Back when President Grant signed the Mining Act of 1872, the idea was to get people to move to the West and settle the land. The Homestead Act of 1862 served a similar purpose, but that ended long ago.

The mining law has also outlived its purpose, and Congress is looking at reforms that reflect present-day realities. Individual miners have long since given way to large corporations. The West is settled and the demands for public lands have changed. Tourism, recreation and conservation compete with mining for public lands, but not on a level playing field.

The long-running saga of Rock Creek Mine provides a clear lens through which the region can view the federal mining law. The proposed copper and silver mine, which would tunnel beneath Montana’s Cabinet Mountain Wilderness, has been met with stiff opposition from the beginning. But as opponents soon found out, the law is heavily weighted in the favor of mining companies.

Under the law, concerns about endangered grizzly bears and contamination of the Clark Fork River and Lake Pend Oreille take a back seat to the wishes of mining companies once they’ve staked claims. So opponents are reduced to waging legal battles over the process. Currently, the Montana Supreme Court is hearing a case on whether the state ought to more stringently review possible environmental damage before issuing a water permit to the mine.

Congress holds the key to reforming this antiquated law, and the U.S. House of Representatives recently passed a bill that would give federal agencies greater latitude in saying no to new mines. The bill would also allow the feds to charge royalties for minerals that are extracted from public lands. Coal and oil companies already face such fees, and it’s no coincidence that one of the bill’s sponsors, U.S. Rep. Nick Rahall II, D-W.Va., is from coal country.

The bill would also end another advantage for hard-rock miners. When they stake a claim, they might pay only $5 or less per acre; anyone else who wants to purchase public land would have to pay market rates. This amounts to an unfair subsidy that is exclusive to mining interests.

The need for royalties and market rates on land purchases is obvious when considering the enormous price for securing abandoned mines and environmental cleanup, which is estimated to be $30 billion to $70 billion. Responsible miners take care of their messes, but not all mining outfits can be counted on to be in business when the time comes.

Even mining groups concede that the law needs revisions, but there are disagreements over the details. For instance, the House bill would charge a royalty of 4 percent of gross on current operations and 8 percent on new ones. Miners say those rates will prevent new mines and hand an advantage to global competitors.

As the Senate takes up the bill, it ought to make sure that fees are not so high as to crush hard-mining for good. At the same time, other interests in public lands should be placed on equal footing with mines. Mining advocates would be wise to hammer out a deal now, before a less friendly administration and Congress come along.