Small mining bill opposed by environmentalists, industry - Casper Star-Tribune Online

Lawmakers proceeded with controversial proposals that would let some small mining operations, like those for sand and gravel, dig before they receive approval from the state’s environmental agency.

Companies that argued in favor of the bill said they were at times held up for more than a year on what amounted to a low-impact operation, hurting their bottom line.

Lawmakers were sympathetic to the permitting delays, but some were concerned by the precedent or worried that unsupervised mining could give industry a bad image. The environmental agency worried that expediting one group’s permitting, however small their operations, would cause a backlog elsewhere.

Proponents say the bill will streamline the process on permits that are relatively “cookie cutter.”

“I don’t understand how streamlining could cause delay in other sectors. It frees up staff time ... These permits don’t change a lot,” said Mary Throne, the former lawmaker from Laramie and current gubernatorial candidate, acting as legal counsel for a company supporting the bill.

It’s common for Wyoming to take 18 months to approve these permits, compared to six months in Montana, proponents argued.

“They know they can get to the same level of environmental protection, in a shorter time,” she said. “It’s important to emphasize that we are talking about small mining permits … 10 acres per year is all they can do.”

Clarity and public comment

But a number of unlikely bedfellows in Wyoming opposed the bill.

Shannon Anderson, a lawyer for the Powder River Basin Resource Council, said there is a lack of clarity and a reduction in public participation in the proposal that she found concerning.

“It eliminates the right of appeal to the Environmental Quality Council,” she said, referring to the citizen’s board that hears contested cases. Right now, companies can proceed with their work after the agency director grants the application, while a private citizen that doesn’t like the operation can pursue an appeal to the EQC, she said. That’s gone.

“That’s a pretty significant limitation on public participation and opportunity,” she said.

Rep. Tyler Lindholm, R-Sundance, who supported the bill, disagreed on certain aspects of the bill that Anderson identified as confusing.

“I’m a practicing attorney that advises landowners on these processes,” Anderson said of the differences of interpretation.”[Existing mining law] is already a bit confusing and complicated ... To create a whole new category of mines with different rules is going to confuse things even more.”

The bill also allows for a 25 days or less comment period, far below the norm, she said.

Industry pushback

Industry groups also had a number of criticisms for lawmakers.

Joe Spiering with the Wyoming Contractors Association said there may be some unintended consequences with the bill in its current form.

“These things don’t seem to be issues at first glance, but some of the issues that could arise are somewhat frightening,” he said. “In South Dakota, when they loosened regulations at the state level, counties responded with more stringent regulations that have since complicated working in South Dakota.”

Lindholm pushed back on the idea that the bill loosened the law by streamlining it.

The issue is partly one of reputation, Spiering said. As is, the bill looks bad and it can make industry look back, he said.

Deti, of the Mining Association, said much the same.

“I think it may be a perception thing. There is a perception with this bill, of possibly circumventing agency oversight,” Deti said. “Whether that is true or not, the perception is there and the perception is there for my operators.”

The permitting delay is something industry would like to rectify, but they want to do it carefully, the industry representatives said.

“We would be strongly supportive of moving this to an interim topic,” said Deti from the Mining Association, suggesting a working group between industry and regulators to hash out a solution.

But lawmakers moved the bill forward on a vote of 8 to 6, saying they would work with industry to assuage their concerns.

“This might be a cold day in hell when the Mining Association and the Powder River Basin Resource Council are on the same side of an issue,” Deti said.

The proposed changes will be debated in the upcoming budget session of the Legislature in February.