It is interesting to note that California — a state in which the mining industry finds difficult to obtain the required permits to mine — some time ago recognized the importance and uniqueness of its mineral resources. The California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 as amended in 1980 contains in the general provisions the following statement:
“The legislature hereby finds and declares that the extraction of minerals is essential to the continued economic well-being of the state and to the needs of the society, and that the reclamation of mined lands is necessary to prevent or minimize adverse effects on the environment and to protect the public health and safety.”
To my knowledge, no province, territory or federal statute even comes close to declaring “that the extraction of minerals is essential to the continued economic well- being of the state.”
As well, the California Act states that the legislature’s intent is to create and maintain a surface mining and reclamation policy that encourages the production and conservation of minerals while giving due consideration to other land use values.
The Act refers specifically to areas subject to urban expansion but also to other irreversible land uses which would preclude mineral extraction.
It demands that areas containing significant mineral deposits be recognized and appropriate mineral resource management policies be developed by lead agencies, including those at a local level.
Not only does California recognize in statute the importance of the mining industry but also in statute the regional and statewide significance of areas that contain mineral deposits of merit.
“Area of statewide significance means an area designated by the board pursuant to Section 2790 which is known to contain a deposit of minerals, the extraction of which is judged to be of prime importance in meeting future needs for minerals in the state and which, if prematurely developed for alternate incompatible land uses, could result in the permanent loss of minerals that are of more than local or regional significance,” states the Act.
With present trends in Canada, one can easily argue that the formation of parks, wilderness and other preservationist-type areas are irreversible land use decisions which would preclude mineral extraction. Perhaps this is a concept whose Canadian time has come.
In the California Act, an area of regional significance is similarly defined.
The Act provides, via district committees, for a method of review “on the basis solely of geologic factors, and without regard to existing land use and land ownership.” It also classifies areas, for which regional or statewide significance has been requested, into one of the following categories: — Areas containing little or no mineral deposits. — Areas containing significant mineral deposits. — Areas containing mineral deposits, the significance of which requires further evaluation.
The above mineral deposit information, after a public hearing, can become state policy and be transmitted to lead agencies that, in accordance with state policy, are required to establish mineral resource management policies. (They are city, country or public agencies with principal responsibility for approving surface mining operations.) Their policies will recognize the mineral information provided; assist in the management of land use that affects areas of statewide and regional significance; and emphasize the conservation and development of identified mineral deposits.
“Lead agency land use decisions involving areas designated as being of statewide significance shall be in accordance with the lead agency’s mineral resource management policies and shall also, in balancing mineral values against alternative land uses, consider the importance of the mineral resources to the state and nation as a whole.”
A similar statement is made for regional significance areas. It should be noted here that land use decisions shall be in accordance with the lead agency’s mineral resource management policies required under and guided by the Act.
It is interesting to note that California — a state in which the mining industry finds difficult to obtain the required permits to mine — some time ago recognized the importance and uniqueness of its mineral resources. The Act refers specifically to areas subject to urban expansion but also to other irreversible land uses which would preclude mineral extraction.
To my knowledge, no province, territory or federal statute even comes close to declaring “that the extraction of minerals is essential to the continued economic well- being of the state” and demands that areas containing significant mineral deposits be recognized and appropriate mineral resource management policies be developed by lead agencies, including those at a local level.
With present trends in Canada, one can easily argue that the formation of parks, wilderness and other preservationist-type areas are irreversible land use decisions which would preclude mineral extraction. Perhaps this is a concept whose Canadian time has come. Jack Patterson is the managing director of the British Columbia and Yukon Chamber of Mines.
Be the first to comment on "California alone in recognizing importance of minerals"