During the recent Mining Subcommittee field hearing in Santa Fe, you questioned New Mexico state officials on the severance tax revenue derived from hard rock mining. I believe that the figures in the attached table will satisfy your inquiry. As the table indicates, the state imposes severance taxes on hard rock minerals at rates ranging from a fraction of a percent to 2.68%; however, the state taxes fossil fuels (oil, natural gas and coal) at much higher rates. The table also shows that the total revenue received by the state for hard rock mining activities is almost negligible when compared to the amounts received from leasable minerals. In any event, as I attempted to say in response to your questions, I believe that severance tax revenues are really not an issue since they are applied to mining on all types of land. One of my main complaints with the existing mining law is that every other mineral owner, including state governments, Indian tribes, private individuals and the governments of every other country of which I am familiar, receives some sort of compensation when its minerals are removed; however, we still cling to a system under which the true owner of minerals underlying federal lands receives no compensation whatsoever. Imposing higher severance taxes is not an answer to this problem; rather, I believe that we need a leasing system with realistic royalties. Thank you again for visiting Santa Fe. I trust that the attached information satisfies your inquiry. However, if you need additional information or have additional questions, please let me know. Congressman Joe Rahall, Chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee Mining and Natural Resources 2104 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515-4804. Dear Congressman Rahall, MINAS, INC. Santa Fe County Mineral Interest Ass. Cerrillos, N. 87010 11:01 Thank you for being sufficiently concerned about the people of the western mining states to hold hearings. As a resident, and owner of both private surface and mineral land, and BLM mining claims in beautiful Santa Fe County, New Mexico, I tried to attend the May 3rd hearing in Santa Fe. I applied to Mr. James Zoia to speak before the committee, however the roster was full. I could not enter the auditorium in the State Land Office until 2p.m. when I found standing room. By then my four children were waiting for me and I could remain only ten minutes, hearing the comments of Mr. David King, State Treasurer, and Mr. Charles Roybal, Executive Director of the New Mexico Mining Association. Speaking from first hand experience I would like to offer my comments to the record of that hearing. Over the past year I have found myself speaking before the Santa Fe County Commission on four occasions, to a room full of my neighbors opposed to mining enterprise on private land in Santa Fe County. It was therefore a pleasure to be in Santa Fe May 3rd and see so many miners representing their livelihood. Being a member of the generation which first embraced the environmental movement, and taking it to heart myself, I can understand sincere efforts to bring allindustry into harmony with the environment - to return our rivers (some of which burn annually with industrial sludge) to the domain of fish, our forests abundant with wildlife, and our rural lands deep in grasses, free from the threat of desertification is an American Dream. In this era of civilization, with the greatest human population known to this planet, we can achieve this only through technology, not by a return to the Stone Age. Mining is an industry essential to Technology. It is an industry which we cannot afford to sever ourselves from. Mining is currently the most regulated industry in this nation. The MINing Law of 1872 was designed in response to the public pressure of its time - the opportunity for livelihood, westward expansion, and the metals needed for the industrial revolution, and the unfortunate wars for the preservation of freedom. THIS NATION STILL NEEDS THAT DOOR OF OPPORTUNITY. The small miner, the prospector, the myriad geologists we graduate annually from our universities, and the workers of this nation need that American Dream. The gold mining growth of the 1980's provided 16,500 new mining jobs, each job creating two additional jobs in related industries, filled domestic production demands, and reduced the trade deficit by $9.2 billion over the past ten years. (From the Gold Institute. Being sympathetic to the environmental movement, when a moratorium on mining in Santa Fe County was proposed by a coalition of the Sierra Club, the Wilderness and Audubon Societies and local residential associations, I immediately contacted these organizations to inquire their recommendations for improving mining, their suggestions for integrating mining with the environment. To my surprise not one of these groups responded with concrete or even theoretical suggestions. They each told me they were busy rewriting the 1872 Mining Law. Next I turned to the U.S. Bureau of Mines, New Mexico Department of Energy and Minerals, and the mining industry itself. It was within these organizations that I learned of research, technological applications, reclamation, mine engineering techniques, chemical testing and monitoring - i.e. the application of technology to minimize the industry's impact on the environment. In New Mexico the last election campaign platform was full of the environmental issues, endorsements by environmental groups, etc. The media was ripe with tales of toxic waste, anti-mining propaganda and related issues of the times. Stories of the $2.50 to $5.00 land deals abounded. However I also read articles by past Directos of the the BLM and current one concerning the reality of claiming mineral lands, the cost of developing these lands, the proof and scrutiny of that proof required to patent, and the real estate brokers violation of the intent of the patented mineral lands, reaping great profits, not for the mining companies who earnestly toiled for the minerals, but for realestate developers and residential home owners who scored old mining claims. The strongest feeling I experienced at the May 3rd hearing was that the polarization of the Environmentalists vs. the miners is far from the truth. In fact we cannot throw away an industry to favor the environment, nor can we throw away the environment to favor an industry. We must work together, we must share the same goals of building a strong mineral industry which is non-polluting, whose engineering is environment integrated, where reclamation is practiced. PROTECT THE 1872 MINING LAW, PRACTICE RECLAMATION. Dramatic, drastic change of the 1872 mining Law is revolution, not evolution. The Mining Law is a wealth of legal precedent. It evolved out of Roman, German, British, and Spanish Mining customs, through the past needs of the nation. We must not sever ourselves from this evolution of law and practice for the current 'fashionable' environmental movement. We absolutely need to protect our environment. The BLM is developing updated regulations in response to these concerns. The court recently ruled that the EPA must develop regulations as Congress demanded. The mining industry is practicing reclamation techniques and integrating environmental science into its processes. These energies are simultaneously aligning to mold an industry moving into the 21st century. Contrary to Mr. David King's statement of 'irreversible degradation', the mineral industry is and should be required to be creative in integrating its necessary presence with the environment. And considering the tremendous contributions mining makes to our economy, our society, education and technology, government leaders must be very careful not to characterize the industry as the "evil empire". At this time politics should take a back seat, propaganda be laid silent, and an honest and refreshing look taken at the 1872 Mining Law. We still need incentives, we still have the spirit of exploration, and the driving American Dream of opportunity and even the capital dream of striking it rich. The non-profit environmental movement is funded by donations, gleaned from a wealthy economy riding on the fruits of industry, a most basic one which is mining. I am thankful to have witnessed Mr. Charles Roybal's comment that given privacy in intiation, and security of tenure, there are areas of the MIning Law open to dialogue. I am relieved to read of a bill proposing a balanced look be taken at the 1872 Mining Law. ( S-785), and I am encouraged by Industry efforts, and Bureau of Mines research. Why not make mining pit reservoirs the riparian zones of the future. The terraced tailings the gardens of the West? This by regulation not changing the very law under which so much of the industry functions. It is logical to have an advanced, environmentally sound mineral industry. Just as we must protect our farmlands from urbanization, so we must protect our mineral lands from inaccessibility or residentialization, this is the threat posed by the movement to change the 1872 Mining Law. MINERS NEED TO MINE...SO...ENVIRONMENTALISTS CAN RECYCLE. Please do not support the erosion of one of America's most basic industries. Support environmental safeguards through already established avenues, and allow the mineral industry to captain its own ship into the next century. We are a generation that balances profits with human quality of life. Sincerely, Paula Mo Paide Carla McFadden |