U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

58-421 PDF 2010

H.R. 4817, A BILL TO AMEND THE SURFACE 

MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION 

ACT OF 1977 TO CLARIFY THAT UNCERTIFIED STATES AND INDIAN TRIBES 

HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO USE CERTAIN 

PAYMENTS FOR CERTAIN NON-COAL 

RECLAMATION PROJECTS. 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

MINERAL RESOURCES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

Thursday, September 23, 2010 

Serial No. 111-65 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

or 

Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman 

DOC HASTINGS, Washington, Ranking Republican Member 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey 

Grace F. Napolitano, California 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

Jim Costa, California 

Dan Boren, Oklahoma 

Gregorio Sablan, Northern Marianas 

Martin T. Heinrich, New Mexico 

Ben Ray Luja ́n, New Mexico 

George Miller, California 

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts 

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon 

Maurice D. Hinchey, New York 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Diana DeGette, Colorado 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Lois Capps, California 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Joe Baca, California 

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South Dakota 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts 

Frank Kratovil, Jr., Maryland 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico 

Don Young, Alaska 

Elton Gallegly, California 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Henry E. Brown, Jr., South Carolina 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Louie Gohmert, Texas 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania 

Doug Lamborn, Colorado 

Adrian Smith, Nebraska 

Robert J. Wittman, Virginia 

Paul C. Broun, Georgia 

John Fleming, Louisiana 

Mike Coffman, Colorado 

Jason Chaffetz, Utah 

Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming 

Tom McClintock, California 

Bill Cassidy, Louisiana 

James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff 

Rick Healy, Chief Counsel 

Todd Young, Republican Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES 

JIM COSTA, California, Chairman 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado, Ranking Republican Member 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Dan Boren, Oklahoma 

Gregorio Sablan, Northern Marianas 

Martin T. Heinrich, New Mexico 

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts 

Maurice D. Hinchey, New York 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts 

Nick J. Rahall, II, West Virginia, ex officio 

Don Young, Alaska 

Louie Gohmert, Texas 

John Fleming, Louisiana 

Jason Chaffetz, Utah 

Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming 

Doc Hastings, Washington, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Thursday, September 23, 2010 ................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Costa, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 4 

Lamborn, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Colorado ......................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 6 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Antonio, Hon. John E., Sr., Governor, Pueblo of Laguna .............................. 21 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 23 

Owens, Glenda, Deputy Director, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement, U.S. Department of the Interior ................................... 11 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 12 

Pineda, Loretta, Director, Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety, 

Colorado Department of Natural Resources ............................................... 15 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 17 

Teague, Hon. Harry, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Mexico ................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 8 

Additional materials supplied: 

List of documents retained in the Committee’s official files ......................... 33 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 4817, A BILL 

TO AMEND THE SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION ACT OF 1977 TO 

CLARIFY THAT UNCERTIFIED STATES AND 

INDIAN TRIBES HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO 

USE CERTAIN PAYMENTS FOR CERTAIN 

NON-COAL RECLAMATION PROJECTS. 

Thursday, September 23, 2010 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m. in Room 

1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Jim Costa [Chairman 

of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Costa, Heinrich, and Lamborn. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM COSTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. COSTA. The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 

will now come to order. Our subject matter this morning is 

H.R. 4817, a bill that would amend the Surface Mining Control 

and Reclamation Act of 1977 and to clarify that uncertified states 

and Indian tribes have authority to use certain payments for certain non-coal reclamation projects. This is an issue that has been 

around for awhile. It affects many states, particularly in the West, 

as we try to deal with reclamation efforts. 

There is, I think, bipartisan support to try to make the changes 

that are reflected in this legislation. It is not the first time such 

legislation has been introduced. What the Chair will do this morning is first hear a fellow colleague, a witness, Congressman Teague 

from New Mexico, who will speak on the measure that has been 

introduced, and then we have a panel, and we will follow the same 

process that we always do with both the first witness and the other 

panel members, five minutes for comments, and then we will follow 

up with questions or comments by members of the Subcommittee. 

Before we begin with our first witness, our colleague, who we are 

pleased to have here, I would be remiss if I didn’t appropriately 

recognize two people that are no longer going to be with us. I don’t 

2 

know whether or not this is the last Subcommittee hearing that we 

will have in this Congress. It quite possibly could be, and the fact 

is that all the members of this Subcommittee, all the members of 

the Congress, work very hard, but we work very hard with our 

staff, and the staff of the committees and subcommittees really, I 

think, make up the heart and soul of any legislative body. 

Two individuals here that I have had the pleasure to work with 

since I came to Congress have done just a tremendous job in terms 

of their passion, in terms of their hard work, in terms of their tenacity for detail and, probably most importantly, I guess sometimes 

is their propensity to put up with people like myself. I am talking 

about Members of Congress. It is clearly important that we recognize Deborah Lanzone, who sent out a notice a few weeks ago that 

she was going to make this her swan song. 

I guess, Deborah, I wore out your patience, but the fact is you 

have worked for a number of Congresses on this Committee. You 

have also worked in previous administrations in the Department of 

the Interior. I know how much you care about good public policy. 

I know how focused you are in trying to work in a bipartisan manner. I know that you have always, always tried to put forth good 

public policy in an objective way. I have really appreciated that 

hard work even when, on occasion, we have disagreed; and I have 

learned and I have grown as a result of your hard work and your 

input. I know other members of the Subcommittee and the full 

Committee have as well. 

Wendy, you too are departing. Deborah Lanzone and Wendy Van 

Asselt are part of a team that has allowed this Chair and this Subcommittee to work at a level that I think reflects the best that we 

have in Congress, so Steve, I don’t know what we are going to do 

without these two people when they are gone, but we are in trouble, not that any of us are replaceable. The fact is, Wendy and 

Deborah, on behalf of members of the Subcommittee, I want to 

thank you for a job well done. 

I want to thank you for always being there for us, and on behalf 

of the Subcommittee, I want to wish both of you the very best, you 

and your families and friends, as you pursue future endeavors. I 

just ask that you don’t forget us, that you come by and you continue to bless us with your goodwill and your hard work. I wish 

you every success in your future endeavors, clearly, and I will defer 

to the Ranking Member here at this time. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I want to, before I say anything 

else, echo your remarks about the gratitude of the members of this 

Committee for the service of Ms. Lanzone. When it is done well, 

many Americans don’t know the service given by the staff here on 

Capitol Hill. The personnel and Committee staff often work long 

hours with little of the recognition that we receive as Members for 

their hard work. I know that because of her tenure on the Hill and 

the challenges this Committee has faced over the last year, that 

she has served your members and this Committee well. 

In closing, I would like to share one quick story. On Inauguration 

morning, before having coffee at the White House, First Lady 

Michelle Obama handed Laura Bush a present. Inside was a 

leather-bound journal inscribed with a quote from Louis L’Amour, 

the great western writer, and the quote said, ‘‘There will come a 

3 

time when you believe everything is finished, yet that will be the 

beginning,’’ so I would like to extend thanks to her for her service 

on behalf of all the Republican members of the Committee, and I 

wish her the very best on her new beginning. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. LAMBORN. And I would like to thank Wendy for all of her 

hard work for this Committee and wish her the best of luck in her 

new adventures in Seattle, Washington. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you, Ranking Member Lamborn, for those 

kind words. Deborah, Wendy, we thank you very much. If Jim Zoia 

hadn’t been in your way, who knows what—I am sorry, Jim. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. COSTA. We do really appreciate the good work that Deborah 

and Wendy have done, and we are going to miss you. That is for 

sure, so thank you so very much. Doug and I don’t have a gold 

watch to give, but if we did, it is there in spirit and heart and 

clearly we know you are going to continue to do good work. Thank 

you so much really. 

Let me begin now with the opening statement, and then the 

Ranking Member will make his opening statement, and then we 

will get to the order of the day with Mr. Teague’s comments on the 

measure. 

As I said at the outset, we are here about an important measure 

that involves public health and safety, and that is the cleanup of 

abandoned mines. Mr. Teague introduced this measure with Mr. 

Luja ́n and Mr. Heinrich, who are part of the Subcommittee. Mr. 

Teague will explain the bill. Let me make a few remarks quickly. 

This isn’t the first time that the Subcommittee has examined the 

problems with abandoned mines. We held hearings here in 

Washington and in Sacramento within the last several years. A 

former colleague of ours had a bill that addressed this. 

In 2008, the Government Accountability Office estimated that 

there are across the country 161,000 abandoned hard rock mines 

in the West. In California, we have about 40,000 of them. I mean, 

it goes all the way back to the gold rush, of course, and the 

challenge we have is that there aren’t a lot of resources to clean 

up these mines. That is the bottom line, and that is why funds 

were provided for states and Indian tribes by the Department of 

the Interior’s Office of Surface Mining and Reclamation Enforcement that have been important, but like a lot of efforts, it has not 

been enough. 

The Office of Surface Mining, under the amendments of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, can provide 

grants and clean up sites for hard rock sites as well as coal mining 

sites. Historically, the Office of Surface Mining has provided more 

than $3 billion since that time to clean up environmental hazards 

that have affected over 300,000 acres. Eleven states and tribes 

have used roughly $200 million of those funds to clean up hard 

rock sites across the country. 

However, in recent years, the Department of the Interior policies 

have restricted the use of some of the abandoned mine land monies 

asserting that they need to be directed only for coal site reclamation. I will not argue that cleaning up those coal site mines is important, but we are trying to get some fairness. We are trying to 

4 

get some equity here. H.R. 4817 would ensure that uncertified 

states can use all of the grants and payments they receive for 

either coal site reclamation or to clean up hazard sites for non-coal 

sites. 

This bill doesn’t change or increase the amount of funding 

distributed to states. That remains the same were this measure to 

become law. I think the Subcommittee has consistently heard 

testimony that one of the most important things we can do to protect the public from abandoned mines is to be smart about how we 

prioritize the cleanup. That is one of the things I have argued 

about in California. While we have 40,000 sites in California, they 

don’t all pose the same hazard, and we need to do a better job in 

prioritizing that. 

Some obviously are far more hazardous than others, and since 

we don’t have enough money to do all the cleanup, it is just common sense, as my mother used to say, that we prioritize, that we 

get the best bang for our dollar, and I think that is what this bill 

is trying to do. I look forward to hearing the testimony from our 

witnesses, Mr. Teague, and then the second panel. With that, I will 

defer to the Ranking Member, Mr. Lamborn from Colorado, for any 

statement he may have. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Costa follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Jim Costa, Chairman, 

Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 

Today we will consider a bill that addresses an important public health and safety 

issue: the cleanup of abandoned mines. My colleague, Mr. Teague, introduced 

H.R. 4817 with Mr. Luja ́n and Mr. Heinrich; I’ll let Mr. Teague explain the bill, including its importance to his fine state of New Mexico. However, I do want to make 

a few remarks, drawing on my experience chairing this Subcommittee’s examination 

of abandoned mine problems at hearings here in Washington and in Sacramento. 

In 2008, the Government Accountability Office estimated that there are at least 

161,000 abandoned hardrock mines in the West. California alone has 40,000 sites 

that threaten public health and safety. There are very few sources of funding for 

the cleanup of those dangerous hardrock mines. That’s why the funds provided to 

States and Indian tribes by the Department of the Interior’s Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement have been so important. The Office of Surface 

Mining, under amendments to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 

1977, can provide grants to clean up sites used for hardrock sites as well as coal 

mining sites. Historically, the Office of Surface Mining has provided more than $3 

billion to eliminate safety and environmental hazards on more than 300,000 acres. 

11 states and several tribes have used roughly $200 million of those funds to clean 

up hardrock sites. However, in recent years, Department of Interior policies have 

restricted use of some Abandoned Mine Land monies, asserting they must be used 

only for coal site reclamation. H.R. 4817 would ensure that uncertified states can 

use all the AML grants and payments they receive for either coal site reclamation 

or to clean up hazardous non-coal sites. This bill does not change or increase the 

amount of funding distributed to the States. This Subcommittee has consistently 

heard testimony that one of the most important things we can do to protect the public from abandoned mines is to be smart about prioritizing sites for cleanup, and 

to direct limited resources to those places of greatest need—regardless of what mineral was mined at the site. I think that’s what this bill is trying to do. That seems 

like common sense. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on the details of 

this bill. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DOUG LAMBORN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank 

you for holding this hearing today. Before we focus on today’s hearVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:16 Jan 03, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\58421.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
5 

ing, I would like to take just a moment to raise a concern about 

the erosion of this Committee’s jurisdiction. As you know, Mr. 

Chairman, this Subcommittee holds jurisdiction over the nation’s 

energy and mineral resources and the majority of the programs 

under the United States Geological Survey. Today, the Science and 

Technology Committee will be marking up legislation addressing 

the serious issue of rare earth mineral availability, manufacture of 

the products utilizing rare earth minerals, and fostering domestic 

research into new uses for rare earth minerals. 

Unfortunately, this Committee hasn’t had a chance to address 

this issue during this Congress. However, the fact that we haven’t 

addressed this issue doesn’t mean that other committees have free 

rein to abscond with our areas of jurisdiction. I am concerned that 

the Science Committee bill being debated today establishes within 

the Department of Energy a new center whose duties are clearly 

duplicative of the operations of the U.S. Geological Survey. 

I would hope that before the Science Committee bill reaches the 

House Floor that this Committee will assert its jurisdiction and 

have an opportunity to examine this duplication, direct the 

valuable resources of the American people to the agencies with real 

expertise and protect the jurisdiction of this Committee. Now, that 

issue stated, today’s hearing will examine H.R. 4817 introduced by 

our colleague, Representative Teague of New Mexico. 

This bill clarifies the original Congressional intent of Section 409 

of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act that allows 

states and tribes to use SMCRA AML funds to address high priority coal and non-coal AML sites. The Department of the Interior 

reinterpreted the intent of Congress for allowable uses of the Section 409 permits through a Solicitor’s Opinion and their Final Rule 

for the 2006 amendments to SMCRA to prohibit the use of Section 

409 and prior balance replacement funds for non-coal projects. 

That is why I wish that this Committee could have addressed 

this legislation in the 110th Congress when it was H.R. 5661 introduced by the former Ranking Member of this Committee, Representative Steve Pearce of New Mexico. In some ways, I wish this 

Committee would have addressed broader, responsible mining law 

reform for hard rock cleanup like H.R. 3201, which I introduced to 

address mining law reform, or H.R. 3203, which I introduced to 

provide Good Samaritan protections for the cleanup of abandoned 

mines. 

The Good Samaritan legislation, in particular, would have provided an incentive for private companies, municipalities and nonprofit organizations to work on the cleanup of abandoned hard rock 

mines creating private-sector jobs while improving the quality of 

the environment and addressing safety issues associated with 

abandoned mine lands. Yet, it wasn’t heard before this Committee. 

While this legislation before the Committee today may be a piece 

of the puzzle in addressing our non-coal abandoned mine land 

issues in the West, it also gives a reminder of the commitment of 

this Administration to stripping the funding from certified states 

and tribes. 

I know we will hear in testimony again today that this Administration believes it is more important to eliminate the funding to the 

certified states rather than honor the hard-fought compromise 

6 

reached in 2006 that requires the Federal Government to send the 

certified states their 50 percent share of the AML fee levied on coal 

production. It is the states’ money, and they should be able to use 

it as they see fit. I will close, Mr. Chairman, by saying that this 

is likely our last hearing of this Congress. I want to thank you for 

your leadership over the last two years. 

Although we have had a few disagreements, I have enjoyed working together in addressing one of the most challenging years in oil 

and gas policy in a generation. Once again, I want to thank you 

for holding this hearing. I welcome our witnesses, and I look forward to their testimony. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lamborn follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Doug Lamborn, Ranking Republican, 

Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman; I want to thank you for holding this hearing today. 

RARE EARTH’S 

Before we focus on today’s hearing I would like to take a second to raise a concern 

about the erosion of this Committee’s jurisdiction. As you know Mr. Chairman, this 

Subcommittee holds jurisdiction over the Nation’s energy and mineral resources and 

the majority of the programs under the United States Geological Survey. Today, the 

Science and Technology Committee will be marking up legislation addressing the serious issue of rare earth mineral availability, manufacture of the products utilizing 

rare earth minerals and fostering domestic research into new uses of rare earth 

minerals. Unfortunately, this committee hasn’t had a chance to address this issue 

during this Congress, however, the fact that we haven’t addressed the issue doesn’t 

mean that other Committee’s have free reign to abscond with our areas of jurisdiction. 

I am concerned that the Science Committee bill being debated today establishes 

within the Department of Energy a new Center whose duties are clearly duplicative 

of the operations of the U.S. Geological Survey. I would hope that before the Science 

Committee bill reaches the House floor this committee will assert their jurisdiction 

and have an opportunity to examine this duplication, direct the valuable resources 

of the American people to the agencies with real expertise, and protect the jurisdiction of this Committee. 

LEGISLATION HISTORY 

That issue settled, today’s hearing will examine H.R. 4817, introduced by our colleague Rep. Teague of New Mexico. This bill clarifies the original Congressional intent of section 409 of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) 

that allows states and tribes to use SMCRA AML funds to address high priority coal 

and non-coal AML sites. DOI reinterpreted the intent of Congress for allowable uses 

of the section 409 permits through a Solicitor’s Opinion and their final Rule for the 

2006 amendments to SMCRA to prohibit the use of section 409 and ‘‘prior balance 

replacement’’ funds for non-coal projects, that is why I wish this Committee could 

have addressed this legislation in the 110th Congress when it was H.R. 5661, introduced by the former Ranking Member of this Committee, Rep. Steve Pearce of New 

Mexico. 

In some ways, I wish this Committee would have addressed broader responsible 

mining law reform for hard rock clean up like H.R. 3201 which I introduced to address mining law reform. Or H.R. 3203, which I introduced, to provide ‘‘Good Samaritan’’ protections for the cleanup of abandoned mines. The good sam legislation 

in particular would have provided an incentive for private companies, municipalities 

and non-profit organizations to work on the clean-up of abandoned hard rock mines 

creating private sector jobs while improving the quality of the environment and addressing safety issues associated with abandoned mined lands and yet it wasn’t 

heard before this committee. 

While this legislation before the Committee today may be a piece of the puzzle 

in addressing our non-coal abandoned mine land issues in the west. It also gives 

us a reminder of the commitment of this administration to stripping the funding 

away from certified states and tribes. I know we will hear in testimony again today 

that this administration believes it is more important to eliminate the funding to 

the certified states rather than honor the hard fought compromise reached in 2006 

that requires the federal government to send the certified states their 50 percent 

7 

share of the AML fee levied on coal production. It is the states’ money and they 

should be able to use it as they see fit.. 

CLOSE 

I will close Mr. Chairman by saying that as this is likely our last hearing of this 

Congress, I want to thank you for your leadership over the last two years although 

we have had our disagreements, I have enjoyed working together in addressing one 

of the most challenging years in oil and gas policy in a generation. 

Once again, I want to thank you for holding this hearing, I welcome our witnesses 

and I look forward to hearing their testimony. Mr. Chairman I yield back. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much, gentleman from Colorado. I 

appreciate your comments and the good work that you have done 

as a member of the Subcommittee, the Ranking Member and the 

efforts that you have made toward bipartisan cooperation. You are 

correct. It has been a difficult year in our country for resourcerelated issues. Let us begin now with our first witness. We would 

like to recognize The Honorable Harry Teague from the great State 

of New Mexico, who is the sponsor of this legislation, for his testimony. 

The Chairman is somewhat flexible, but we would still like to 

apply the same rules, Congressman Teague, to your five-minute 

statement, and then we will go to any comments or questions after 

that. You know the rules. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY TEAGUE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 

Mr. TEAGUE. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Costa, and members of the Committee for holding this important hearing today on 

H.R. 4817, legislation to make Surface Mining Controls and Reclamation Act, or SMCRA, funding eligible for the remediation of old 

uranium mines and mills in New Mexico and other states. I am 

proud to introduce this bill with Senator Jeff Bingaman and my 

New Mexico House colleagues, Congressmen Luja ́n and Heinrich, 

both members of this Committee. 

As you know, Department of the Interior regulations affected 

after passage of the 2006 amendments to SMCRA, currently restrict New Mexico from using the SMCRA funding for uranium site 

cleanup. According to the current interpretation of the law, 

SMCRA is only available for coal site cleanup in New Mexico. New 

Mexico disagrees with this interpretation and would like to use the 

SMCRA funds for uranium cleanup, which is a bigger need in our 

state. 

Despite the efforts of our delegation, the Department of the 

Interior has refused to allow for more flexibility in the use of 

SMCRA funds for states that aren’t certified as having completed 

coal site cleanup. Here are the facts about my bill: New Mexico currently has $14.5 million in SMCRA funds available; 137 uranium 

sites in New Mexico need remediation; the cleanup of the sites 

would create on average 10 jobs per site. This is a common sense 

win-win bill for my State of New Mexico, would address the legacy 

of contamination at sites around New Mexico, and would create 

over 1,000 good jobs in rural New Mexico doing it. 

Passing H.R. 4817 will help people in New Mexico, in Cibola 

County and McKinley County, and across the state. That is why I 

am proud to join with the delegation to bring this bill forward. It 

8 

is the right thing to do for the people that we represent. My bill 

is supported by the New Mexico State Legislature, New Mexico 

Mining Association, the City of Grants, McKinley County Chamber 

of Commerce, the Association of Commerce and Energy, the Village 

of Milan and McKinley County, among many others. 

I also look forward to hearing the testimony of my friend, Governor Antonio of the Laguna Pueblo. I thank the Committee for 

their attention and urge them to bring this legislation to the House 

Floor for a vote as soon as possible. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Teague follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Harry Teague, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of New Mexico 

Thank you Chairman Rahall, Chairman Costa, and members of the committee for 

holding this important hearing on H.R. 4817, legislation to make Surface Mining 

Control and Reclamation Act, or SMCRA, funding eligible for the remediation of old 

uranium mines and mills in New Mexico and other states. I was proud to introduce 

this bill with Senator Jeff Bingaman and my New Mexico House colleagues, Congressmen Luja ́n and Heinrich, both members of this committee. 

As you know, Department of Interior regulations affected after passage of the 

2006 amendments to SMCRA currently restrict New Mexico from using the SMCRA 

funding for uranium site clean-up. According to current interpretation of the law, 

SMCRA is only available for coal site clean-up in New Mexico. 

New Mexico disagrees with this interpretation and would like to use the SMCRA 

funds for uranium clean up, which is a bigger need in our state. Despite the efforts 

of our delegation, the Department of Interior has refused to allow for more flexibility in the use of SMCRA funds for states that aren’t certified as having completed 

coal site cleanup. 

Here are the facts about my bill. 

• New Mexico currently has $14.5 million in SMCRA funds available 

• 137 uranium sites in New Mexico need remediation 

• The cleanup of the sites would create on-average 10 jobs per site. 

This is a common-sense, win-win bill for my state of New Mexico. We address the 

legacy of contamination at sites around New Mexico. And we create over 1,000 good 

jobs in rural New Mexico doing it. 

Passing H.R. 4817 will help people in New Mexico, in Cibola County and McKinley County and across the state. That’s why I’m proud to join with the delegation 

bring this bill forward: It’s the right thing to do for the people we represent. 

My bill is supported by the New Mexico State Legislature, the New Mexico Mining Association, the City of Grants, the McKinley County Chamber of Commerce, 

the Association of Commerce and Industry, the Village of Milan, and McKinley 

County, among many others. 

I also look forward to hearing the testimony of my friend Governor Antonio of the 

Laguna Pueblo. 

I thank the committee for their attention and urge them to bring this legislation 

to the House floor for a vote as soon as possible. 

Mr. COSTA. Very impressive, Congressman Teague. I was obviously going to give you some flexibility within the five-minute rule, 

but I appreciate your concise testimony and to the point. Let me 

just ask a general question and some other members have others. 

Of course, we have our other panel to get to. In New Mexico, as 

you stated, there is a particular focus, and I know Congressman 

Pearce at the time had informed me of that as well with uranium. 

Uranium was a very important and still is a vital mineral to our 

defense and energy needs in this country, and New Mexico has a 

large uranium source in that. In California, as I noted, we have 

40,000 abandoned mines, a lot go back to the gold rush era, but 

they vary. Has New Mexico taken, and with your delegation and 

Senator Bingaman, an effort to prioritize how that cleanup is? 

9 

I guess I am trying to understand because a lot of it was a part 

of our energy but also our strategic needs for national defense, 

where the role and the responsibility of the Federal Government is 

on cleanup. I mean, is there a nexus there? Is it all just in the 

hands of New Mexico, or are some of these cleanup sites still the 

responsibility of the Federal Government? I guess I am trying to 

understand how that prioritization thing has been developed within your state. 

Mr. TEAGUE. No, sir, Mr. Chairman. I think you stated it very 

well. I mean, I know that with California having 40,000 to the 137 

that we have don’t seem like very many, but it really is a big problem in those 137 sites, but also as you said, each site poses a different level of danger, and there has been some prioritizing of what 

needs to be done where. I personally think that for the energy 

needs of our country going forward that we are going to need the 

uranium to create electricity with nuclear energy. 

I think before we can move forward in these areas with that, I 

think we are going to have to separate the legacy problems that we 

have at these 137 sites from any new business that we are trying 

to do in the future, but it is extremely important, and I think it 

is the U.S. government’s responsibility to clean these 137 sites. 

Mr. COSTA. So you are saying then in all 137 cases in New Mexico, you believe it is the Federal Government’s responsibility to 

pursue the cleanup? 

Mr. TEAGUE. I believe that these should offer the assistance all 

the way through, and of the 137, as you said about your 40,000, 

some of them don’t pose that much risk. They are going to be minor 

to clean up, but I do think that we need the support and the help 

of the Federal Government to clean them up, yes, sir. 

Mr. COSTA. I want to defer to the gentleman here first. Did you 

have a point of order? 

Mr. HEINRICH. I just wanted to ask to return to that when he 

is done with his testimony because I want to add a few things to 

what the Congressman from southern New Mexico said. 

Mr. COSTA. Sure. OK. I will defer to the Ranking Member here, 

and then we will go through the regular order. Mr. Lamborn? 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This won’t take long. 

You have done a good job of explaining the bill, so I don’t have any 

questions at this point, and I will look forward to further testimony 

through the rest of the morning. Thank you for being here. 

Mr. TEAGUE. Thank you. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you. The gentleman from New Mexico, a cosponsor of the measure, Mr. Heinrich? 

Mr. HEINRICH. Chairman, first I want to thank my colleague for 

his leadership on this. This has been something that the State obviously has been working on for a long time, members of the Legislature, people like Congressman Teague and his predecessor, but 

that whole issue of who is responsible I think is something that has 

never been adequately addressed in a way that is meaningful for 

the communities in these areas. 

There are a number of different kinds of mines. There are those 

where the uranium was mined directly for the government as part 

of the Cold War effort. 

10 

Mr. COSTA. Right. And that was the point that my question was 

to, and I was trying to get some clarity in those instances. 

Mr. HEINRICH. Of those, there is typically a direct line of DOD 

responsibility. However, there is typically no money for the cleanup 

even though the responsibility is legally there. 

Mr. COSTA. And there is no debate on that point that it is the 

responsibility of the Department of Defense for cleanup purposes? 

Mr. HEINRICH. I believe that is correct. Then, there are other 

mine sites where the uranium was mined for the Cold War efforts, 

but mined by a private company and then sold to the government. 

In those cases, the legal responsibility under current law does not 

necessarily fall on the U.S. Government even though the mining 

operations were for the purpose of supporting our strategic arms 

stockpile, and then there are private mine sites where the uranium 

was mined and then sold to the private market for the purpose of 

power generation, so there are sort of three different categories 

there. 

Mr. COSTA. Categories. 

Mr. HEINRICH. And there are typically in some cases of the third, 

there are responsible parties who the state is pursuing to clean 

those things up. The difficulty is oftentimes in that second category 

where there were private companies at the time doing the mining, 

oftentimes they are long gone, but the impacts to the communities 

are still there, and I think that is why it is so important to take 

this approach of allowing the SMCRA funds to be able to be used 

at the discretion of the states on higher-priority sites where there 

may be no legal responsible party that can be pursued at this time. 

Mr. COSTA. Are you familiar, I guess it may be a question to our 

second panel, but of the efforts of the prioritization that has taken 

place in those three categories based upon risk assessment, risk 

management? 

Mr. HEINRICH. I know that the Environment Department monitors and prioritizes hard rock sites across the state. They do that 

oftentimes on the basis of both public health and the exposure to 

particularly ground and surface water and that there are a handful 

of mine sites, a few hard rock in the northern part of the state that 

are prioritized quite high, but many of their high priority sites 

have to do with uranium because of the potential or real ground 

water contamination and the potential for public health issues with 

the wells that are exposed to that groundwater contamination. 

Mr. COSTA. Mr. Teague, anything you would like to add? 

Mr. TEAGUE. Yes, a couple of things. The State of New Mexico 

is in the process of prioritizing all of them and ranking them in 

their need, but they don’t have that completed yet, but the New 

Mexico Environmental Department is in the process of doing that. 

One other thing I would like to say, and I think everybody knows 

because my colleague, Congressman Heinrich, did a good job of explaining the different ones, but really what we have is we have a 

situation where this uranium was needed for the United States to 

win the Cold War with the Soviet Union and Cibola and McKinley 

Counties of New Mexico made some pretty good sacrifices to help 

our country. 

I don’t think that we should ask them to continue to sacrifice. We 

should clean their sites and their water up. 

11 

Mr. COSTA. Very good. All right. You have done a good job on 

your explanation of the bill. The members of the Committee have 

had a chance to make comments, and let us proceed now with the 

next panel. Hearing no opposition, we will grant Mr. Teague the 

opportunity to sit in here with the Subcommittee if you choose to 

do that. All right. Hearing no opposition, you can come up here and 

grab a seat. 

Our second panel, we have three witnesses: Glenda Owens, the 

Deputy Director of the Office of Surface Mining and Reclamation 

and Enforcement; Ms. Loretta Pineda, the Director of the Division 

of Reclamation and Mining and Safety of Colorado Department of 

Natural Resources from Congressman Lamborn’s state; and The 

Honorable John Antonio, Governor of the Pueblo Laguna, is that 

correct? Please, three witnesses, come forward for your testimony. 

I suspect all of you in various ways have testified before. For 

those of you who are not familiar with the rules here of the Subcommittee and Natural Resources I guess in front of the center witness there is a little box there that has three lights on it, and when 

I recognize you, it will be green, and it will remain green for four 

minutes, and then on the fifth minute, it will turn yellow, and at 

the end of that minute, it will turn red, and then your chair disappears. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. COSTA. No, we don’t do that, but I like to say that just to 

kind of get you relaxed, but we do appreciate, witnesses, if you 

have written testimony, and it exceeds five minutes, please for the 

sake of the Subcommittee and the staff, we can submit that and 

summarize your comments within the five minutes, and if your 

written statement is within five minutes, and you feel more comfortable reading it, that is fine as well, so we would like to begin 

with our first witness that the Chair now recognizes Ms. Glenda 

Owens for your testimony, and would you please begin? Is your 

microphone on there? 

STATEMENT OF GLENDA OWENS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE 

OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT 

Ms. OWENS. Is that better? 

Mr. COSTA. Yes, that is better. You might bring it a little closer 

to you. We want to hear you. 

Ms. OWENS. Good morning, Chairman Costa, and members of the 

Subcommittee, and thank you for the invitation to testify on behalf 

of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 

regarding H.R. 4817. We look forward to working with you on matters relating to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 

1977. While we share the concern about non-coal abandoned mine 

sites, we cannot support H.R. 4817 because it is inconsistent with 

the Administration’s goal of ensuring expeditious coal reclamation 

of high priority abandoned coal sites before the reclamation fee terminates in 2021. 

Through SMCRA, Congress established OSM for two basic purposes: First, to ensure that the nation’s coal mines operate in a 

manner that protects citizens and the environment during mining 

and to restore the land to beneficial use following mining; second, 

to implement an abandoned mine land program to address the hazVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:16 Jan 03, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\58421.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
12 

ards and environmental degradation created by two centuries of 

weakly regulated coal mining that occurred prior to SMCRA’s 

enactment. 

Title IV of SMCRA created an AML reclamation program funded 

by a fee assessed on each ton of coal produced. The fees collected 

have been placed in the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund. The 

money has been used primarily to reclaim lands and water adversely impacted by coal mining conducted before the enactment of 

SMCRA and to mitigate the adverse impacts of mining on individuals and communities. Since 2006, Section 411[h][1] of SMCRA has 

precluded uncertified states and tribes from using funds that they 

receive under that section for non-coal reclamation. 

H.R. 4817 would amend SMCRA to allow uncertified states and 

tribes to use funds received under Section 411[h][1] for reclamation 

activities on non-coal mine sites. The President’s proposed Fiscal 

Year 2011 budget in addition to reducing spending also proposes 

to limit the use of AML monies to high-priority coal reclamation 

projects. The Department, therefore, cannot support H.R. 4817 because it is inconsistent with the Fiscal Year 2011 budget request. 

While we recognize the dangers that abandoned hard rock mines 

pose, the current challenging economic conditions, coupled with 

this Administration’s commitment to fiscal responsibility heighten 

the need for AML funds to be focused on the core objective of highpriority coal reclamation projects. However, we share the concern 

about non-coal abandoned mines sites, and OSM would be happy 

to work with Congress and this Committee to explore other options 

to address abandoned non-coal mine reclamation problems. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee today and testify on this bill. I look forward to working 

with you to ensure that the nation’s abandoned mine lands are 

adequately reclaimed. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Owens follows:] 

Statement of Glenda Owens, Deputy Director, Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement, U.S. Department of the Interior 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the invitation 

to testify on behalf of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 

(OSM) regarding H.R. 4817. I look forward to working with you on matters relating 

to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). 

H.R. 4817 would allow noncertified states and tribes to use certain SMCRA payments for non-coal reclamation; while the President’s Budget proposed to limit 

SMCRA payments to high priority coal sites. While we recognize the importance of 

addressing hardrock mine hazards, we cannot support this bill because it is inconsistent with the President’s Budget. 

The FY 2011 President’s Budget includes a proposal to focus AML funds on the 

high-priority coal reclamation sites in order to ensure that the most hazardous 

issues can be addressed before the AML fee expires. In addition to terminating unrestricted payments to certified states and tribes, the proposal will require all noncertified states to use their funding only for high priority coal reclamation projects. 

Background 

Through SMCRA, Congress established OSM for two basic purposes. First, to ensure that the Nation’s coal mines operate in a manner that protects citizens and 

the environment during mining operations and to restore the land to beneficial use 

following mining. Second, to implement an Abandoned Mine Land (AML) program 

to address the hazards and environmental degradation created by two centuries of 

weakly regulated coal mining that occurred before SMCRA’s enactment. 

Title IV of SMCRA created an AML reclamation program funded by a reclamation 

fee assessed on each ton of coal produced. The fees collected have been placed in 

13 

the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund (Fund). OSM, either directly or through 

grants to States and Indian tribes with approved AML reclamation plans under 

SMCRA, has been using the Fund primarily to reclaim lands and waters adversely 

impacted by coal mining conducted before the enactment of SMCRA and to mitigate 

the adverse impacts of mining on individuals and communities. Also, since FY1996, 

an amount equal to the interest earned by and paid to the Fund has been available 

for direct transfer to the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund 

to defray the cost of providing health care benefits for certain retired coal miners 

and their dependents. Section 402(a) of SMCRA fixed the reclamation fee for the period before September 30, 2007, at 35 cents per ton (or 10 percent of the value of 

the coal, whichever is less) for surface-mined coal other than lignite, 15 cents per 

ton (or 10 percent of the value of the coal, whichever is less) for coal from underground mines, and 10 cents per ton (or 2 percent of the value of the coal, whichever 

is less) for lignite. As originally enacted, section 402(b) of SMCRA authorized collection of reclamation fees for 15 years following the date of enactment (August 3, 

1977); thus, OSM’s fee collection authority would have expired August 3, 1992. However, Congress extended the fees and fee collection authority through September 30, 

1995, in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. The Energy Policy Act of 

1992 extended the fees through September 30, 2004. A series of short interim extensions in appropriations and other acts extended the fees through September 30, 

2007. 

The AML reclamation program was established in response to concern over extensive environmental damage caused by past coal mining activities. Before the 2006 

amendments, the AML program reclaimed eligible lands and waters using the Fund, 

which came from the reclamation fees collected from the coal mining industry. Eligible lands and waters were those which were mined for coal or affected by coal mining or coal processing, were abandoned or left inadequately reclaimed prior to the 

enactment of SMCRA on August 3, 1977, and for which there was no continuing reclamation responsibility under State or other Federal laws. 

SMCRA established a priority system for reclaiming coal problems. Before the 

2006 amendments, the AML program had five priority levels, but reclamation was 

focused on eligible lands and waters that reflected the top three priorities. The first 

priority was ‘‘the protection of public health, safety, general welfare, and property 

from extreme danger of adverse effects of coal mining practices.’’ The second priority 

was ‘‘the protection of public health, safety, and general welfare from adverse effects 

of coal mining practices.’’ The third priority was ‘‘the restoration of land and water 

resources and the environment previously degraded by adverse effects of coal mining 

practices.’’ 

As originally established, the Fund was divided into State or Tribal and Federal 

shares. Each State or Indian tribe with a federally approved reclamation plan was 

entitled to receive 50 percent of the reclamation fees collected annually from coal 

operations conducted within its borders. The ‘‘Secretary’s share’’ of the Fund consisted of the remaining 50 percent of the reclamation fees collected annually and 

all other receipts to the Fund, and was allocated into three shares as required by 

the 1990 amendments to SMCRA. First, OSM allocated 40% of the Secretary’s share 

to ‘‘historic coal’’ funds to increase reclamation grants to States and Indian tribes 

for coal reclamation. However, all the funds which were allocated may not have 

been appropriated. Second, OSM allocated 20% to the Rural Abandoned Mine Program (RAMP), operated by the Department of Agriculture. However, that program 

has not been appropriated AML funds since the mid 1990’s. 

Last, SMCRA required OSM to allocate 40% to ‘‘Federal expense’’ funds to provide 

grants to States for emergency programs that abate sudden dangers to public health 

or safety needing immediate attention, to increase reclamation grants in order to 

provide a minimum level of funding to State and Indian tribal programs with 

unreclaimed coal sites, to conduct reclamation of emergency and high-priority coal 

sites in areas not covered by State and Indian tribal programs, and to fund OSM 

operations that administer Title IV of SMCRA. 

States with an approved State coal regulatory program under Title V of SMCRA 

and with eligible coal mined lands may develop a State program for reclamation of 

abandoned mines. The Secretary may approve the State reclamation program and 

fund it. At the time the 2006 amendments were enacted, 23 States received annual 

AML grants to operate their approved reclamation programs. Three Indian tribes 

(the Navajo, Hopi and Crow Indian tribes) without approved regulatory programs 

have received grants for their approved reclamation programs as authorized by section 405(k) of SMCRA. 

Before the 2006 amendments, States and Indian tribes that had not certified completion of reclamation of their abandoned coal lands could use AML grant funds on 

noncoal projects only to abate extreme dangers to public health, safety, general welVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:16 Jan 03, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\58421.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
14 

fare, and property that arose from the adverse effects of mineral mining and processing and only at the request of the Governor or the governing body of the Indian 

tribe. 

The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act Amendments of 2006 were 

signed into law as part of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, on December 

20, 2006. Public Law 109–432. The 2006 amendments revised Title IV of SMCRA 

to make significant changes to the reclamation fee and the AML program. One 

change extended OSM’s reclamation fee collection authority through September 30, 

2021. The statutory fee rates were reduced by 10 percent from the current levels 

for the period from October 1, 2007, through September 30, 2012, and an additional 

10 percent from the original levels for the period from October 1, 2012, through September 30, 2021. 

The Fund allocation formula was also changed. Beginning October 1, 2007, certified States are no longer eligible to receive State share funds. Instead, amounts 

which would have been distributed as State share for fee collections for certified 

States are distributed as historic coal funds. The RAMP share was eliminated, and 

the historic coal allocation is further increased by the amount that previously was 

allocated to RAMP. 

Since 2006, the Department has interpreted the language of SMCRA section 

411(h) to require that OSM use grants to provide funds to eligible States and Indian 

tribes and to preclude noncertified states and Indian tribes from using funds that 

they receive under that section for noncoal reclamation. 

H.R. 4817 

Under SMCRA, states can use some of the AML funds they receive for non-coal 

reclamation. H.R. 4817 would amend SMCRA to allow noncertified states and tribes 

to use their mandatory funds received under Section 411(h)(1) from their unappropriated AML Fund balance for reclamation activities on non-coal mine sites. Noncertified states and tribes can already use the funds they receive from the ‘‘state share’’ 

and ‘‘historic coal’’ formulas for non-coal reclamation. 

When Secretary Salazar appeared before the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources to testify about the FY 2011 President’s Budget for the Department of 

the Interior, he noted that in developing a balanced budget request for FY 2011, 

tough choices had to be made. The budget, in addition to eliminating unrestricted 

payments to certified states, also proposes limiting the use of AML payments to priority coal reclamation projects. The Department cannot support H.R. 4817 because 

it is inconsistent with the Fiscal Year 2011 budget. 

In an effort to focus the AML program on coal reclamation before the reclamation 

fee terminates, the President’s FY 2011 budget proposes to restrict the use of AML 

funds by noncertified states to high priority coal reclamation. Because H.R. 4817 is 

inconsistent with the Administration’s goal of ensuring expeditious coal reclamation, 

we cannot support this bill. 

While we recognize the dangers that abandoned hard rock mines can pose, AML 

funding needs to be focused on the highest priority problems Congress originally 

identified in 1977. The challenging economic conditions, coupled with this Administration’s commitment to fiscal responsibility, only heighten the need for AML funds 

to be devoted to the highest priority coal problems. We note that the administration 

has continued to invest in AML, both through the Bureau of Land Management and 

National Park Service American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 funding 

and the FY 2011 President’s Budget to address hardrock mine reclamation on Federal Lands. 

We share the concern about non-coal abandoned mine sites and would be happy 

to share the expertise gained administering SMCRA and work with the Congress 

and this committee as we seek to address abandoned non-coal mine problems. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee today and testify on this bill. I look forward to working with the Subcommittee to ensure that 

the Nation’s abandoned mine lands are adequately reclaimed. 

Mr. COSTA. Well, thank you very much. I understand I guess 

about the part about consistency with this next year’s budget visa`-vis cleanup. In the several years I have tried to understand the 

1977 act, I am still trying to understand the consistency in 

SMCRA. I hate these acronyms. 

Ms. OWENS. That is a challenge. 

15 

Mr. COSTA. Yes, because I think what is consistent about 

SMCRA is its inconsistency, but that is an editorial comment on 

my part. Our next witness is Ms. Loretta Pineda, who is the Director of the Division of Reclamation of Mining and Safety in Colorado 

Department of Natural Resources, and we are looking forward to 

hearing your testimony on this important legislation. Thank you, 

Ms. Pineda. 

STATEMENT OF LORETTA PINEDA, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF 

RECLAMATION, MINING AND SAFETY, COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

Ms. PINEDA. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Loretta 

Pineda. 

Mr. COSTA. I am sorry. Pineda, right? 

Ms. PINEDA. Yes, thank you. 

Mr. COSTA. I apologize. Pineda? 

Ms. PINEDA. Pineda. 

Mr. COSTA. Mucho gusto. 

Ms. PINEDA. Don’t take up some of my minutes here. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. COSTA. No, no, no. The Chairman is very good about that. 

Ms. PINEDA. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. COSTA. It is on my time. 

Ms. PINEDA. OK. 

Mr. COSTA. Ms. Pineda. 

Ms. PINEDA. Thank you. I serve as the Director of the Division 

of Reclamation Mining and Safety within the Colorado Department 

of Natural Resources. I am appearing today on behalf of the Interstate Mining Compact Commission and the National Association of 

Abandoned Mine Land Programs. I appreciate the opportunity to 

appear before the Subcommittee today to present our views on 

H.R. 4817. The 30 states and tribes represented by these two organizations strongly support this important amendment to Title IV of 

the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. 

Mr. Chairman, nationally, abandoned mine lands continue to 

have significant adverse effects on people and the environment. As 

state and tribal governments, we continue to aggressively pursue 

programs and partnerships to address hard rock AML programs 

through a variety of state and Federal funding sources. For states 

with active coal mining operations within their borders, the most 

consistent source of AML funding has been Title IV grants under 

SMCRA. Section 409 of the Act allows the states to use these 

grants at high-priority non-coal AML sites, and that work is generally limited to safeguarding hazards to public safety, such as 

closing mine openings. 

In December 2006, Congress amended Title IV of SMCRA and, 

among other things, distributed certain AML funds to states in an 

amount equal to those previously allocated under SMCRA but 

never appropriated. However, while Section 409 was not changed 

or amended in any way, the Interior Department through both a 

Solicitor’s Opinion and Final Rule has now interpreted SMCRA to 

prohibit this enhanced funding from being used for non-coal 

projects. This is a significant blow to states such as New Mexico, 

16 

Utah and Colorado that have previously used SMCRA AML funds 

to address many of the more serious hard rock AML problems. At stake for these three states is about $9 million annually, and 

without access to these funds, New Mexico will have to forego an 

average of 200 non-coal AML closures each year. Colorado will 

have to postpone some 350 closures, and Utah will have to shelf 

upwards of 500 closures. H.R. 4817 would remedy the Interior Department’s unfortunate interpretation of the 2006 amendment, and 

as such, we strongly support the bill. That interpretation not only 

disregards the fact that Section 409 was left unamended by Congress, it is also inconsistent with assurances repeatedly given to 

the states and tribes by OSM during the consideration of the legislation that non-coal could continue to be undertaken with these 

AML funds. 

The interpretation would also have the unacceptable result of requiring states and tribes to devote funds to lower-priority coal sites 

while leaving dangerous non-coal sites unaddressed. OSM has argued that prior balance replacement funds are fundamentally distinct from 402[g] monies distributed from the fund. This according 

to OSM is due to the fact that these prior balance replacement 

funds are paid from the U.S. Treasury and have not been allocated 

under Section 402[g][1]. 

The fact is these funds were originally allocated under Section 

402[g][1], are due and owing pursuant to the operation of that section and did not change their color simply because they are paid 

from a different source. Without the operation of Section 402[g][1] 

in the first place, there would be no unappropriated state tribal 

share balances. There was no intention to condition or restrict the 

previously improved mechanisms and procedures that states were 

using to apply these monies to high-priority coal and non-coal problems. 

To change the rules based on such justification is inappropriate 

and inconsistent with the law. The urgency of advancing this legislation has been heightened, Mr. Chairman, by statements in OSM’s 

proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2011. Therein, OSM is proposing 

to further restrict the ability of states to expend AML funds on 

non-coal reclamation projects. This will apparently occur as part of 

a legislation proposal that the Administration intends to pursue in 

the 111th Congress. 

We are uncertain exactly what OSM has in mind with respect to 

this aspect of the proposal, but we suspect it has to do with clarifying the very issue that is the subject of 4817. For all we know, 

it could be even farther reaching. For the same reasons that Congress needs to clarify this misinterpretation for non-coal AML 

work, it should also do so for the Acid Mine Drainage, AMD, set 

aside program. Section 402[g][6] has since 1990 allowed a state and 

tribe to set aside a portion of its AML grant in a special AMD 

abatement account to address this pervasive problem. 

We therefore urge the Committee to amend H.R. 4817 to correct 

the current policy interpretation by the Interior and allow the use 

of unappropriated state and tribal share balance for the acid mind 

drainage set aside fund. Thank you for the opportunity to submit 

this statement on 4817. I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Pineda follows:] 

17 

Statement of Loretta Pineda, Director, Division of Reclamation, 

Mining and Safety, Colorado Department of Natural Resources 

My name is Loretta Pineda and I serve as the Director of the Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety within the Colorado Department of Natural Resources. I am 

appearing today on behalf of the Interstate Mining Compact Commission (IMCC) 

and the National Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs (NAAMLP). I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee today to present our 

views on H.R. 4817, a bill to amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation 

Act of 1977 (SMCRA) to clarify that uncertified States and Indian tribes have the 

authority to use certain payments for certain noncoal reclamation projects. Both of 

the organizations I represent today strongly support this critical amendment to 

SMCRA. 

The Interstate Mining Compact Commission (IMCC) is an organization of 24 

states located throughout the country that together produce some 95% of the Nation’s coal, as well as important hardrock and other noncoal minerals. Each IMCC 

member state has active mining operations as well as numerous abandoned mine 

lands within its borders and is responsible for regulating those operations and addressing mining-related environmental issues, including the reclamation of abandoned mines. Over the years, IMCC has worked with the states and others to identify the nature and scope of the abandoned mine land problem, along with potential 

remediation options. 

The NAAMLP is a tax-exempt organization consisting of 30 states and Indian 

tribes with a history of coal mining and coal mine related hazards. These states and 

tribes are responsible for 99.5% of the Nation’s coal production. All of the states and 

tribes within the NAAMLP administer abandoned mine land (AML) reclamation 

programs funded and overseen by the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) pursuant to 

Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA, P.L. 95–87). 

Mr. Chairman, nationally, abandoned mine lands continue to have significant adverse effects on the environment. Some of the types of environmental impacts that 

occur at AML sites include subsidence, surface and ground water contamination, 

erosion, sedimentation, chemical release, and acid mine drainage. Safety hazards associated with abandoned mines account for deaths and/or injuries each year. Abandoned and inactive mines, resulting from mining activities that occurred over the 

past 150 years, are scattered throughout the United States. The sites are located 

on private, state and public lands. 

Over the years, several studies have been undertaken in an attempt to quantify 

the hardrock AML cleanup effort. In 1991, IMCC and the Western Governors’ Association completed a multi-volume study of inactive and abandoned mines that provided one of the first broad-based scoping efforts of the national problem. Neither 

this study, nor any subsequent nationwide study, provides a completely reliable and 

fully accurate on-the-ground inventory of the hardrock AML problem. Both the 1991 

study and a recent IMCC compilation of data on hardrock AML sites were based 

on available data and professional judgment. While the data is seldom comparable 

between states due to the wide variation in inventory criteria, they do demonstrate 

that there are large numbers of significant safety and environmental problems associated with inactive and abandoned hardrock mines and that remediation costs are 

very large. 

Across the country, the number of abandoned hardrock mines with extremely hazardous mining-related features has been estimated at several hundred thousand. 

Many of the states and tribes report the extent of their respective AML problem 

using a variety of descriptions including mine sites, mine openings, mine features 

or structures, mine dumps, subsidence prone areas, miles of unreclaimed highwall, 

miles of polluted waterways, and acres of unreclaimed or disturbed land. Some of 

the types of numbers that IMCC has seen reported in our Noncoal Mineral Resources Survey and Report and in response to information we have collected for the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) and others include the following gross estimated number of abandoned mine sites: Alaska – 1,300; Arizona – 80,000; California – 47,000; Colorado – 7,300; Montana – 6,000; Nevada – 16,000; Utah – 17,000 

to 20,000; New York – 1,800; Virginia – 3,000 Washington – 3,800; Wyoming – 

1,700. Nevada reports over 200,000 mine openings; New Mexico reports 15,000 mine 

hazards or openings; Minnesota reports over 100,000 acres of abandoned mine lands 

and South Carolina reports over 6,000 acres. 

What becomes obvious in any attempt to characterize the hardrock AML problem 

is that it is pervasive and significant. And although inventory efforts are helpful in 

attempting to put numbers on the problem, in almost every case, the states are intimately familiar with the highest priority problems within their borders and also 

18 

know where limited reclamation dollars must immediately be spent to protect public 

health and safety or protect the environment from significant harm. 

Today, state agencies are working on hardrock abandoned mine problems through 

a variety of limited state and federal funding sources. Various federal agencies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, 

U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and others have provided some 

funding for hardrock mine remediation projects. These state/federal partnerships 

have been instrumental in assisting the states with our hardrock AML work and, 

as states take on a larger role for hardrock AML cleanups into the future, we will 

continue to coordinate with our federal partners. However, most of these existing 

federal grants are project specific and do not provide consistent funding. For states 

with coal mining, the most consistent source of AML funding has been the Title IV 

grants under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). Section 

409 of SMCRA allows states to use these grants at high priority non-coal AML sites. 

The funding is generally limited to safeguarding hazards to public safety (e.g., closing mine openings) at hardrock sites. 

In December 2006, Congress significantly amended the SMCRA AML program to, 

among other things, distribute funds to states in an amount equal to that previously 

allocated under SMCRA but never appropriated. However, while Section 409 was 

not changed or amended in any way, the Interior Department, through both a 

Soliticor’s Opinion (M–37014) and final rule (73 Fed. Reg. 67576), has now interpreted SMCRA to prohibit this enhanced funding from being used for noncoal 

projects. This is a significant blow to states such as New Mexico, Utah and Colorado 

that have previously used SMCRA AML funds to address many of the more serious 

hardrock AML problems within their borders. 

H.R. 4817 would remedy the Interior Department’s unfortunate interpretation of 

the 2006 Amendments and as such we strongly support the bill. That interpretation 

not only disregards the fact that section 409 was left unamended by Congress, it 

is also inconsistent with assurances repeatedly given to the states and tribes by 

OSM during the consideration of the legislation that noncoal work could continue 

to be undertaken with these AML funds. The interpretation would also have the unacceptable result of requiring states and tribes to devote funds to lower priority coal 

sites while leaving dangerous noncoal sites unaddressed. While OSM will argue that 

this may impact the amount of funding available to uncertified states to address 

high priority coal problems, Congress did not seem overly concerned with this result 

but rather deferred to its original framework for allowing both high priority coal and 

noncoal sites to be addressed. 

In its final rule implementing the 2006 amendments to SMCRA (at 73 Fed. Reg. 

67576, et seq.), OSM continued to abide by its argument that ‘‘prior balance replacement’’ funds (i.e the unappropriated state and tribal share balances in the AML 

Trust Fund) are fundamentally distinct from section 402(g) moneys distributed from 

the Fund. This, according to OSM, is due to the fact that these prior balance replacement funds are paid from the U.S. Treasury and have not been allocated under 

section 402(g)(1). This is a distinction of convenience for the Interior Department’s 

interpretation of the 2006 Amendments and has no basis in reason or law. The fact 

is, these funds were originally allocated under section 402(g)(1), are due and owing 

pursuant to the operation of section 402(g)(1), and did not change their ‘‘color’’ simply because they are paid from a different source. Without the operation of section 

402(g)(1) in the first place, there would be no unappropriated (i.e. ‘‘prior’’) state and 

tribal share balances. The primary reason that Congress appears to have provided 

a new source for paying these balances is to preserve a balance in the AML Trust 

Fund to 1) generate continuing interest for the UMW Combined Benefit Trust Fund 

and 2) to insure that there was a reserve of funding left after fee collection terminates in 2021 to address any residual high priority historic coal problems. There 

was never an intent to condition or restrict the previously approved mechanisms 

and procedures that states and tribes were using to apply these moneys to high priority coal and noncoal problems. To change the rules based on such a justification 

is inappropriate and inconsistent with law. 

The urgency of advancing this legislation has been heightened, Mr. Chairman, by 

statements in OSM’s proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2011. Therein, OSM is proposing to further restrict the ability of states to expend AML funds on noncoal reclamation projects. This will apparently occur as part of a legislative proposal that 

the Administration supposedly intends to pursue in the 111th Congress. While the 

primary focus of that proposal will be the elimination of future AML funding for 

states and tribes that are certified under Title IV of SMCRA (which we adamantly 

oppose), OSM’s explanation of its proposal also contains the following language: 

‘‘Similarly, the proposal will require that payments to noncertified States are only 

used for high-priority coal problems.’’ We are uncertain exactly what OSM has in 

19 

mind with respect to this aspect of the legislative proposal, but we suspect it has 

to do with clarifying the very issue that is the subject of H.R. 4817. For all we 

know, it could be even farther reaching. 

For the same reasons that Congress needs to clarify this misinterpretation for 

noncoal AML work, it should also do so for the acid mine drainage (AMD) set aside 

program. Section 402(g)(6) has, since 1990, allowed a state or tribe to set aside a 

portion of its AML grant in a special AMD abatement account to address this pervasive problem. OSM’s recent policy (and now regulatory) determination is denying 

the states the option to set aside moneys from that portion of its grant funding that 

comes from ‘‘prior balance replacement funds’’ each year to mitigate the effects of 

AMD on waters within their borders. AMD has ravaged many streams throughout 

the country, but especially in Appalachia. Given their long-term nature, these problems are technologically challenging to address and, more importantly, are very expensive. The states need the ability to set aside as much funding as possible to deal 

with these problems over the long term. Congress clearly understood the magnitude 

of this challenge given the fact that it increased the amount of money that states 

could set aside for this purpose from 10 to 30 percent in the 2006 Amendments. We 

therefore urge the Committee to amend H.R. 4817 to correct the current policy interpretation by Interior and allow the use of unappropriated state and tribal share 

balances (‘‘prior balance replacement funds’’) for the AMD set aside, similar to the 

use of these balances for noncoal work. Suggested amendatory language is attached 

to our statement. 

Over the past 30 years, tens of thousands of acres of abandoned mine lands have 

been reclaimed, thousands of mine openings have been closed, and safeguards for 

people, property and the environment have been put in place. There are numerous 

success stories from around the country where the states’ AML programs have 

saved lives and significantly improved the environment. Suffice it to say that the 

AML Trust Fund, and the work of the states pursuant to the distribution of monies 

from the Fund, have played an important role in achieving the goals and objectives 

of set forth by Congress when SMCRA was first enacted—including protecting public health and safety, enhancing the environment, providing employment, and adding to the economies of communities impacted by past coal and noncoal mining. Passage of H.R. 4817 will further these congressional goals and objectives. 

In support of our position on H.R. 4817, we also request that you include for the 

record the attached resolution (No. 07–8) adopted by the Western Governors that 

urges the continued use of funds collected or distributed under Title IV of SMCRA 

for the reclamation of high priority, hard-rock abandoned mines. This resolution is 

in support of the Western Governors’ policy statements B.4 and B.5. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present our views on H.R. 4817. We welcome 

the opportunity to work with you to complete the legislative process and see this 

bill, as amended, become law. 

Suggested Amendment to H.R. 4817 to include the AMD set-aside account 

(Amendments are in bold and italics) 

A Bill 

To amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to clarify that 

uncertified States and Indian tribes have the authority to use certain payments for 

certain noncoal and acid mine drainage reclamation projects. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of 

America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION. 

(a) Reclamation Fee—Section 402(g)(6)(A) of the Surface Mining Control 

and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1232(g)(6)(A)) is amended by 

inserting ‘‘and section 411(h)(1)’’ after ‘‘paragraphs (1) and (5)’’. 

b) Filling of Voids and Sealing Tunnels.—Section 409(b) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1239(b)) is amended by 

inserting ‘‘and section 411(h)(1)’’ after ‘‘section 402(g)’’. 

(c) Use of Funds.—Section 411(h)(1)(D)(ii) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1240a(h)(1)(D)(ii)) is amended by striking ‘‘section 403’’ and inserting ‘‘section 402(g)(6), 403 or 409.’’ 

Western Governors’ Association 

Policy Resolution 10–3 

20 

Cleaning Up Abandoned Mines in the West 

A. BACKGROUND 

1. Mining has a long history in the West. The western states are rich in 

hardrock minerals like gold, silver and copper as well as coal, much of it 

low sulfur. 

Hardrock Mines 

2. Historic hardrock mining in the West, unregulated until recent years, has 

left a legacy of thousands of historic abandoned mines, which pose a threat 

to human health and safety and to the environment. These historic mines 

pre-date modern federal and state environmental regulations which were 

enacted in the 1970s. Often a responsible party for these mines is not identifiable or not economically viable enough to be compelled to clean up the 

site. Thousands of stream miles are impacted by drainage and runoff from 

such mines, one of the largest sources of adverse water quality impacts in 

several Western states. 

3. Cleanup of abandoned hardrock mines is hampered by two issues—lack of 

funding and concerns about liability. Both of these issues are compounded 

by the land and mineral ownership patterns in mining districts. It is not 

uncommon for there to be dozens of parties with partial ownership or operational histories associated with a given site. 

4. Recognizing the potential for economic, environmental and social benefits to 

downstream users of impaired streams, Western states, municipalities, federal agencies, volunteer citizen groups and private parties have come together across the West to try to clean up some of these abandoned hardrock 

sites. However, due to questions of liability, many of these Good Samaritan 

efforts have been stymied. 

5. Potential liability exists for Good Samaritans under Clean Water Act 

(CWA) Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permit program because a party can inherit liability for any discharges from an abandoned mine site remaining after their cleanup efforts, 

even though the volunteering remediating party had no previous responsibility or liability for the site, and has reduced the water quality impacts 

from the site by completing a cleanup project. 

6. Potential liability exists for Good Samaritans under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). 

7. Liability concerns also prevent mining companies from going back into historic mining districts and remining old abandoned mine sites or doing volunteer cleanup work. While this could result in an improved environment, 

companies that are interested are justifiably hesitant to incur liability for 

cleaning up the entire abandoned mine site. 

Coal Mines 

8. Congress authorized creation of the Abandoned Mine Land (AML) Program 

under Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 

(SMCRA). The program is funded by fees from current coal production. The 

coal AML program provides funding to states to restore lands mined for 

coal and abandoned or left inadequately restored before August 3, 1977. 

9. Section 409 of SMCRA also authorizes states to use AML grant funds to 

address high priority non-coal mine hazards. While the state AML programs are limited to using SMCRA funds to only address public health and 

safety hazards at abandoned non-coal mines, and not purely environmental 

threats, the state programs have employed this provision to make a dent 

in the public safety threats posed by abandoned mines. 

10. In December 2006, Congress amended Title IV of SMCRA to reauthorize 

the fee collection authority, to provide for the distribution of the unappropriated stateshare balance of the AML Trust Fund, to increase the minimum program funding to $3 million per year. Section 409 of SMCRA was 

not amended and no limits were placed on non-coal projects. 

11. However, the Office of Surface Mining (OSMRE) adopted rules to severely 

limit certain states from using AML funds for non-coal mine hazards. For 

Colorado, New Mexico and Utah, over 70% of their funds are now off limits 

for non-coal projects. These states are required to fund lower priority coal 

mine reclamation projects while higher priority non-coal hazards would remain unfunded. The Administration is also proposing to deny AML funds 

to states which have ‘‘certified’’ completion of coal AML projects, contrary 

to agreements codified in 2006. 

21 

12. The new interpretation of SMCRA by OSMRE conflicts with the clear language of the law authorizing the use of coal AML funds for high priority 

non-coal mine hazards. OSMRE’s new interpretation will leave the public 

exposed to significant hazards to public health and safety at abandoned 

non-coal mines being ignored while states are required to expend coal AML 

funds at lower priority coal mine sites. 

B. GOVERNORS’ POLICY STATEMENT 

Hardrock Mines 

1. Western Governors believe Congress should amend the Clean Water Act to 

protect volunteering remediating parties who conduct authorized remediation 

from becoming legally responsible under section 301(a) and section 402 of the 

CWA for any continuing discharges from the abandoned mine site after completion of a cleanup project, provided that the remediating party—or ‘‘Good 

Samaritan’’—does not otherwise have liability for that abandoned or inactive 

mine site. Legislative and administrative remedies to address potential 

CERCLA liabilities should also be considered. 

2. The Governors encourage federal land management agencies, such as the 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service and the U.S. 

Forest Service, as well as support agencies, such as the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, to coordinate their abandoned hardrock mine cleanup efforts with 

state efforts to avoid redundancy and unnecessary duplication, and to employ 

the expertise and knowledge of state AML programs. 

3. Western Governors urge Congress to designate a dedicated source of funding 

for the cleanup of abandoned hardrock mines. 

Coal Mines 

4. Western Governors urge the Administration to uphold the intent of Congress 

to allow states to exercise discretion on the use of their AML grant funds 

to address high priority non-coal abandoned mine hazards and to return 

funds due ‘‘certified’’ states under existing law. 

5. Western Governors urge Congress to adopt legislation to restore the flexibility under SMCRA for the states to use AML funds at both coal and high 

priority noncoal abandoned mine sites and to ensure appropriate liability 

protections remain in place. 

C. GOVERNORS’ MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVES 

1. WGA staff will advance the policy positions stated above in appropriate 

venues as warranted and report to Governors and Staff Council on progress 

and impediments. 

2. WGA shall transmit this resolution to Congress, the Secretary of the Interior, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Director of 

the Office of Management and Budget and other appropriate parties as warranted. 

Mr. COSTA. Even though I intruded upon your time, you still 

made it. How about that? I was going to give you additional time. 

What you are actually saying, and we will get to that in the questions, but in the 2006 amendments that took place, the interpretation by the Department of the Interior has not reflected the will of 

Congress as to how those funds could be in a discretionary fashion 

utilized for the purpose of cleanup, and that is a point I want to 

get back to when we get to Q&A. 

Our last witness is John Antonio, the Governor of the Laguna 

Tribe, and we appreciate the fact that you are here, and we look 

forward to hearing your comments. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN ANTONIO, 

GOVERNOR, PUEBLO OF LAGUNA 

Mr. ANTONIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Costa, Mr. 

Lamborn, Mr. Teague and Mr. Heinrich. 

Mr. COSTA. At home they say Costa, but it is Costa. 

22 

Mr. ANTONIO. OK. I appreciate the opportunity to be here. As 

was mentioned, I am John Antonio, Governor for the Pueblo 

Laguna in New Mexico, and I bring greetings from our 8,200- 

member-strong Laguna located probably about 40 minutes or so 

west of Albuquerque, New Mexico, in our great state. Again, I want 

to thank you for the opportunity. I come here with an urgent plea 

to help us reclaim the world’s largest open-pit uranium mine. 

Mining began in 1953. It eventually closed in 1982, so we had 

a history of about 30 years of mining, first by Anaconda Company, 

which was eventually acquired by ARCO. During the span of mining, they removed over 400 million tons of earth to mine about 24 

tons of uranium ore. The original lease was about 8,000 acres. You 

can see on your exhibits the extent of the mining, the devastation, 

and in the red circle, you see a village called Paguate, which is 

home to about 1,500 tribal members. 

Mr. COSTA. How do you pronounce the name of the Village? 

Mr. ANTONIO. Paguate. Paguate Village. 

Mr. COSTA. Paguate. 

Mr. ANTONIO. One of our six villages. Again, this village has been 

impacted over the life of the mine, not only during the 30 years, 

but 57 years later. A lot more area has been impacted by the windblown dust and the perennial streams that pass through. Fiftyseven years later we are still impacted, and many people have suffered. Many have died from radiation-related illnesses, cancers, 

respiratory illnesses, and there has been a report of a direct link 

to diabetes, which we do have high incidents. 

In fact, my mom and two sisters are affected by radiation exposure with the diabetes issues, a lot of my uncles, relatives. A lot 

of our people have perished because the cancer is related. We did 

have many reclamation efforts in 1989 through 1995 with a $43 

million settlement from ARCO. However, very minimal reclamation 

was achieved at that time. In the 1980s, BLM put a cost of about 

$400 million to adequately reclaim. 

We still have high-grade ore piles sitting on a lot of wind-blown 

dust. The erosion continues on some of these areas that have been 

capped with topsoil. Efforts to clean up have been again very minimal. The Department of the Interior has issued a record of decision, and we continue to monitor various contamination parameters 

with our own funds. As far as trying to do our part, we have entered into partnerships with Environmental Protection Agency. 

They conducted an area radiological survey as you see in the different exhibits the extent of the contamination. 

We are also now looking at the homes because some of the homes 

were built with rocks that were coming from the mine area as a 

result of the overburden removal. We also submitted an application 

to EPA to designate a site as a superfund site. We also approved 

to establish our own air and water quality standards to protect ourselves from future mining. We also approved a moratorium against 

future uranium mining. However, it only protects our area. 

We also entered in June of 2010 with EPA an MOU to address 

the uranium mine contamination. With New Mexico Department of 

Health, we have also implemented a study. The study has indicated that there are high levels of uranium contamination in the 

urine, and so we continue to follow up. We have also entered partVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:16 Jan 03, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\58421.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
23 

nerships with U.S. Geological Survey. They are going to look at the 

dispersion of radiation contamination through soil, water, dust, et 

cetera. We make a plea to end the suffering of our people. Thank 

you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Antonio follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable John E. Antonio, Sr., 

Governor of the Pueblo of Laguna 

I. INTRODUCTION 

This statement is submitted by the Pueblo of Laguna (‘‘Pueblo’’ or ‘‘Laguna’’) to 

apprise the Committee of the Pueblo’s efforts to reclaim lands once used for the extraction of uranium ore and to assist the Committee in assessing the Pueblo’s need 

for funds to use for certain non-coal reclamation projects. 

The Pueblo of Laguna is a federally recognized Indian tribe located 45 miles west 

of Albuquerque, New Mexico, and has approximately 8,200 members who are affiliated with six (6) different villages. The Pueblo’s lands consist of approximately 

590,000 acres in Cibola, Sandoval, and Bernalillo counties, and contain the site of 

what was once the world’s largest open pit uranium mine; the Jackpile-Paguate 

Mine. The Jackpile-Paguate Mine, which began operating in 1953, was finally shut 

down in 1982 but then laid dormant for 7 years before reclamation activities began. 

During that time, stockpiled waste was blown into surrounding areas, including the 

Paguate Village, located just 30 yards from the mine. In addition, rain caused waste 

from the mine to flow into surface water tributaries. After years of negotiating with 

the company who conducted the mining, minimal reclamation efforts began in 1989 

and were completed in 1995. However, there still remain piles of high grade ore on 

the surface and within some of the exposed open pits. 

Despite efforts to reclaim the mine after it closed, the mine continues to have a 

tremendous impact on the long-term health and environmental landscape at the 

Pueblo. Many Pueblo members who worked in the mine or lived near the mine suffer from cancer-related illnesses and other health conditions. Two surface water 

tributaries near the mine, the Rio Moquino, and the Rio San Jose have since tested 

positive for radiation contamination. Groundwater is also at risk for radiation contamination. Because water is scarce in our arid part of New Mexico, the contamination of our water resources is devastating to our people and the entire region. Although no official studies have been conducted to establish a direct correlation between the mining activities and the increase in cancer among individuals who live 

near or worked in the mine, significant statistical information is being compiled on 

former mine workers applying for benefits under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (‘‘RECA’’). Many of these applicants have been diagnosed with cancer-related illnesses. 

In addition, other studies that are now being conducted may show a direct correlation between uranium mining activities and various respiratory and kidney 

problems, and may even extend to problems related to diabetes. Testimony on these 

and related issues was presented to a State Legislative Interim Subcommittee in 

Grants, New Mexico in 2009, on the impacts of uranium mining. 

As a result of our experiences with mining, the Pueblo is opposed to any new mining on or near Pueblo lands. In 2007, our Tribal Council passed a resolution to establish a moratorium on any uranium mining and development. However, in the 

event that mining is permitted near our lands, the Pueblo seeks to be included in 

the process by having a voice to express our concerns about having adequate protections in place. 

II. MINING AT LAGUNA 

A. Uranium Mining, Generally 

Uranium, a silvery-white, radioactive metal similar in appearance to a piece of 

silver or steel, is never found in its pure form in nature. It is always found combined 

with other elements into different chemical compounds, which are highly poisonous. 

Uranium has been used to make material for nuclear weapons and to make fuel for 

nuclear power plants. Deposits of minerals that include large amounts of uranium, 

large enough to make mining worthwhile are rare. However, the ‘‘Four Corners’’ 

area of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah contains some of the richest deposits of uranium ores in the world. Open pit mining is used when the ore is close to 

the surface and involves removing the ‘‘overburden,’’ or top layers of soil and rock 

that cover the ore. The overburden is hauled off and often stored in huge piles. Underground mining requires drilling, blasting and digging into the earth and the ore 

24 

is obtained by the use of elevators. Holes are drilled to provide ventilation because 

the decay of uranium results in a radioactive gas called radon. Radon can build up 

in underground mines causing serious health problems for miners. In addition, underground water can cause problems. Once the uranium is obtained, the next process is ‘‘milling,’’ or removing the valuable mineral from the mined ore. The ore is 

crushed and then mixed with water to form slurry. The slurry is mixed with chemicals to separate out the uranium ore from the rest of the rock, referred to as ‘‘leaching.’’ The liquid containing the uranium ore, or ‘‘leachate,’’ is then filtered from the 

rest of the slurry and further concentrated by a precipitation process. Water is then 

removed and the precipitate is dried to produce ‘‘yellowcake,’’ which is then packaged and shipped to an enrichment plant. Material left over from the milling process is referred to as ‘‘tailing,’’ which are still dangerous because of the radioactive 

elements they contain. 

B. Uranium Mining at Laguna 

The Grants Mineral Belt, which stretches from east of Gallup, New Mexico to Laguna, New Mexico and includes Laguna Pueblo lands, has especially rich uranium 

deposits. In May 1952, the Anaconda Mining Company (later Atlantic Richfield or 

ARCO) entered into a lease with the Pueblo to mine uranium on 4,988 acres of Laguna land near the Village of Paguate. Additional leases were signed in 1963 and 

1976 for 2,560 and 320 more acres, respectively, for a total of 8,000 acres. As a result, Anaconda operated one of the world’s largest open pit uranium mines at the 

Pueblo from 1953 until 1982. Before the first lease was signed with the Pueblo, Anaconda had signed an agreement with the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (‘‘Commission’’), which made Anaconda the sole ore-buying agent for the Commission. In 

fact, a majority of uranium produced on Indian land between 1950 and 1968 went 

to the Commission. 

Anaconda utilized three (3) open pit mines and 9 underground mines at Laguna 

to produce 24 million tons of uranium-bearing ore. More than 400 million tons of 

earth had to be moved to obtain the ore. Mining conducted from the 9 underground 

mines primarily began in the 1970’s. The Jackpile-Paguate Mine, located near the 

Village of Paguate, was the deepest open pit mine at 625 feet. The mine operated 

24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year for 30 years and employed as many 

as 800 tribal members. At its peak, the mine employed the majority of the workforce 

at Laguna and neighboring communities. 

ARCO closed the mine on March 1, 1982, after which it laid dormant for 7 years 

before any efforts to reclaim the mine began. More than 2,000 acres of land and several pits needed to be reclaimed. One pit measured over 600 feet deep, and a few 

pits were filled with contaminated water that had seeped up over the years. A draft 

environmental impact statement found ARCO primarily responsible and recommended reclaiming the mine because the site was a public health and safety hazard, noting that more serious hazards would develop if the site was left un-reclaimed. Reclamation began in 1989 after ARCO and the Pueblo reached an agreement by which the Pueblo would perform the reclamation. However, the $43 million 

provided by ARCO was well below the estimated $400 million required to fully reclaim the mine. The Pueblo tried to reclaim the mine as best as possible, despite 

the lack of funding and the fact that there were no standards for reclaiming a uranium mine in place at the time. 

In reclaiming the mine, the Laguna Construction Company used the overburden 

to partially backfill some of the pits. It was specially sloped and terraced to keep 

it in place and prevent wind and rain from washing it away. Next, a layer of rock, 

or shale, of up to 12 feet thick was put into the pits to keep radiation from coming 

up into the air. An additional foot and a half of topsoil was placed over the top and 

seeded with grasses and other native plants. High grade ore piles that were still 

on the surface were covered with layers of top soil and reseeded with native vegetation. The Pueblo’s reclamation process, the first attempt in the world to reclaim an 

open pit uranium mine, was completed in 1995, but the Pueblo continues to monitor 

the mine and its ongoing impacts. And, because the $43 million provided by ARCO 

only enabled the Pueblo to conduct minimal reclamation, much work still remains 

to be done to fully reclaim the mine and reduce the health and environmental impacts. 

III. MINING IMPACTS ON LAGUNA 

The Village of Paguate, whose village boundaries lie only 30 yards from the edge 

of the largest open pit in the mining area, was significantly affected by the mining 

activity. In this village of approximately 1500 residents, blasting caused old stone 

and mud houses to crack apart, and dust from the mine coated homes, crops, and 

clothes. Paguate residents on the south and eastern sides of the village, closest to 

25 

the mine, recall dust that seemed to linger for hours after a blast and cracks on 

the walls of homes. 

Despite the minimal reclamation efforts, former mining employees as well as 

Pueblo members living in Paguate and downwind continue to report growing numbers of cancer-related illnesses. Contaminated surfaces and groundwater sources 

still exist. Of the 24 million tons of ore mined from the Jackpile-Paguate Mine, approximately 23.7 million tons were left as waste, which are still dangerous because 

of radioactive elements they contain. In addition, water that flows through the old 

mine, including the Rio Moquino and the Rio Paguate, is contaminated from radioactive elements. Many Laguna members have died, and others suffer from high 

incidences of diabetes, reportedly linked to radiation exposure attributed to uranium 

mining. In addition, radiation exposure can cause damage that may not show up 

for 10–40 years. 

Currently, little is known about the stability of the radioactive pollutants and additional risks, which may involve migration into local groundwater supplies or into 

the atmosphere. Meanwhile, the mine continues to have a tremendous impact on the 

long-term health and environmental landscape at the Pueblo, where many residents 

and former mine employees continue to experience deleterious health effects. The 

mine contaminated parts of the reservation with toxic, radioactive materials and 

miners who worked at the Jackpile Mine were not warned of the exposure to radiation, including radon gas and radioactive dust. 

IV. CONSULTATION AND COLLABORATION WITH U.S. ENVIORNMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY FOR POSSIBLE DESIGNATION OF 

THE JACKPILE–PAGUATE MINE SITE AS A SUPERFUND SITE. 

During the month of August, 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

contacted the Pueblo to see if an Aerial Radiological Survey could be conducted of 

the entire Grants Mineral Belt area, which includes Pueblo lands and the Jackpile 

mine site. The purpose of the aerial flyover was to: 1) identify any structures with 

elevated radiological activity and which might have been associated with historic 

uranium mining activity at Jackpile; 2) data collected from this survey would allow 

EPA to focus its ground resources on those structures with elevated radiological activity; 3) EPA would analyze the results of the data to determine if any remediation 

is needed; 4) the report, along with the analysis would be given to the Pueblo; and 

5) the collected data could potentially be used to secure funds to assist with any 

remediation. 

On September 29, 2009, representatives from the EPA Region 6 Office came before the Pueblo Council and gave a presentation that included their request for the 

aerial radiological survey, and a request to enter into an MOU to formalize a partnership to deal with any air, water, environmental, and cultural resources impacts 

as a result of any mining activity. On October 13, 2009, Mr. Larry Starfield, Acting 

Regional Administrator for Region 6 and several of his staff members came before 

the Pueblo Council to formally consult with the Council on a government-to-government basis for the following purposes: 1) to discuss how further consultation should 

take place, i.e., informal vs. formal type of discussions on issues/concerns; 2) the effects of uranium mining on the tribe’s air, land, water, and cultural resources; and 

3) what type of communications can be agreed upon by both parties during further 

consultation. 

EPA also explained that they were developing a five (5) year Comprehensive Plan 

on how to deal with uranium issues. This Plan could set out a good communication 

plan between the Pueblo and EPA; set out certain activities that both EPA and the 

Pueblo can be involved with; and would also provide that there be a working partnership between EPA and the Pueblo to try and resolve any issues/concerns that 

the Pueblo has. Representatives from the Pueblo reviewed the Comprehensive Plan 

and made several comments and/or suggestions on edits to the Plan. EPA also wanted to develop a Data Base of information on uranium issues and wants to work with 

the Pueblo on how this information can be collected, stored and retrieved for use 

by all parties—tribe, state and federal governments. 

In answer to the question of whether the Jackpile mine site might qualify as a 

superfund site, it was indicated that the environmental conditions have to be evaluated first to see if the site meets a minimum threshold for qualifying as a superfund 

site. This evaluation would require a Hazard Ranking Score (HRS), which is a ranking score that EPA would use to see where the Jackpile mine ranks as compared 

to all other sites throughout the country. After the discussion, the Pueblo Council 

passed Resolution No. 10–10, approving of the submittal of an application for designation of the Jackpile Mine site as a Superfund Site. 

EPA also developed a proposed MOU and presented it to Council for its review. 

After several meetings and long discussions over the contents of the MOU, the 

26 

Council and representatives from the EPA Region 6 Office entered into a formal 

MOU on June 22, 2010. 

V. STUDY BY THE NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH’S ENVIRONMENTAL EPIDEMIOLOGY BUREAU ON THE HEALTH IMPACTS OF 

URANIUM MINING. 

A presentation was made to the Pueblo Council by Dr. Jana Gunnell, on a request 

to conduct a study on the effects of uranium mining and the study would concentrate on: 1) testing a participant’s drinking water source for uranium; 2) testing 

a participant’s urine specimen for uranium; and 3) conducting a survey with each 

participant. It was explained that funding in the amount of $40,000 was allocated during the 

2007 regular session of the State legislature under Senate Bill 611 to ‘‘develop a 

testing protocol, develop and establish a health registry, contract with appropriate 

testing laboratories and coordinate affected parties in regard to a voluntary testing 

program for military veterans who may have been exposed to depleted uranium or 

other isotopes in the Persian Gulf war or in the current Iraq or Afghanistan conflict.’’ 

Based on the results from 2007–2008, the Environmental Health Epidemiology 

Bureau (EHEB) was approved to utilize the funds differently from what was stated 

in the legislation for a variety of reasons. First, there were a fairly small number 

of veterans who could be recruited and of those, only 31 out of 83 chose to obtain 

an isotopic analysis (37%). Second, a health registry for veterans already exists. The 

Veterans Administration (VA) has a Depleted Uranium Follow-Up Program that has 

been in existence since 1993. Any veteran who believes he or she was exposed to 

depleted uranium may participate. Finally, the total uranium in urine is the result 

used to determine the potential for uranium to cause adverse health effects, regardless of whether there is a depleted uranium component. 

The Council approved to allow this study to go forward and information was disseminated out to the public that there were approximately 50 slots for community 

members to participate in the survey. This study has been completed and initial results have indicated that some tribal members have elevated levels of uranium in 

their urine. As a follow-up to the uranium study, the National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is conducting its 

own study, to see if people who live in an area where there are high levels of uranium in the environment have an increased risk for kidney disease. 

VI. U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY – URANIUM AND DUST RESEARCH 

PROJECT 

On July 20, 2010, a presentation was made by Dr. Tanya Gallegos, from the U.S. 

Geological Survey Office out of Denver, Colorado. The purpose of the proposed research project is to understand the dispersion of wastes from the Jackpile-Paguate 

mine through the air, water and soil. The purpose of the study was to: 1) look at 

the effects of the Jackpile mine on the environment; 2) see how the wind and water 

has moved the uranium from the Jackpile mine site area to other areas of the reservation and how far; 3) has the air, soil and water been contaminated; and 4) provide information needed to ultimately develop methods for remediation and ground 

water restoration. 

Dr. Gallegos explained that much of the work to be performed in this study would 

occur out in the field, where there would be a collection of water samples, dust samples, mine waste, radiometric survey, collection of surface soils from various areas 

in and around the mine site, and also have a measurement of the water parameters—how the water from some small streams may have carried contaminants from 

the mine site downstream. The timeframe for the study was to commence in September, 2010, and the expected duration was to be about one (1) month. It was also 

explained that there may be a need to revisit some sites at a later time to collect 

more dust samples. On August 10, 2010, the Pueblo Council approved to allow the 

USGS Uranium Study to go forward. 

VII. PUSH FOR RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPENSATION ACT (RECA) 

AMENDMENTS AND REFORM OF THE MINING LAW OF 1872. 

The Pueblo has been actively involved in working with the New Mexico Congressional delegation to amend the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act to cover 

former uranium workers beyond the 1972 cutoff period. As was indicated in the first 

portion of this testimony, the Jackpile-Paguate Mine did not close until 1982, ten 

years after the cutoff date under RECA. Many of these post ’71 mine workers suffer 

the same health effects as those pre-’71 workers, and should be afforded the same 

opportunity to receive the benefits that RECA contemplated for affected uranium 

workers. 

27 

VIII. CONCLUSION 

Based on the Pueblo’s experience with the Jackpile Mine, the Pueblo is opposed 

to any further mining on or near Pueblo lands. The Pueblo fears that the State of 

New Mexico, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the U.S. Forest Service will 

permit additional uranium exploration and mining because of the current high demand for uranium, fueled by dwindling uranium stockpiles from existing sources 

and new orders for a large number of nuclear-fueled power plants worldwide. The 

State of New Mexico is currently looking at re-opening several mining and milling 

sites to again mine and mill uranium in efforts to create more jobs and boast its 

economy. Because of these new efforts and the Pueblo’s first-hand experience in 

dealing with both the health and environmental impacts of mining uranium, and 

the fact that there would be new dangers from mining and milling of uranium to 

downwind and downstream water users, the Pueblo has taken steps to start developing its own air and quality standards. 

Many federal lands adjoin Indian Country and share water resources essential to 

the health and welfare of tribes. Therefore, the Pueblo believes that it is imperative 

that any new legislation include adequate environmental standards to protect the 

health and welfare of the adjoining tribal communities. In addition, the Pueblo 

would like to see the establishment of a Hardrock Reclamation account for the 

clean-up of hardrock mines, and the establishment of a hardrock community impact 

assistance account fund. 

In closing, thank you for allowing the Pueblo to testify before this Committee. The 

Pueblo has been exploring the various options, alternatives, and opportunities to get 

funds to deal with the clean-up of the Jackpile-Paguate uranium mine site for years. 

What has been done with the limited resources that were made available from the 

settlement with the ARCO company was far less than what is needed to adequately 

deal with the health and environmental problems that still exist to this day at that 

site. We respectfully request the Committee’s favorable consideration of amending 

the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to clarify that uncertified 

States and Indian tribes do have the authority to use certain payments for certain 

non-coal reclamation projects. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to 

contact m 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much, Governor Antonio. When you 

show these maps as a part of your testimony, is it your understanding because you talked about pilings on sides of road, and I 

suspect there are also tailings on watershed areas, have these been 

prioritized to your knowledge either by the State of New Mexico or 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the Department of Energy as to 

which pose the greatest health risks to the affected tribal areas 

that you speak on behalf of? 

Mr. ANTONIO. OK. Right now, if you look at the map again, the 

Paguate Village, you can see just immediately to the right there or 

to the east you see the kind of the orange color? Well, that is a 

high-priority area because that is where the mine is located, again 

just right next to the village. 

Mr. COSTA. OK. 

Mr. ANTONIO. A little bit south where you see that other red 

part, there is an old reservoir there, and that basically became a 

sediment entrapment for all the debris coming down through—— 

Mr. COSTA. OK. But this isn’t just your views or the tribe’s 

views, this is also reflected by the State of New Mexico and other 

people who have done risk assessments? 

Mr. ANTONIO. Yes. We have talked to the Legislature, the Governors and, of course, our Congressional representatives, and this 

is a priority area. 

Mr. COSTA. All right. Let me go on, Ms. Pineda. I am glad that 

you cited in your testimony the sections in the existing law, 1977, 

and the changes that were made in the amendments of 2006, and 

your argument basically is that the Department of the Interior now 

28 

is not fulfilling what the original intent of Congress, is that correct? 

Mr. ANTONIO. Correct. 

Mr. COSTA. I am talking to Ms. Pineda. 

Mr. ANTONIO. Excuse me. OK. Sorry. 

Ms. PINEDA. Yes, and I guess I would further remark that originally in 1977 when SMCRA was created the funding comes from 

reclamation fees put on current coal operators, and every year 

money was collected and then appropriated back to the states, and 

over the past 25 to 30 years, not all of the money was necessarily 

appropriated back due to budget situations or whatever was occurring so the fund was accumulating in terms of money not being appropriated back to the states, so our argument is that had we been 

getting that money all along during the course of the last 30 years, 

we would have been able to be spending that money on non-coal 

projects or whatever. 

Mr. COSTA. And I would argue that you are in the best position 

to make those determinations far better than we are here in 

Washington. 

Ms. PINEDA. What the priorities are? 

Mr. COSTA. Right. 

Ms. PINEDA. I believe so, yes. 

Mr. COSTA. And you have made assessments based upon hazards 

and risk assessment and risk management for health? 

Ms. PINEDA. Yes. Yes, back in 1980 when we first received the 

AML program, Colorado in addition to all the other 30 states and 

tribes did a national inventory, and in addition to that, we did a 

state inventory, so we have inventoried all the areas for both coal 

and hard rock so that we can determine where it is best to spend 

the money, whether it is on coal projects or on non-coal projects, 

so we are really kind of just asking for that flexibility for the states 

and tribes, and we may end up spending some funds on coal 

projects because some states have coal fires, subsidence issues that 

they need to deal with. 

We also recognize that we have these non-coal problems, so basically what the states are asking for is flexibility in that funding. 

Mr. COSTA. Ms. Owens, you I think stated obviously the Administration’s position and as I heard it particularly as it referenced 

your priorities for 2011 and what is in the budget, but is it your 

view that the amendments of 2006 allow the Department of the 

Interior the determination to set these priorities notwithstanding 

the monies that can be provided for states to make their own determinations? I mean, in this case, notwithstanding the goals of cleaning up coal mines, and I am not arguing that point. 

Obviously, there is a priority there, but also these funds were 

provided to have a breakdown for states and tribes to also be able 

to address their issues. 

Ms. OWENS. Correct. Yes, that is true, Chairman Costa, and I 

just want to say that Section 409 of SMCRA was not amended in 

2006. It did then, and it does now allow the uncertified states and 

tribes to use their state and tribal share and also their historic coal 

share for non-coal reclamation. That hasn’t changed. The states 

and tribes can continue to use those distributions for non-coal reclamation. 

29 

Mr. COSTA. But under that section, isn’t it correct that the states 

and tribes also have two other funding segments within that they 

can utilize? 

Ms. OWENS. Well, under 409, what they can use is the state and 

historic share, which is one distribution and also the historic coal 

share, which is a second distribution. What 411[h][1] does is precludes the use of fire balance replacement funds by uncertified 

states on non-coal reclamation. 

Mr. COSTA. All right. I may want to get back to that, but my 

time has expired. The Ranking Member, Congressman from Colorado, Doug Lamborn. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and before I ask any 

questions, I would like to ask unanimous consent to include the 

Western Governors’ Association Resolution that Ms. Pineda referred to and attached to her testimony. 

Mr. COSTA. Without opposition, so ordered. 

Mr. LAMBORN. For the record. OK. Thank you. Ms. Pineda, it is 

good to have you here. It is always good to talk to a fellow Coloradan, so thank you for your testimony. On a related issue, we 

have some Good Samaritan proposals that have been proposed here 

in Congress. I have one that has been proposed, for instance. You 

have experience with the Animas River Basin and Good Samaritan 

efforts. Can you tell us about that and how successful they have 

been? 

Ms. PINEDA. Yes. The Animas River Stakeholders Group is a 

very active kind of local watershed in the Silverton area in San 

Juan County, and they have been promoting and doing several reclamation and remediation projects along the upper Animas. In 

terms of the Colorado AML program, what we have provided under 

SMCRA funds is just basically safeguarding hazards because that 

is really the only priority that we can use SMCRA funds for are 

kind of health and safety issues related to non-coal. 

In addition to that, we have partnered with the Bureau of Land 

Management and also the U.S. Forest Service to do several cleanup 

projects that have helped water quality issues along the upper 

Animas in terms of dealing with mine waste and mine tailings, so 

we have probably done over 50 reclamation remediation projects 

working along the Animas River doing kind of mine tailings and 

mine waster projects. 

The real challenge there is that because of liability issues under 

the Clean Water Act dealing with draining adits, adits that are 

draining, high-pollution, acid mind drainage, we are unable to really touch those because some of the liability provisions that are in 

the Clean Water Act, and no one really wants to have that liability 

long term, so the legislation put forward by yourself and others in 

Congress would hopefully amend the Clean Water Act so that we 

could have Good Samaritans, we could have state agencies, local 

governments, watershed groups, industry help and participate in 

those kinds of cleanups because they can be very expensive when 

you are looking at kind of long-term water treatment. 

In terms of SMCRA and the kinds of funding that we can use 

in that watershed, we have been able to help tremendously in safeguarding a lot of those sites and then using other funding that we 

were able to get to do the remediation work, and as you know, the 

30 

Silverton area and in Leadville, in Idaho Springs, Central City, 

Clear Creek County, it is a very high-tourist area with a lot of people visiting the high country, so we want to make sure that they 

all have a very safe visit. 

Mr. COSTA. What part of Colorado? 

Ms. PINEDA. What? 

Mr. COSTA. What part of Colorado? 

Ms. PINEDA. All parts of Colorado. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Silverton. 

Ms. PINEDA. I am sorry. Silverton is the area that—— 

Mr. COSTA. No. That is lovely country. I just wanted to make 

sure I understood it. 

Ms. PINEDA. Yes. 

Mr. COSTA. What a lovely state I keep telling all my friends in 

Colorado. 

Ms. PINEDA. Well, we want you to have a safe visit there. 

Mr. COSTA. Of course. Go ahead. I am sorry to interrupt. I will 

add to your time. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Anything to add to that about Good Samaritan 

legislation, or at this point I would like to open it up for either of 

the other two witnesses. I know that the intentions are good, but 

there are always unforseen consequences, and for a Good Samaritan to right now currently pick up liability when they are just trying to help out would discourage probably 100 percent of anyone 

who would otherwise offer their services. 

Ms. PINEDA. Right. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Do any of our other two witnesses care to comment on that issue of Good Samaritan legislation? 

Ms. OWENS. I am not familiar with the Good Samaritan legislation, so I wouldn’t—— 

Mr. COSTA. I didn’t hear you. I am sorry. 

Ms. OWENS. I said that I am not familiar with the Good Samaritan legislation, so I couldn’t speak to it. 

Mr. COSTA. OK. 

Mr. ANTONIO. I understand Good Samaritan means somebody 

that is there to help out, so anybody that can help us out, we will 

take all the help we can get. Thank you. 

Mr. LAMBORN. All right. Well, thank you all for being here and 

for your testimony. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ANTONIO. Thank you very much. 

Mr. COSTA. I really think at the crux of this, and I believe probably the legislation would not be necessary if it weren’t for a Department of the Interior memorandum of opinion M-37014 that 

issued by the Solicitor on December 5, 2007, that interpreted the 

amendment to Section 411 to prohibit uncertified states and Indian 

tribes from unappropriated balance amounts for non-coal mine hazards, and it is this memorandum that has created the problem and 

has taken the discretion away from states like Colorado and tribes 

like yours with Laguna. 

The Department has already opined on the legislation, but frankly I guess that means they believe that the memorandum of understanding was appropriate, and that is where we differ. Mr. Heinrich, for your five minutes for comments or questions? 

31 

Mr. HEINRICH. Thank you, Chairman. Ms. Owens, I wanted to 

ask you as Congressman Teague mentioned earlier, most of the 

uranium sites in the southwest date to the Cold War era when our 

nation’s uranium reserves were used to build up our nuclear arsenal. New Mexico’s miners and mill workers, as well as the entire 

community really in Cibola and McKinley County, really played a 

critical role in our national security during that time, and many of 

us believe that they deserve recognition and compensation for the 

things that they have suffered along the way to produce at those 

uranium sites. 

I wanted to ask you if the Administration opposes the use of 

SMCRA funds for reclamation of uranium mines, how do you propose that we pay for the cleanup of these sites that were essential 

to our national security for decades? 

Ms. OWENS. Well, Congressman Heinrich, as I said, there is a 

provision for some portion of the AML funding to be used for noncoal cleanup, and that is found in Section 409 of the Act. We recognize and appreciate the problems that are posed by non-coal hazards. However, because of this Administration’s focus on the cleanup of high-priority coal problems under SMCRA while we have the 

extension of the fund, we have to be supportive, and we do support 

that money being used for the high-priority coal cleanup. 

Mr. HEINRICH. Ms. Pineda, I wanted to ask you other than 

SMCRA funds, what other Federal funds are available to your department for hard rock mine reclamation? 

Ms. PINEDA. Thank you for that question. Currently, we do get 

funding from the Bureau of Land Management and also from the 

U.S. Forest Service. The issue with that funding though is that it 

is for BLM properties and U.S. Forest Service properties, so mostly 

on Federal land, so we still have a lot of unpatented claims or 

claims that are on private property that we still need to safeguard. 

We are very diligent and efficient in using all of the different kinds 

of funding that are available. 

In Colorado, I am lucky to also get some state funding that I can 

match with watersheds and other groups to do abandoned mine 

land cleanup, and I know that New Mexico, Utah and our other 

states and partners are all very diligent in getting as much funding 

as we can and to use it as efficiently as we can. 

Mr. HEINRICH. If you add the funding stream that Ms. Owens 

mentioned to any state funding you have plus what is available 

through the BLM and the Forest Service, does it even begin to 

meet the unmet needs that you have in Colorado? 

Ms. PINEDA. Well, currently we have 23,000 abandoned mines in 

Colorado, so we are very cognizant of the fact that we have to 

prioritize because we will probably never be able to really reach 

every problem, and not only do we have safeguarding, but as Congressman Lamborn mentioned, we have acid mine drainage problems, and a lot of other problems that would require enormous 

amounts of funding. 

I can assure you that all of the states and tribes that are involved in getting abandoned mine funding for coal or for non-coal 

are very diligent in working with local governments and watershed 

groups and just trying to partner and make the dollars go as far 

32 

as they can, and a lot of this money also does translate into jobs 

and to other opportunities for local communities. 

Mr. HEINRICH. Thank you. Governor Antonio, I wanted to ask in 

addition to some of the health issues you mentioned, cancer and 

other diseases that mine workers and their families have experienced, are there currently issues with water contamination with 

the Pueblo’s water supplies because of the Jackpile Mine? 

Mr. ANTONIO. We are concerned in that close proximity there because of the groundwater contamination. I know in the history of 

the mine there were some potable water that eventually was abandoned because of that contamination, so we are concerned. There 

are some reported high levels of contamination in some of the 

water, but we have to constantly monitor those. 

Mr. HEINRICH. Thank you, Governor. Mr. Chair, I will finish up 

just by asking unanimous consent to be able to add to the record 

a letter that I have from the New Mexico legislation, which has 

worked on this issue for many years. 

Mr. COSTA. Without objection, so ordered. Let me just close by 

saying clearly, Ms. Owens, as you indicated, the states and tribes 

do have the utilization of the other two sources of funding as I 

noted and you pointed out, but the dispute here is really on the 

other source of funding here in which prior that memorandum 

states and tribes, as I understand it, did have the discretionary use 

of those funds. 

As I look down the breakdown here in the last fiscal year, for the 

State of Colorado, and I am going to round the numbers out a bit, 

but under the state’s share, they got $1,855,000 on the state’s 

share, on the historical share on the coal, Colorado got $1.26 million, but the larger share, the prior balance replacement funds that 

Director Pineda spoke about was $4.2 million, or 58 percent of the 

total, of which they have no discretion and thus the purpose of 

their testimony here today, and the same thing with New Mexico. New Mexico got $1.1 million of the state’s share, $308,00 of the historical coal share, but the largest share, $3 million plus from the 

prior balance replacement funds are 66 percent. The State of New 

Mexico has no ability to utilize in a way that they thing would be 

best for its tribes and for its priorities within the state and vis-a`- 

vis going back to the memorandum again, therein lies the rub, and 

that is why they want to pursue this legislation. 

Ms. OWENS. I just want to make one comment on that memorandum that you refer to. The memorandum didn’t make the law. 

It merely interpreted it. 

Mr. COSTA. I know, and I am glad you raised that because let 

us put a fine point on it. I am one regardless if it is a Democratic 

or Republican Administration get a little tired, I am being polite 

this morning, I am in a good mood, I get a lot more than tired, but 

I get frustrated when any Executive Branch decides that they are 

going for their own purposes interpret the will of Congress that I 

think is in direct conflict with what that will of Congress was and 

the clarity of it, and what you are saying is well, notwithstanding 

the law, we take a broad interpretation. We have issued this 

memorandum, and these are our priorities. 

Ms. OWENS. Actually, Chairman, I am not saying that we take 

a broad interpretation of the law. I am saying that the memoVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:16 Jan 03, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\58421.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
33 

randum opinion read the two provisions that said that the money 

could be used for 402[g][1], which is the state and tribal share, and 

for 402[g][5], which is the historic coal share. That is all it did. It 

said what this allows you to do is use this money, and what this 

allows you to do is use the other money, and weren’t attempting 

to do anything more than that. 

Mr. COSTA. Well, the net effect of that as it breaks down the dollars that are available, in essence, then the majority of the funds— 

at least as I saw this breakdown in this fiscal year for the States 

of Colorado, New Mexico and Utah—the majority of the funds are 

going for the priorities that the Department of the Interior has established and not necessarily the priorities that the states and the 

tribes have established. I think that is why we had this legislation 

introduced. 

It is a problem. We are going to have to continue to work on this 

I believe, and I commend my colleagues for raising this issue once 

again. As I said, a previous measure was introduced that first 

raised this issue, and we are going to have to work this out. That 

is the bottom line. I want to thank all the witnesses for their testimony. I thank the staff, my Republican colleagues and their staff 

members for the fine job you do in the event that this is our last 

hearing for the session. 

Once again, we want to congratulate Deborah Lanzone and 

Wendy Van Asselt for the good work that they have done, and we 

wish you the very best, and obviously we continue to look forward 

to working with everyone as we try to deal with the problems that 

this Subcommittee faces on energy and minerals for our nation on 

public lands. This Subcommittee is now adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:14 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[NOTE: The following documents submitted for the record 

have been retained in the Committee’s official files.] 

• Heaton, Hon. John A., State Representative, New Mexico 

State Legislature, Letter dated September 20, 2010, addressed to Chairman Jim Costa. 

• Indall, John J. and Adela M. Duran, Counsel, Uranium Producers of New Mexico, Testimony and attachments dated 

September 23, 2010. 

• Richardson, Hon. Bill, Governor, State of New Mexico, Testimony dated September 23, 2010. 

Æ