DENVER — Critics ranging from environmentalists to hunters are denouncing a mining proposal tucked in a massive budget bill as a push to sell tens of millions of acres of public land in the West to the highest bidder and gut environmental reviews of oil and gas drilling and other development.
The provisions in the bill by the House Resources Committee are aimed at updating the 1872 mining law, long criticized for selling off federal lands in some of the country's most scenic areas for rock-bottom prices: $2.50 to $5 an acre. However, opponents say the language of the new bill is so loose that anybody with the money can stake a mining claim and buy the land without having to actually mine it.
Representatives of the House Resources Committee and a trade group dismissed as "greatly exaggerated" claims that the measure would open more than 200 million acres of federal land to development.
The bill would increase the price of mining lands to $1,000 an acre. Critics, though, contend it would also open much of the federal land in the West to development — from building ski resorts to mountaintop trophy homes — under the guise of reforming a law dating to the administration of Ulysses S. Grant.
Two committees have approved the bill, which could be considered by the full House as early as today.
"This could be the biggest privatization in the last 75 years of federal land," said John Leshy, the Interior Department's top lawyer during the Clinton administration.
A big concern for many people is loss of access to public lands if companies go in and file claims, said Mat Millenbach of Billings, Mont., a former manager of the state Bureau of Land Management office and avid outdoorsman.
Contained in the 184 pages of the House budget reconciliation bill, which is intended to save money and cut the deficit, are provisions making it easier for anybody to stake claims and buy the land, said Leshy and Roger Flynn, director and managing attorney with the Colorado nonprofit law firm Western Mining Action Project and a mining law professor at the University of Colorado and University of Wyoming.
"This essentially goes back to the robber baron era. As long as you have a big enough checkbook, you can get as much of the land as you want," Flynn said.
Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo., said the bill has loopholes "big enough to fly a C-130 through."
The measure would change the current requirement that an applicant who wants to patent, or buy, a mining claim show that the site contains minerals that could be profitably developed, said Udall, a member of the House Resources Committee. He said federal environmental reviews would no longer apply if the land becomes private.
Applicants could also buy several blocks of federal land contiguous to mining claims or where mineral development has occurred. Leshy and Flynn said existing mining claims totaling millions of acres could be used to string together and buy big chunks of federal land.
The bill's definition of mineral development and requirements are so loose that buyers could spend up to $7,500 on surveying or environmental work and then build a ski lodge or houses on the land, Leshy and Flynn said.
"That's a pretty broad overstatement," said Carol Raulston, spokeswoman for the National Mining Association.
The bill exempts national parks, monuments and wilderness areas, Raulston said.
"The objective of the bill is to help mining communities have the tools for economic development once mining in those areas cease," Raulston said.
She and Matt Streit, spokesman for the House Resources Committee, disputed opponents' interpretation of the bill, saying it includes several steps ensuring that the mining claims are legitimate.
Streit said members of Congress heard during field hearings over two years that communities can suffer when mining ends and the land reverts to the federal government.
"The important thing here is that we're trying to provide sustainable economic development," Streit said.
An analysis of the bill found that only about 360,000 additional acres of federal land would be available for mining claims, Streit said. The legislation would raise an estimated $326 million over 10 years.
Opponents, however, argue that the federal and state governments could also lose billions of dollars in mineral royalties if the bill passes. Flynn said oil and gas companies may be able to avoid paying the current 12.5 percent royalty for drilling on federal land if they acquire land under the bill.
The 1872 hardrock mining law, which applies to such minerals as gold and silver, doesn't impose federal royalties.
The Rockies, where federal and state lands account for about half or more of most of the states' acreage, are experiencing a boom in natural gas drilling.
On the Net: House Resources Committee: resourcescommittee.house.gov