91 



very much concerned with this prospect of a threat to what we 

 think is one of our most valuable tourist resources. 



This should be an opportunity too to say something to you, Sena- 

 tor. I guess we disagree with you on the Craig bill. I know that 

 there was some maneuvering going on in regard to that, which we 

 can understand. We need yet some explanations on the political 

 complexities that may crop up. But that bill is a sham. It is not 

 meaningful mining reform. The public should not have to pay for 

 the costs of mining. Pay as you go. That's a good principle. And it 

 should be applied to the mining industry. 



And Larry Mann from Homestake referred to Summitville, CO. 

 Well, we're paying for that. That's coming out of our tax money, 

 $30,000 a day. That's public money that is going to clean up a bad 

 situation in Colorado. We in South Dakota are helping pay for that 

 problem in Colorado. We are not against mining, but we do think 

 they should be paying their way. And we strongly question the 

 1872 law which allows mining companies to take public land, 

 allows the Forest Service no option to say no, does not have a pro- 

 vision for setting up funds for reclamation. The Craig bill, does not 

 address this, and is totally inadequate. 



In Congress is another bill, the Rahall-Bumpers bill. We think 

 that does address the problem, and we certainly would want to in- 

 dicate that our position is that we should be supporting these 

 stronger measures to make the mining industry pay their way and 

 not be supported in their cleanups by public money. 



Thank you. 



[The prepared statement of Mr. Fort follows:] 



Prepared Statement of Dick Fort 



Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Senate Small Business Com- 

 mittee. ACTion for the Environment is a nonpartisan citizens' action group dedicat- 

 ed to passing and upholding stronger laws to protect our environment from the ef- 

 fects of gold mining and waste management. Our testimony today will focus on the 

 need for hardrock mining reform and replacing the 1872 Mining Law. 



All across the country, the public is getting billed for the long-term costs of this 

 latest new gold rush. The most notable example is the $30,000 plus you and I spend 

 daily to clean up the Summitville heap-leach mess in Colorado. 



Here in South Dakota we are realizing the short-term benefits are not worth it. 

 Foreign-owned companies promised lower taxes in return for carving up the area in 

 the 1980s. Now a Canadian gold mining company (Wharf Resources) is suing the 

 local county and school board over its property taxes, while county residents have 

 watched their local taxes almost double. 



State regulators have found acid mine drainage (AMD) at two of our four heap 

 leach mines (Bond Gold and Brohm), shutting down Bond Gold just 4 years after 

 receiving its permit. Citizens want the AMD mess moved out of the Spearfish 

 Canyon watershed and treated. Bond Gold just wants to leave it in place and moni- 

 tor it "forever". 



Traces of cyanide have shown up in monitoring wells at Brohm, who tried to 

 blame it on sabotage. State officials disagreed; it was Brohm's leaking heap leach 

 pad. Last year South Dakota's four heap leach mines put over 2,300,000 pounds of 

 cyanide on less than 1500 acres. We need Federal environmental standards to pro- 

 tect public and domestic water supplies from cyanide poisoning. 



Over 1,000 migratory birds have been killed from open cyanide solution ponds. 

 Surface mining companies need to be prosecuted because it is the law: a $10,000 fine 

 per bird. Fines collected could be used to enforce minimum Federal standards for 

 hardrock mining and reclamation. 



Bird mortalities will continue as long as these open ponds exist. All cyanide use 

 needs to be enclosed in tanks and vats to prevent wildlife deaths and to better pro- 

 tect water supplies. 



