Hot Spot in Battle Over Mining

This isolated and rocky section of desert in the Imperial Valley is suddenly center stage in a national political fight over the Bush administration’s effort to make it easier for mining companies to operate on federal land.

In rules published Tuesday in the Federal Register, Interior Secretary Gale Norton said she is rolling back environmental restrictions placed on mining by the Clinton administration. Environmental groups are threatening to sue.

Norton also overturned a decision by her predecessor, Bruce Babbitt, to reject a request by a Canadian firm to open a 1,600-acre open-pit gold mine on federal land here that the Quechan Indian tribe asserts is sacred and contains the spirits of its ancestors.

The double-barreled ruling has angered environmentalists and Quechan leaders but is being praised by the mining industry as a modest step toward correcting eight years of hostility under the Democrats.

Roger Flynn, director and lead attorney with the Western Mining Action Project, an environmental group based in Boulder, Colo., said the Norton rules will “take the heart out” of statutes meant to keep the mining industry from polluting the environment and to require it to pay for cleaning up polluted water.

But Jack Gerard, president and chief executive officer of the National Mining Assn., said the change will merely allow the industry to expand incrementally while still making it obey environmental protection and cleanup laws.

On this much the two warring sides agree: The rules could mean a major change in dozens of mining operations on federal land in the Western United States, particularly in the “mining alley” region between Sacramento and Salt Lake City.

California is second only to Nevada in hard-rock mining. California mines, for example, provide gold for jewelry and industrial tools.

Dispute Over Land-Use Law

Much of the controversy involves the Clinton administration decision based on its reading of a mid-1970s land-use law to reject mining applications if opponents could show that a project would do substantial irreparable harm.

The mining industry, backed by a coalition of Western legislators of both parties, had bitterly argued that this provided Babbitt with veto power that he willy-nilly used to block projects that actually met federal standards.

Environmentalists argued that the language was needed, in particular, to block mining operations from polluting nearby sources of water. That argument was bolstered by an Environmental Protection Agency study that linked mining to severe water pollution.

Norton decided that the “irreparable harm” standard was vague and subjective and went beyond federal law that mentions “unnecessary or undue degradation” as a reason for rejection.

The new rules, Norton wrote, will “not impose unauthorized impediments to the development of our resources that . . . threaten the continued, reliable supply of valuable minerals” such as gold, silver copper, zinc and lead.

Along with the new regulations, Norton is also proposing congressional changes in the Mining Act of 1872--still the dominant federal law on mining. Her proposed changes would impose fees and penalties on mining operations but would also give greater authority to states to regulate mining.

The latter proposal is anathema to environmentalists, who fear that state legislatures are often dominated by mining interests.

The mining industry has become increasingly politically active in recent years, although its contributions are still dwarfed by those from other interest groups. In the 2000 election, mining interests gave $6.5 million to political parties and congressional candidates, 86% of it to Republicans.

In the first year of the Bush administration, some of the toughest political fights have been over its attempt to rewrite environmental standards set by the Clinton administration. In June, for example, the House voted to block oil and gas development off the Florida coast and on the grounds of national monuments, rebuking the White House.

Site Holds Cultural Significance to Tribe

The changes in mining regulation have already brought stinging responses. “The Glamis Imperial mine project will wreak havoc on the environment and I will do all I can to prevent this from becoming a reality,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.).

The Imperial Valley project is controversial because it involves not only questions of environmental protection--including the safety of using cyanide to leach gold from mounds of rock--but also of cultural sensitivity.

The site, 45 miles east of El Centro and several miles from the one-store hamlet of Glamis, is owned by the Bureau of Land Management, and is adjacent to the Quechan Indian Tribe Reservation. The eastern stretch of Imperial County has been a hotbed of gold mining for more than a century.

The Glamis Imperial Corp. has sought permission to open an open-pit mine that would gouge and blast up to 130,000 tons of rock a day. While the site is not visible from the Quechan Reservation near the Arizona border--where the tribe has a small casino and farm--the Quechans say that it is central to their religious heritage.

Quechan lore holds that the Creator and two spiritual leaders passed through the region a millennium ago and that their spirits still dwell in an area bounded by Picacho, Pilots Knob and Muggins Peak. The story is contained in numerous Quechan songs.

To tribal leaders, allowing an open-pit mine on the property would be as unthinkable as destroying one of the great cathedrals of Europe.

“We are trying to hold on to something we cherish, but [the Bush administration] want to destroy it,” said Quechan tribal member Preston Arrowweed. “This is our holy land, just as the Middle East is the holy land for Christians and Jews.”

Tribal member Lorey Cachora said mining on the site will “tear another page out of our way of life.”

Using the “substantial irreparable harm” standard, Babbitt rejected the project. Norton’s decision overturns that rejection but that does not mean the mining operation will ever be approved.

The project will return to the regional office of the Bureau of Land Management for another review, the fourth in a decade. That office could decide the project does meet even the standard that Norton prefers, that it not inflict “undue degradation.”

Glamis Imperial Corp. has spent six years and $14 million seeking approval for the gold mine at Indian Pass, according to company officials. Twice the company sued the federal government.

The company attempted to work with the Quechans to gain their favor by offering to modify the mining plans or provide a nature reserve away from the mining area, according to company spokesman Dave Hyatt. But the company became frustrated at the tribe’s uncompromising stance.

“If we took the Indians at their word, we’d have to give back all of California and Arizona,” Hyatt said. “It’s all sacred to them.”