Oversight Hearing on Hardrock Mining on Federal Land Before the Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Thursday, September 27, 2007
at 9:30 a.m.

Submitted for the Record

## 

## Summary

Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of the Committee: My name is Dusty
Horwitt, and I am a Public Lands Analyst at Environmental Working Group
(EWG), a nonprofit research and advocacy organization based in
Washington, DC, and Oakland, California. I thank the members of the
Committee for this opportunity to testify.

For the last several years, the Environmental Working Group has analyzed
mining claims on federal land, using computerized data provided by the
Bureau of Land Management.

Mr. Chairman, what we have found is a frenzy of claim staking that is
escalating each day and threatens a crisis for many of America's most
treasured wild places and national parks, including the Grand Canyon,
where there has been an explosion of uranium mining claims. This
modern-day land rush is driven by the sky-high price of uranium, gold
and other metals caused by demand from China, the United States and
players around the globe.

Since 2003, claims on all public land in 12 Western states have
increased by 80 percent. This dramatic surge in claims could be
extremely problematic because once a claim is staked, the federal
government interprets mining law as providing virtually no way to stop
hard rock mining at that site, short of buying out mining claims or
other congressional intervention, even when mining is in plain view of
national parks such as the Grand Canyon.

As you well know, a valid mining claim gives the claim holder the
opportunity to mine on federal land and can be staked without government
approval or oversight wherever land is open to mining. This Wild West
approach stands in stark contrast to the approval required through the
oil and gas leasing program where the public has an opportunity to
participate in decisions that affect public lands. As anyone knows who
has been in the West in the past five years, this approval process has
not in any way stymied oil and gas exploration.

More than four years of analysis of mining claims has led us to one
inescapable conclusion: Under the current, wide open mining law, vast
portions of the American West are at the mercy of global demand for
minerals. This is simply unacceptable. Without changes to the law,
global demand for minerals could easily result in situations where
companies begin prospecting and developing mining claims right next to
incomparable wonders like the Grand Canyon, other national parks and
wilderness areas, or even local water supplies.

Globalization has finally caught up with the 1872 Mining Act and
rendered it totally and definitively obsolete. The West is not as big as
it used to be. With growing demand for metals we do not need a Mining
Law designed to encourage mining; we need a mining law that both permits
mining, but also protects, without wavering, our most important natural
places and resources.

![](media/image1.png){width="3.375in"
height="2.797222222222222in"}**Active Mining Claims Increased More than
80% since January 2003**

Our research shows that in 12 Western states, the number of active
mining claims has increased from 207,540 in January 2003 to 376,493 in
July 2007, a rise of more than 80 percent. Over an eight-month period,
from last September to this May, the BLM recorded more than 50,000 new
mining claims. Claims as of July 2007 covered an estimated 9.3 million
acres.

Source: Environmental Working Group analysis of Bureau of Land
Management\'s LR2000 Database, July 2007 download.

We have seen this increase in every Western state, with claims for all
metals increasing by 50 percent or more in Arizona, Colorado, New
Mexico, Nevada, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming.

Mining claims have increased in every one of twelve Western states.

+-------------+----------------------+--------------------+-----------+
| # State     | **Claims active as   | **Claims active as | **Percent |
|             | of**                 | of**               | I         |
|             |                      |                    | ncrease** |
|             | **January 2003**     | **July 2007**      |           |
+-------------+----------------------+--------------------+-----------+
| Arizona     | 22,711               | 40,670             | 79%       |
+-------------+----------------------+--------------------+-----------+
| California  | 18,981               | 22,494             | 19%       |
+-------------+----------------------+--------------------+-----------+
| Colorado    | 5,430                | 18,391             | 239%      |
+-------------+----------------------+--------------------+-----------+
| Idaho       | 10,598               | 13,013             | 23%       |
+-------------+----------------------+--------------------+-----------+
| Montana     | 10,554               | 12,779             | 21%       |
+-------------+----------------------+--------------------+-----------+
| New Mexico  | 7,550                | 11,348             | 50%       |
+-------------+----------------------+--------------------+-----------+
| Nevada      | 100,972              | 179,773            | 78%       |
+-------------+----------------------+--------------------+-----------+
| Oregon      | 5,088                | 6,087              | 20%       |
+-------------+----------------------+--------------------+-----------+
| South       | 1,030                | 2,340              | 127%      |
| Dakota      |                      |                    |           |
+-------------+----------------------+--------------------+-----------+
| Utah        | 8,723                | 28,968             | 232%      |
+-------------+----------------------+--------------------+-----------+
| Washington  | 2,193                | 2,492              | 14%       |
+-------------+----------------------+--------------------+-----------+
| Wyoming     | 13,710               | 38,138             | 178%      |
+-------------+----------------------+--------------------+-----------+
| 12 state    | 207,540              | 376,493            | 81%       |
| total       |                      |                    |           |
+-------------+----------------------+--------------------+-----------+

Source: Environmental Working Group analysis of Bureau of Land
Management\'s LR2000 Database, July 2007 download.

Attached to the end of this statement are maps of several Western states
that show the locations of active claims.

Many of the new claims are for uranium. The BLM reports that the
estimated number of uranium claims staked in Colorado, New Mexico, Utah
and Wyoming combined increased approximately 750 percent from less than
4,300 in fiscal year 2004 to more than 32,000 in fiscal year 2006.

![](media/image2.wmf)Source: Bureau of Land Management

Many of the claims for all metals are being staked by foreign mining
companies and speculators who could mine the land or sell to
multinational corporations. Mining companies often extract minerals
using techniques involving toxic chemicals, giant earthmoving equipment,
sprawling road networks and vast quantities of water where water is a
precious, scarce resource.

This land rush is sweeping the West despite the remnants of an earlier
generation of uranium mines that have left a legacy of death and
disease, despite the fact that mining as a whole is our leading source
of toxic pollution and despite the fact that mining claims give
companies a right to mine that effectively supercedes efforts to protect
the environment and preserve our American heritage.

In the face of a landslide of global economic forces that threaten many
of our most valued natural places and the health of people all across
the American West, the 1872 Mining Law offers the legal equivalent of a
pick and a shovel.

The following photo images were produced by EWG by linking federal data
on mining claims with Google Earth satellite photos of national parks.
They show the clear threats to some of our most treasured national parks
and depict areas that bear the legacy of past uranium mining pollution.

**815 Mining Claims within 5 Miles of Grand Canyon National Park, 805
Staked Since January 2003**

![](media/image3.png){width="6.151388888888889in"
height="5.670833333333333in"}

Source: Environmental Working Group analysis of Bureau of Land
Management\'s LR2000 Database, July 2007 download.

This satellite image of Grand Canyon National Park shows mining claims
featured in blue and uranium claims identified with the yellow and black
radiation symbol, clustered on both the north and south rims. We found
that as of July, mining interests held 815 claims within five miles of
the Park, 805 of them staked since January 2003. Many of these claims
are for uranium.

A Canadian company, Quaterra Resources, has already proposed to drill
exploratory holes for uranium on claims just north of the Canyon. The
operation would include a helicopter pad to carry supplies in and out.
The idea of uranium mining near America's greatest national treasure is
troubling and the thought of helicopter flights of radioactive material
in an area already crisscrossed by dozens of tourist flyovers a day is
even more disconcerting.

The same explosion of claims has occurred in the canyon country of
southern Utah and Colorado.

**869 Mining Claims within 5 Miles of Arches National Park, 864 Staked
Since January 2003;**

**233 Mining Claims within 5 Miles of Canyonlands National Park, All
Staked Since January 2003**

![](media/image4.png){width="5.90625in" height="5.697222222222222in"}

Source: Environmental Working Group analysis of Bureau of Land
Management\'s LR2000 Database, July 2007 download. Uranium claims and
companies/individuals with uranium interests were identified through BLM
records and other public documents.

Many of these claims are also for uranium. Arches National Park in Utah
has 869 claims within five miles of its boundary, 864 of them staked
since January 2003. Nearby, Canyonlands National Park has 233 claims
within five miles, all staked since January 2003. Many of the claims on
the Colorado side are near lands treasured for their scenic and
recreational values.

A third national park threatened by mining claims is California's Death
Valley. Here, mining interests have staked 1,693 claims within five
miles, 503 since January 2003.

**1,693 Mining Claims within 5 Miles of Death Valley National Park, 503
Staked Since January 2003**

![](media/image5.jpeg){width="6.028472222222222in"
height="5.219444444444444in"}

Source: Environmental Working Group analysis of Bureau of Land
Management\'s LR2000 Database, July 2007 download.

Without proper safeguards for our public lands, protecting national
parks from these claims can be very costly. In 1996, the federal
government paid \$65 million to buy out patented claims just three miles
from Yellowstone National Park that would have been the site of a major
gold mine. The mine would have been located at the headwaters of three
streams that flow into the park.

**National Parks and Monuments with mining claims within five miles
include:**

+-----------------------------------+---+---------+---+-----------------------+
| **Park or Monument**              |   | *       |   | **Claims Staked       |
|                                   |   | *Active |   | Since**               |
|                                   |   | C       |   |                       |
|                                   |   | laims** |   | **Jan. 2003**         |
+-----------------------------------+---+---------+---+-----------------------+
| Death Valley National Park, CA    |   | 1,693   |   | 503                   |
| and NV                            |   |         |   |                       |
+-----------------------------------+---+---------+---+-----------------------+
| Arches National Park, UT          |   | 869     |   | 864                   |
+-----------------------------------+---+---------+---+-----------------------+
| Grand Canyon National Park, AZ    |   | 815     |   | 805                   |
+-----------------------------------+---+---------+---+-----------------------+
| Joshua Tree National Park, CA     |   | 409     |   | 117                   |
+-----------------------------------+---+---------+---+-----------------------+
| Canyonlands National Park, UT     |   | 233     |   | 233                   |
+-----------------------------------+---+---------+---+-----------------------+
| Mt. Saint Helens National         |   | 204     |   | 105                   |
| Volcanic Monument, WA             |   |         |   |                       |
+-----------------------------------+---+---------+---+-----------------------+
| Capitol Reef National Park, UT    |   | 161     |   | 151                   |
+-----------------------------------+---+---------+---+-----------------------+
| Great Basin National Park, NV     |   | 154     |   | 18                    |
+-----------------------------------+---+---------+---+-----------------------+
| Yosemite National Park, CA        |   | 83      |   | 50                    |
+-----------------------------------+---+---------+---+-----------------------+
| Zion National Park, UT            |   | 66      |   | 54                    |
+-----------------------------------+---+---------+---+-----------------------+
| Yellowstone National Park, ID,    | 2 |         | 1 |                       |
| MT, WY                            | 1 |         |   |                       |
+-----------------------------------+---+---------+---+-----------------------+

#### The Legacy of Uranium Mining

Near the top left of the Utah/Colorado map on page six is the town of
Moab, Utah. The Department of Energy has begun a project to clean up 16
million tons of radioactive uranium mine waste near Moab that have
contaminated land near the Colorado River. The waste is a threat that
could pollute drinking water for millions. Cleanup estimates range
between \$412 million and \$697 million and, according to the Department
of Energy, the project could last until 2028.

You'll also note the town of Monticello, Utah at the far south of the
map. Colorado's Grand Junction *Daily Sentinel* recently reported that
residents of Monticello claim unusually high rates of cancer they
believe were caused by a now-closed uranium mill.

The *Los Angeles Times* reported in a landmark series last year how
uranium mining has left a legacy of cancer and a degenerative disease
known as Navajo Neuropathy on the Navajo reservation that includes
Arizona, Colorado, Utah and New Mexico.

Uranium mining companies have said that a process called "in situ
leaching" will reduce environmental harm, but the practice raises
significant concerns about contamination of groundwater according to the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
In this type of mining, chemicals are injected underground to leach
uranium out of subterranean deposits. While the USGS and NRC state that
in situ leaching "in general" is less harmful than traditional uranium
mining and milling, "the use of leaching fluids to mine uranium
contaminates the groundwater aquifer in and around the region from which
the uranium is extracted." The agencies add that "groundwater
restoration represents a substantial portion of the cost of
decommissioning at a uranium leach mining facility."

# Mining is the Nation's Leading Source of Toxic Pollution

But uranium mining is hardly the only cause for concern. According to
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Toxics Release Inventory
(TRI), metal mining as a whole is the leading source of toxic pollution
in the United States -- a distinction the industry has held for eight
consecutive years (1998-2005), ever since mining was added to the TRI
list.

The EPA has also reported that more than 40 percent of Western
watersheds have mining contamination in their headwaters. The total cost
of cleaning up metal mining sites throughout the West is an estimated
\$32 billion or more.

# Unearthing Pollution

The extraordinary pollution generated by metal mining is caused largely
by digging and the sheer size of contemporary mining operations. Modern
mining practices are a far cry from the use of mules and pick axes that
were common during the late 1800s when the Mining Law was written. In
part, the techniques have changed because concentrated deposits of gold
and other metals are largely gone. Mining companies now excavate
\"mineralized deposits,\" or ore that contains microscopic amounts of
precious metal.

To extract the amount of ore they desire, modern mining operations
typically have to remove enormous quantities of rock and dirt with
heavy, earthmoving equipment. The holes they dig can exceed one mile in
diameter and 1,000 feet in depth.

Mining companies commonly use cyanide or other chemicals to extract the
metal. In this process, companies place the huge quantities of rock and
earth on a plastic-lined heap leach pad and then spray or drip cyanide
over the pile. As the cyanide trickles through the heap, it binds to the
precious metal. The mining company then collects the metal from the
cyanide solution in liquid-filled pits at the base of the rock pile

Cyanide and other chemicals can poison water, land and wildlife near
mines, but most mining pollution results from digging. When mining
companies dig for metals, they expose sulfur-laden rock to air and
water, resulting in the formation of sulfuric acid. The acid often
drains away from the mine site into ground or surface water where it
makes the water so acidic that fish and other organisms cannot survive.
This phenomenon is known as acid mine drainage. At California\'s
abandoned Iron Mountain mine, for instance, scientists discovered the
world\'s most acidic water with a pH of -3.6, 10,000 times more acidic
than battery acid.

The acid itself is not the only problem. When the acid comes in contact
with rock, it dissolves toxic metals including arsenic, cadmium, lead
and mercury, and carries those metals into water sources. Acid mine
drainage from the Iron Mountain Mine, for example, has periodically
released harmful levels of heavy metals into the Sacramento River and
has virtually eliminated aquatic life in several nearby creeks. Roughly
70,000 people use surface water within three miles of Iron Mountain Mine
as their source of drinking water. Acid mine drainage laden with heavy
metals is a problem throughout the West from past and present mines.

Once it begins, such pollution is very difficult to stop. Roman metal
mines are still draining acid in Europe. Closer to home, the EPA wrote
that Newmont's Phoenix proposal in Nevada "will likely create a
perpetual and significant acid mine drainage problem requiring
mitigation for hundreds of years." Furthermore, reclaiming acid draining
mines after mining ceases is a huge financial liability. The state of
New Mexico estimates that one copper mine, the Chino Mine, will cost
more than a quarter billion dollars to clean up.

**Long-Distance Pollution**

Mining pollution often spreads far beyond the site of the mine. For
example, in Summitville, Colorado in 1992 a spill of cyanide and heavy
metal-laden water killed some 20 miles of the Alamosa River. The area is
now a Superfund Site. Taxpayers have already spent \$190 million to
clean up the area and will likely be tapped for millions more in the
future.

Earlier this month, the EPA added Oregon's Formosa mine to the Superfund
list. The historic mine was reopened in the 1990s, mined for two years
by a Canadian company and then abandoned with catastrophic results. The
mine's acid drainage has killed 18 miles of a creek where salmon once
spawned and cleanup is expected to exceed \$10 million, the Associated
Press reported.

Another example of extended mining impacts is the plume of contaminated
groundwater beneath the Bingham Canyon mine. The EPA reports that the
plume extends for 72 square miles. The mine is part of the Kennecott
South site about 25 miles southwest of Salt Lake City that has been
proposed for Superfund status. The mining watchdog group, Earthworks,
estimated that the Bingham Canyon mine will leave taxpayers with the
largest liability of any mine in the United States: more than \$1.3
billion.

A fourth example comes from Arizona in 2006, where dust from a
400-foot-high tailings pile at Phelps Dodge's Sierrita Mine spread over
a two- to four-and-a-half-mile radius, coating homes and lawns in nearby
Green Valley with white powder. The company said it sampled the tailings
several years earlier and found no cause for concern but the state cited
the company for failing to prevent the dust from blowing onto homes.

Residents of Crested Butte, Colorado, Boise, Idaho and other towns, are
currently facing significant mine proposals that could threaten local
water supplies and other resources.

**Antiquated Law**

The threat we face today, however, is more serious than in years past.
The specter of mining operations is looming over the Grand Canyon and
many other treasured national parks, and the 1872 Mining Law provides
inadequate tools to control it. Indeed, the 1872 Mining Law does the
opposite: it directly facilitates the problem by granting mining rights
with no government approval, providing weak standards for protecting
water, and creating a potential bonanza with no royalty payments if the
claim pans out. Under current law, demand for raw materials around the
globe can place our public lands at risk and leave Westerners and
federal land managers at the mercy of multinational mining companies.

Mining companies have argued against changing the law because mining is
so important to our national security. Yet the oil and gas industry is
also vital to our national security and has operated on federal land
under a significantly different set of rules. Oil and gas operators must
win government approval before gaining control of federal land, pay
royalties on the energy they extract and are subject to rules that allow
energy development to be balanced with other interests. Under this
system, oil and gas companies have enjoyed record profits and record
numbers of approvals for drilling permits in the past several years.
Indeed, government oversight has often been far too lax. But the main
point is that the oil and gas industry has thrived under a much more
progressive legal framework.

Mining has operated under an antiquated law for long enough. When mining
threatens to scar if not destroy places like the Grand Canyon, it is
time to draw the line. We no longer need to give special treatment to
the mining industry, particularly when other extractive industries
operate profitably on our public lands without such favored treatment
and particularly when our national parks and monuments are at risk.

**Recommendations to Improve the Mining Law**

We recommend several changes to the mining law:

-   **Protect Western lands:** Mining companies should be allowed to
    operate on federal lands, but some places should be off-limits.
    These places include lands bordering National Parks, Forest Service
    Roadless Areas, and sacred sites.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Tougher standards for mine permits and cleanup:** Mining companies
    should be required to prevent perpetual water contamination and put
    up enough money before operations begin to cover the full costs of
    cleanup should the company go bankrupt or abandon the site.

-   **Treat Mining Like Oil and Gas:** Land managers should have the
    ability to balance mining with other interests such as water
    quality, the same ability they have with oil and gas and other
    extractive industries.

-   **Royalty payments:** Currently, mining companies pay no royalty
    unlike every other extractive industry operating on federal land. A
    fair return to taxpayers is essential for cleaning up abandoned
    mines and providing assistance for communities affected by the boom
    and bust mining economy.

-   **Abandoned mine cleanup fund:** Cleaning up abandoned mines is
    estimated to cost \$32 billion or more. Congress should create a
    fund to accomplish this important task.

-   **An end to mining's tax break**: In addition to being able to mine
    royalty-free, mining companies can claim a tax break on up to 22
    percent of the income that they make off hardrock minerals mined on
    federal public lands. Congress should close this loophole.

-   **No more land giveaways:** For years, mining interests have been
    able to buy claimed land from the federal government for \$2.50 or
    \$5.00 an acre. Since 1994, Congress has placed a moratorium on
    these giveaways that must be renewed annually. Congress should enact
    a permanent ban.

Mining provides materials essential to our economy, but it must be
conducted in a way that strikes a balance with other values. We look
forward to working with the Committee to ensure that mining on our
public lands is conducted in a responsible manner.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

\###