Sali fought mining reform

BOISE – U.S. Rep. Bill Sali was so opposed to mining reform legislation that recently passed the House that he offered 16 amendments, many proposing to delete major portions of the bill.

Sali’s amendments, none of which was approved, included one to strike a section doing away with “patenting,” or the $5-per-acre sale of public land to miners who stake successful mining claims on the land. That’s among the most controversial provisions of the 1872 general mining law, a long-standing federal law that’s the target of reforms in this year’s Congress.

Sali noted that Congress has approved one-year moratoriums on patenting every year since 1994, and said he figured if his amendments were adopted, those moratoriums still would continue.

“The bill struck the current law dealing with the patenting process and put in place a wholly unworkable permit system to replace it, and what my amendment did was say, ‘Don’t go down this goofy path, this permit system that really will kill off the mining industry,’ ” Sali said. “Let’s leave the law the way it is in this particular section now.”

Sali’s moves have prompted a flurry of criticism from candidates seeking to unseat him in the next election, ranging from Democrat Larry Grant’s contention that Sali would sell off public lands for rock-bottom prices to Republican Matt Salisbury’s criticism that Sali doesn’t go far enough to support the mining industry.

Sali also offered amendments to “sunset,” or repeal, the bill in two years if it results in any loss of mining jobs in the United States; to let states, rather than the federal government, decide whether mining should occur on federal land; and to strike provisions imposing hefty new royalties on public-lands mining.

“Mining used to be a pretty strong part of the economy in this state,” said Sali, whose father was involved in mining. “It’s become so difficult to go put a mine in place and so expensive that people just aren’t doing it anymore, because it’s too hard and you can make more money doing a lot of other things.”

According to the Idaho Department of Labor, Idaho has an estimated 2,557 mining jobs this year, less than half of a percent of Idaho’s total non-farm employment. In the past 50 years, mining employment hit its peak in Idaho in 1981, when there were 5,212 jobs, about 1.5 percent of Idaho’s total.

Jack Lyman, head of the Idaho Mining Association, said the industry opposed the House bill and was glad that both Sali and Idaho GOP Rep. Mike Simpson voted against it. Of Sali’s amendments, Lyman said, “I did not ask him to make those amendments, but I wasn’t overly concerned about any of ‘em.”

Lyman said the mining industry no longer backs patenting, which he noted was used over the years to bring much of the now-upscale Wood River Valley, in the Sun Valley area, into private ownership. “We don’t support using the mining law to gain ownership of federal lands for non-mining purposes,” Lyman said. “We don’t think that we ought to be able to use the mining law to get land for condominiums.”

The industry, Lyman said, wants a system that would give miners assurance that when they invest in a mine, they’ll still have access to it as long as they’re mining it. Miners also want any royalties to be on net proceeds, rather than the House bill’s proposed 4 percent gross royalties on existing mines and 8 percent on new ones, an amount Lyman dubbed “ludicrous.”

He said the industry would “probably swallow hard and accept” a royalty on net proceeds of between 2 percent to 5 percent.

Salisbury, Sali’s opponent in the GOP primary, said he opposes any royalties on public-lands mining. “That is a shell game, to me, by environmental groups,” he said. He said he’d support patenting “only because there’s not a viable alternative.”

The reform bill that passed the House sets up a 20-year permitting system for public lands mining, with new monitoring and inspection requirements and new restrictions on where mining can occur. The royalties would go in part to clean up abandoned mines.

Grant, one of three Democratic candidates for Sali’s seat, said he opposed the bill that passed the House mainly because it sought to impose royalties on existing mines. “I don’t think you change the rules in the middle of the game,” he said.

Grant said he favors a lower royalty than the one proposed in the House bill, saying, “I don’t see any reason why mining ground on public lands shouldn’t be treated the same way we do with oil leases.”

Grant also spoke out against patenting, saying, “Selling off public land is a bad idea. Once sold it is gone forever.”

Democratic candidate Rand Lewis said he supports royalties as “sound business,” and opposes patenting but believes the property value associated with mineral rights must be recognized. Democratic candidate Walt Minnick couldn’t be reached for comment.

Sali said, “My point is there’s no patenting today, and there’s not going to be any patenting. The question is what you’re going to move to. (House sponsor) Nick Rahall’s plan is a dumb plan, because it’s going to kill mining in this country.”

A Senate mining bill still is being fashioned.