Reining in the Regulations

One of the Northwest Mining Association's guide-lines is: "If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always gotten." Another way of saying this is, simply, "when the road curves, don't refuse to turn." Our industry has been roundly criticized for living in the old political world, and, I believe, justifiably so. Until about 20 years ago, members of both houses of Congress deferred to specialists among their members for mining legislation. This was true for all public lands and natural resource issues, and were referred to as the mining bloc, or the timber bloc, or the ranching bloc. We felt safe, and to a large degree, were safe in the sense that western members of the US House of Representatives and of the US Senate understood the need for multiple use of public lands, and the need for the natural resources they supply. They also knew what it takes to stay in business and how to create the economic atmosphere that encourages private industry to find and provide the natural resources. Almost daily, members of our industry bemoan the destructive effects that current regulations, let alone new proposals, are having on American industry. And, there are some intriguing aspects for us to ponder. First, the specific complaint about the government is not regulation per se, but rather that the rules or policies don't make sense. We recognize that few understand our industry, but we have assumed that the government will rely on people experienced and knowledgeable in the area being brought under government controls. There was a time that this assumption was valid, but it is no longer true since we have entered the era of the professional regulator. Much like the MBA who believes that a professional manager can manage anywhere, the new breed of regulator sincerely believes that process is the key to developing effective regulations or programs. They reason the process virtually assures that all the pertinent facts will inevitably come to light and, after receiving appropriate considerations, will result in the proper decision being reached and implemented. Unfortunately, following the process also allows politics to play a new and greater role than ever before, since information based on what can only be called weird-science can now be presented to the professional regulator and accepted as fact. Regulators do not have the background to question the basic tenets of the conclusion being presented to them. To add insult to injury, testimony from people in the industry involved, intended to set the record straight, is too easily discounted as being merely self-serving. A second aspect is that the question of why the associations aren't doing more to stop poorly conceived legislative and regulatory proposals, or to counter the ever-increasing influence of the selfappointed public interest groups is being increasingly discussed. This is occurring despite the fact that there is a higher level of involvement and closer cooperation between the various associations than ever before. This raises a most important question: where are we going wrong? In the last 20 years or so, major changes have taken place. A new philosophy, taking advantage of the public's recognition of need to protect our environment, has swept through the nation, resulting in a whole new body of law enacted to assure environmental protection. We all acknowledge the need to prevent undue degradation during the course of mineral development, and we all consider ourselves to be responsible stewards of the land, because we live and work in the outdoors and know the importance of environmental protection. The changes in the federal statutes apply now to every aspect of mineral discovery, development, and production, and assure adequate reclamation of lands when we are done. Along with the positive changes, are a constant barrage of attempts to stop public land use, or stop mining, or stop any new economic development, ostensibly to "protect the environment," but often reflecting a hidden agenda of social reform. These types of extreme, irrational, and just plain impossible proposals are everyday occurrences, but we have not geared up to challenge all the proposals which could end mining. Instead, we did what we always had done. The road turned, but we didn't. And we wondered why those who had always protected mining weren't doing their job, and why we were having such limited success in reining in the regulators. The Congress had changed, the public demands had changed, the recognition of importance of natural resources had