Bill aims to weaken Oregon’s mining laws The Center for Environmental Equity is tracking bills introduced in the 2003 Oregon Legislative Assembly which weaken Oregon’s 1991 Chemical Process Mining Law. The legislation, introduced at the request of the Eastern Oregon Mining Association, directs Oregon state agencies to adopt regulations consistent with adjoining states, principally Nevada. Fortunately, as of late May, neither bill appears likely to become law. The proposed legislation is an opportunity to renew voter, activist, and media interest in Oregon mining issues. Trends in the West are to ban cyanide process mines, not to weaken standards. Background - Oregon’s Chemical Process Mining Law In 1990, about 30 open-pit, cyanide process mines were proposed in Oregon. Interest was spurred by high gold prices, newly released US Geological Service mineral maps, and the development of cyanide extraction mining processes. Cyanide process mining is usually associated with gold mining. Using liquid sodium-cyanide solutions, microscopic gold is leached from crushed rock. Most operations are open-pit mines but other ore removal techniques are also used. Gold ore is extracted either in large vats or by applying cyanide solutions to stacks of crushed ore and collecting the run-off. Gold is removed from the solution by an electric-carbon extraction process. In 1991, Governor Roberts directed her staff to convene a working group to examine the need for new laws and regulations to deal with the proposed open-pit, cyanide heap-leach mines. The working group -- composed of large and small miners’ associations, the governor's staff, state agencies , and environmental interests -- examined existing Oregon statutes, rules, and regulations; and examined statutes, rules, and practices of other states, including Nevada. The working group, which met at least weekly for seven months, eventually proposed legislation. The draft legislation and 18 amendments were considered in 12 committee hearings. Compromise legislation was signed into law by Governor Roberts following the 1991 Legislative Assembly. Trends in Chemical Process Mining Voters in Montana, a state with multiple closed and operating cyanide-process mines, enacted a ban on mining using cyanide in 1998. The voter initiative passed in 65 of 100 legislative districts. Since 1998, the mining industry has unsuccessfully challenged the Montana initiative in state and federal courts. Bills to refer the law to voters have been introduced in every Montana Legislative session including the 2003 session. None passed. Cyanide mining bans have also been introduced into the Colorado and Wisconsin legislatures. On April 14, 2003, the California State Mining and Geology Board adopted rules which significantly strengthen California regulations governing open-pit, chemical/cyanide process mining operations. The amendments to California open-pit mining rules are even stronger than Oregon’s chemical process mining laws and administrative rules. Legal Trends Several recent state and federal court cases hold miners, permitting agencies, and land owners strictly liable for water and soil contamination arising from chemical/cyanide mine processing during operations and following closure. Federal-land management agencies often claim that liability for accidents and unbounded clean ups fall to states because states issue permits. (Federal land-management agencies approve operating plans but do not issue permits.) For Oregonians, the most important adjudication is the 1999 Kinross Copper Corporation decision. Kinross Copper proposed a copper mine on the North Fork of the Santiam River. The Oregon DEQ denied a permit for Kinross to discharge mine waste water into the North Fork drainage, a drainage withdrawn by statute from new industrial discharges. Kinross sued the State of Oregon claiming that the denial was a takings. Strongly worded written decisions by the Oregon Court of Appeals denied the Kinross claim on appeal The reason: Kinross was not been denied the opportunity to mine, only the manner of discharging mine waste waters. Kinross filed petitions for judicial review with the Oregon and US Supreme Courts in 2000. Both were denied. The Kinross case is important because Oregon’s existing standards -- or even banning specific mine processes or techniques such as cyanide process mines -- do not deny the right to mine federal-land mining claims. Montana courts, responding to legal challenges to the ban on cyanide process mining, reached similar conclusions.