Bush Team Urges Repeal of Mining Rule

In another move to block a Clinton administration environmental initiative, the Bush administration Wednesday proposed suspending a rule that would have held gold, silver and other surface miners responsible for the environmental damage they cause on public lands.

The rule went into effect on Inauguration Day, and because it was already in place when the new administration took charge, Wednesday’s decision represents the most aggressive action the Bush team could take toward overturning it without declaring an emergency.

California is the second-largest hard-rock-producing state after Nevada and has dozens of mines--some gold, some decorative rock--regulated by the federal government.

The mining industry ardently opposed the Clinton administration rule, particularly a provision allowing government officials to reject bids for mining projects they believed would cause substantial, irreparable harm.

The decision by the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management follows a Bush administration move Tuesday to revoke a rule that would have reduced by 80% the allowable amount of arsenic in drinking water.

The actions are the first indications of how the administration will fulfill its pledge to inspect the dozens of eleventh-hour Clinton administration executive actions and do away with the ones they do not like.

“It really is obviously part of a multi-pronged assault on environmental regulations,” said Dave Alberswerth of the Wilderness Society, an environmental organization. “I think a consistent pattern is emerging here. Whatever the mining or coal or oil and gas industries want, they’re going to get.”

The new administration explained its action by citing four lawsuits that have been filed to challenge the new rules, which were developed over a three-year period under the direction of former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt.

“People have raised concerns about the new rules on both policy and legal grounds,” said acting bureau Director Nina Rose Hatfield. “If there are legitimate issues which need to be addressed, we should do so sooner rather than later.”

Babbitt’s goal was to mitigate the environmental impact of some modern mining techniques, such as open pit cyanide leaching, and protect the public from being saddled with huge cleanup bills after mining operations fail.

The current rules remain in effect until the new administration issues its final rule, which the White House expects to be ready in July. It could include some or all of the Babbitt provisions or could reinstate the 20-year-old rules, according to officials.

Although the administration said it was keeping its options open, environmentalists and some members of Congress said Wednesday’s action forecasts a rollback.

“Clearly this is a signal that this administration intends to advance a policy of allowing the rape and pillage of the public domain,” said Rep. Nick J. Rahall II (D-W.Va.).

The California Mining Assn., which represents scores of mining companies, was relieved to hear Wednesday’s news.

“We felt that they would put such severe restriction on the ability to operate that they would push our companies overseas,” said Denise Jones, executive director of the association. “We’re hoping that in this review sound science would prevail and we would get revisions that would help ensure environmental protection without putting us all out of business.”

The action on hard-rock-mining regulations was the third victory for the mining industry in a week. The industry opposed the standard on arsenic levels set by the Clinton administration as well as Bush’s campaign pledge to regulate the carbon dioxide emitted by power plants. Bush last week revoked his promise on carbon dioxide, committing not to regulate emission levels from power plants.

John Grasser, spokesman for the National Mining Assn., took issue with the idea that the Bush administration is rewarding the mining industry for its generous campaign contributions.

Donations from the mining industry have grown significantly, and for the 2000 election, mining interests gave $6.5 million to political candidates and parties, 86% of it to Republicans.

“It’s absolutely ludicrous to make that connection,” Grasser said. “They’re trying to right some wrongheaded policies. A clear look at all of these things leads one to the conclusion that they were rushed out in the midnight hours of the Clinton administration.”

The new rule deals only with expanded and new mining operations. But the mining industry complains that it would seriously cut into production and mining jobs in the future. It also could waste mining companies’ money because the bureau could reject a mining operation as too damaging to the environment after a company had already invested large amounts of money in exploration.

It is difficult to estimate the cost of the new rules because there are so many variables, including the market price of the minerals. The bureau estimated that the annual cost in foregone production for the industry would range between $16.5 million and $149.6 million, depending on the assumptions made for the estimates.

Also on Wednesday, the new administration was compelled by a U.S. district judge in Boise, Idaho, to submit a brief on another environmental regulation pushed through at the end of President Clinton’s term. The “roadless” rule banned commercial logging and new road building in 58.5 million acres of national forest land.

In its brief, the Bush administration did not lay out any defense of the regulation. It pledged to finish its review of the regulation before it takes effect on May 12.

Environmentalists viewed the administration’s failure to offer any defense as an indication that it will roll back this initiative as well.

The Forest Service, which is part of the Agriculture Department, has refused comment, pending its review of the rule.

“Given this brief, it makes it highly improbable” that the Bush administration would uphold the Clinton administration roadless policy, said Doug Honnold, a lawyer for Earth Justice Legal Defense Fund, who is representing conservation groups in the case.