San Miguel County has been in the process of updating mining regulations, and for the last year has held a series of meetings and asked for public comment. While the county has not finalized anything yet, the fifth draft was considered last week and approval could happen Jan. 21. The regulations are available online at sanmiguelcountyco.gov/781/Renewable-Energy-and-Natural-Resources.
Grant Glasier, of Western Uranium Vanadium, told the Forum he has concerns about the regulations, why they’re being updated, and the purpose of adding more layers of management. According to him, various agencies involved in regulating mining — the Department of Energy, the BLM, and the state’s Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety (DRMS) — should gather, have discussions and create an MOU. He said representatives from San Miguel County, though, have pushed back on that idea.
Adam Eckman, president and CEO of the Colorado Mining Association, told the Forum he agreed. He said while San Miguel County’s draft mining regulations have been available for public comment and early discussions, the conversation seems to have stopped. He too would like to see representatives of all parties in the room and work collaboratively.
Who regulates mining?
Mining is already regulated by the state and federal governments, specifically Colorado’s DRMS. Eckman said counties can already regulate road closures and impacts related to noise or dust.
San Miguel County’s attempt to create an even more stringent policy is a first in Colorado, and likely the American West. Eckman said it will make for problems with efficient review of mining projects but could also lead to litigation.
So what’s the problem with the old version of San Miguel County’s mining regulations? Eckman said the county hasn’t been able to verbalize an issue with the existing process. The Forum did reach out to Kaye Simonson, San Miguel County’s Planning Director, but did not hear back as of press time.
Eckman said it appears the county is creating a sort of duplication of state and federal regulation, in an area that’s already well managed.
Could anti-nuclear beliefs be behind the changes?
Eckman said he believes it’s about negative feelings toward nuclear power.
“It’s no secret in Colorado or nationally we have here a real energy supply chain,” he said. “The state is moving toward carbon-free energy … uranium is the supply for clean nuclear energy. It’s the best path to reaching those targets.”
The irony, Eckman said, is that San Miguel County has the environment prioritized in its objectives but is standing in the way of clean power.
Glasier told the Forum the Sunday Mine his company owns is inspected quarterly by the BLM and DRMS. He said they ensure stormwater permits are in accordance. He added representatives from San Miguel County have never been out to inspect it or have voiced concerns in the past.
Under new draft regulations, who would additionally oversee or inspect exploration and mining in San Miguel County? Glasier said nobody has answered that yet, and Eckman said it would take someone from a very technical background. He added costs to taxpayers could be enormous.
What’s at stake?
Eckman said a report put out in the last year by the Common Sense Institute referenced economic growth and job expansion for the West End because of mining and mineral resources. He said San Miguel County could be jeopardizing those opportunities. Glasier said that’s already happening and American Atomics has pulled out of the area.
Eckman said clean energy should be a priority, and “chopping off the front end of the supply chain” in the U.S. is unwise. He added he’s glad the previous administration banned Russian uranium. He’s also pleased the current administration designated uranium as a critical mineral, as of last week. He said all agree domestic minerals are a better source, especially when companies in Kazakhstan flood the environment with acids and never clean up.
“They’re halting responsible development and pushing this overseas,” Eckman said.
