I’ve spent the past two months working in Juneau, Alaska, and will spend the next month continuing to work here and in Anchorage. I’ve been moved by the stunning landscape — the mountains rising straight out of the sea on both sides of the Gastineau Channel, the changes from full sun to deep overcast skies, snow falling day after day, foot after foot. One day walking to work I passed a group of about eight people shoveling their cars out, shoveling their walks out, shoveling paths to their trash cans and mailboxes. Kids were sliding down the huge berms made by the snow plow. It was the Southeast Alaska version of a block party. The ravens sat wherever they wanted, explaining it all to me. Then the rain came, causing the snow to turn to mounds of slush. And the freeze. The ravens stopped explaining and started laughing.
Opinion
Here by myself away from family and friends, I’ve sometimes felt lonely and homesick for Wyoming, which has made me think about what it is I love in our state. The landscape, the openness, the blazing sun with hot summers and cold winters. All of that, but what I love more is that we share these things, that we experience place through our relationships with each other. We protect and nurture our physical world as a shared home.
I’m going to put forth a theory now — that we all long for some control over our lives, for the ability to shape our lives in a given landscape. That brings me to the current legislative session, the time of year when our representatives meet to determine so much of what our lives will be like. While many bills will be considered in this session, I want to mention one whose passage would limit our ability to protect our environment and to shape our lives, while bringing to the fore actions that risk dividing us as neighbors and friends.
The proposed bill, Senate File 44 – Limited Mining Operations-Amendments, is described as “An act relating to environmental quality…” But in reading the bill, I see it is more an act meant to allow certain mining operations to be carried out without prior environmental impact assessments and without input from landowners and neighbors adjacent to property on which mining is to occur. The bill also strips county commissions’ authority to prevent limited mining operations authorized by the state.
Limited mining operations are described in the bill as any commercial or noncommercial removal of “any noncoal mineral, except minerals regulated by the United States nuclear regulatory commission and minerals regulated by the state…” A limited mining operation can cover up to 15 acres of affected land, excluding access roads. Such a mine could be seeking rare earth minerals, gold or any other resource that is noncoal. The requirements to begin mining are only that the operator has received permission to mine from the landowner and has notified the land quality division of the Department of Environmental Quality and the inspector of mines within the Department of Workforce Services of the location of the land to be mined.
That’s it. No oversight from local authorities, as county commissions are barred from preventing such mining operations. No ability of adjacent landowners and neighbors to comment on the influence a particular mine might have on their lives. No environmental assessment, so no information required concerning impacts on local air, water and soil quality. No requirement for assessments of possible archeological significance at the site. Get the owner’s permission and tell the state you’re mining, and you can mine.
It’s a bad proposition. And especially today, standing on the beach near the site of the 1917 Treadwell gold mine cave-in here in Southeast Alaska, the site of a long-ago disaster that is now a place of beauty and recreation. It makes me think of my home in Wyoming, a vibrant living landscape whose future will, I hope, be shaped by each of us. To that end, I urge you to read SF 44 and to speak with your local senators about the bill, to encourage them to support measures to help us work together in making decisions for the benefit of all.
Thank you, David.
Very interesting. As a mining engineer and retired county planner I see both sides of the issue; however, I tend to side with the county commissioners on this one. Sounds like a land use change from agricultural to commercial/industrial without incorporating the provisions in the local land use plan – everyone else has to go through the land use change process so why exempt certain mining activity. The public hearings I’ve attended which concerned mining of bentonite and gravel were very well attended and everyone was given an opportunity to submit comments in an open public forum. The main strength of county involvement which I’ve witnessed is open discussion in a public forum – it really works on the county level of government – county commissioners are very effective addressing these local issues – especially out in the open with the local newspaper reporting on the whole procedure and the commissioners meeting minutes published in the local paper – it don’t get any better than this folks. We can handle small mining issues on a local basis usually as a land use change as spelled out in State of Wyoming Statutes and county land use plans.
There is one relatively new regulatory issue which I do question and that is complex air quality permits for small mines – small gravel pits used to be exempt but lately the counties have had to apply for air quality permits for small gravel pits which sometimes are only used occasionally – such as once every ten years.
the potential to discharge particulates into the atmosphere is almost not existent so why make the small mining pit operators acquire expensive permits when a little dust suppressant water is all it takes. Maybe regulatory over reach issues like this are driving the current legislative attempt – it would be interesting to know how the current proposal originated – who’s behind it and what were their reasons?? My best guess is regulatory over reach. However, regulatory over reach most likely isn’t coming from the counties – its most likely coming the State agencies. If it is regulatory over reach, and the counties aren’t the source of the over reach, why cut the counties out of the land use change process – after all, the counties are the ones doing it and have earned the right to be involved. Counties have long fought for ” A SEAT AT THE TABLE” on many State and Federal issues and I feel any regression in the roll counties play with respect to land use planning is a big mistake – county involvement is a must in Wyoming.