Earthworks at Thacker Pass. (Photo: Lithium Americas corporate presentation, May 2024)
Legislation meant to speed the development of mining projects on public lands in Nevada and elsewhere cleared a crucial huddle last month, prompting objections from conservation groups and cheers from extraction industry allies.
Billed as the Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024, the legislation includes provisions lawmakers say would accelerate the construction of utility-scale energy projects and transmission infrastructure needed to deploy more renewable energy.
The legislation also includes a major provision pushed by Nevada Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto designed to undo a consequential 2022 court decision that restricted mining companies’ use of federal lands in Nevada.
Mining developers in Nevada have had to grapple with the aftermath of a 2022 federal appeals court ruling — known as the “Rosemont decision” — that imposed a stricter interpretation of the 150-year-old General Mining Law, restricting mining companies from using federal lands without valuable mineral deposits for mining related purposes, such as waste rock disposal or running power lines.
Prior to the federal appeals court decision, mining companies used neighboring federal lands without valuable mineral deposits for waste rock disposal without issue for decades.
Last year, the new stricter interpretation of the 150-year-old General Mining Law under the federal appeals court ruling affected what could become the largest lithium mine in the United States, the Thacker Pass project south of the Nevada-Oregon border. A district judge cited the ruling when determining that federal land managers violated federal law when they approved the mine developer’s plan to bury 1,300 acres of nonmineral public land in Nevada under waste rock.
The mining reform legislation, introduced by independent Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Republican Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, advanced out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on a bipartisan 15-4 vote July 31. Sens. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) voted against advancing the bill.
Nevada’s Cortez Masto voted to advance the bill out of committee, which includes several provisions from the senator’s own legislation, the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, co-sponsored by Nevada Democratic Sen. Jacky Rosen. That legislation was designed to “undo the damage” of the Rosemont decision, which Cortez Masto called “misguided.”
“If we want to continue to lead the world in clean energy development, we need to make federal permitting processes more efficient,” Cortez Masto said in a statement after the July 31 committee vote.
“I think it is an attempt to kind of undermine the effectiveness of the Rosemount decision,” said John Hadder, the director of the Great Basin Resource Watch, which was involved in lawsuits against the Thacker Pass lithium mine. “They’re trying to provide the ability for mining companies to basically use as much land as they need, regardless of whether there’s minerals there or not.”
Unlimited mill sites
Great Basin Resource Watch was among the over 360 groups that sent a letter to senators ahead of the bill hearing urging them to reject it.
In the letter, opponents called the bill a “wishlist for the most toxic industry in America, the mining industry.” Conservation groups wrote that the bill was a “Trojan horse” that would open the door for companies to make claims on public land without valuable minerals without limitation.
“It also allows companies to file an unlimited number of mill site claims that will be used for dumping their waste or building roads and pipelines on public lands,” reads the letter.
Under the 1872 law, mill sites – non-mineral-bearing land claimed for mining-related activities – are confined to five acres.
The letter emphasized that the bill “guts bedrock environmental protections, endangers public health, opens up tens of millions of acres of public lands and hundreds of millions of acres of offshore waters to further oil and gas leasing, gives public lands to mining companies, and would defacto rubberstamp gas export projects that harm frontline communities and perpetuate the climate crisis.”
Conservation groups also expressed opposition to other reforms included in the bill, including a provision that would shorten the statute of limitations on lawsuits against mining projects to just 150 days. If passed as written, communities would need to file a lawsuit for covered projects within a few months, or lose their chance to challenge a project forever.
Manchin, the chair of the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, acknowledged the bill was not “perfect,” but said he worked to strike a balance between competing interests.
“We’ve listened to everyone and I think that we’ve hit it right in the middle, where good and enduring policy that can get through a bipartisan process is made and it should weather the test of time,” Manchin said.
“This was truly an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 15 to 4. A lot of times we see things come out on party-line votes, this is not party-line. This is everything that’s needed in this country to make sure that we’re able to deliver dependable, reliable and affordable energy in the cleanest fashion possible,” Manchin continued.
President Joe Biden has advocated for permitting reform to cut greenhouse gas emissions and speed up projects financed by the Inflation Reduction Act, but the fate of the bill is unclear. The bill would need to earn the 60 votes in the narrowly divided Senate to avoid a filibuster.
As the Senate and House enter an election year, the bill faces numerous hurdles. Manchin himself is set to retire when this congressional session ends.
However, Manchin expressed optimism about the bill’s future, adding that it would “significantly move the ball forward for all types of energy and mineral projects.”
States Newsroom Washington D.C. bureau reporter Jacob Fischler contributed to this story.
Nevada Current is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Nevada Current maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Hugh Jackson for questions: info@nevadacurrent.com . Follow Nevada Current on Facebook and X .
Most Popular
Comments / 0