I've spoken with many Mariposans about the expansion of the CPU requirement for mining operations in our county. Most consider this to be an unnecessary diminishment of our property rights and a big step in the wrong direction.

The proponents of the resolution fail to mention the comprehensive degree to which mining is already administered, regulated, and overseen by a myriad of federal, state, and local agencies. Here are some examples from The California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act:

§ 2712. It is the intent of the Legislature to create and maintain an effective and comprehensive surface mining and reclamation policy with regulation of surface mining operations so as to assure that: (a) Adverse environmental effects are prevented or minimized and that mined lands are reclaimed to a usable condition which is readily adaptable for alternative land uses.

Assembly Bill 3098, Sher-1992 Statutes Assembly Bill 723, Sher-1993 Statutes Assembly Bill 904, Sher-1993 Statutes Assembly Bill 867, Sher-1994 Statutes Senate Bill 273, Leslie-1995 Statutes Senate Bill 614, Craven et al-1995 Statutes Assembly Bill1373, Olberg-1996 Statutes Senate Bill 1549, Monteith-1996 Statutes Senate Bill 1664, Sher-1998 Statutes, and Assembly Bill 297, Thompson-1999 Statutes

(b) The production and conservation of minerals are encouraged, while giving consideration to values relating to recreation, watershed, wildlife, range and forage, and aesthetic enjoyment.

(c) Residual hazards to the public health and safety are eliminated.

This Act and other laws and regulations currently in force require plans be submitted and approved for every aspect of the project. A few of these are financial assurances, site approval, erosion control, dust control, wildlife habitat impact, water considerations of every conceivable type, mine closure, reclamation, and revegetation.

Specific requirements are already in force for reclamation of agricultural land:

§ 3707. Performance Standards for Prime Agricultural Land Reclamation. In addition to the standards for topsoil salvage, maintenance, and redistribution, the following standards shall apply to mining operations on prime agricultural lands where the approved end use is agriculture: (a) Mining operations which will operate on prime agricultural lands, as defined by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, shall return all disturbed areas to a fertility level as specified in the approved reclamation plan. (b) When distinct soil horizons are present, topsoil shall be salvaged and segregated by defined A, B, and C soil horizons. Upon reconstruction of the soil, the sequence of horizons shall have the A atop the B, the B atop the C, and the C atop graded overburden. (c) Reclamation shall be deemed complete when productive capability of the affected land is equivalent to or exceeds, for two consecutive crop years, that of the premining condition or similar crop production in the area. Productivity rates, based on reference areas described in the approved reclamation plan, shall be specified in the approved reclamation plan. (d) Use of fertilizers or other soil amendments shall not cause contamination of surface or ground water. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 2755, 2756 and 2773, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 2773, Public Resources Code.

§ 3708. Performance Standards for Other Agricultural Land. The following standards shall apply to agricultural lands, other than prime agricultural lands, when the approved end use is agriculture. In addition to the standards for topsoil salvage, maintenance, and redistribution, non-prime agricultural lands shall be reclaimed so as to be capable of sustaining economically viable production of crops commonly grown in the surrounding areas. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 2755, 2756 and 2773, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 2773, Public Resources Code.

The local Planning Dept. is the lead agency, and financial responsibility must be established:

§4.0. Scope. Except as provided in this Chapter, no person shall conduct surface mining operations unless a permit, Reclamation Plan, and financial assurances for reclamation have first been approved by the City/County. Any applicable exemption from this requirement does not automatically exempt a project or activity from the application of other regulations, ordinances or policies of the City/County, including but not limited to, the application of CEQA, the requirement of Site Approvals or other permits, the payment of development impact fees, or the imposition of other dedications and exactions as may be permitted under the law. The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to all lands within the City/County, public and private.

Recourse is available to anyone who feels that the goals of the Act are not being fulfilled, to wit:

§ 2716. Any person may commence an action on his or her own behalf against the board, the State Geologist, or the director for a writ of mandate pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 1084) of Title 1 of Part 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure to compel the board, the State Geologist, or the director to carry out any duty imposed upon them pursuant to this chapter.

This is under only one of a number of state-imposed programs. As mentioned above, numerous federal programs are also already in force. Further government oversight is simply not needed.

The truth is that a CPU requirement will not and cannot guarantee anything. It would be nothing more than another quagmire of red tape, and an irresponsible waste of the miner's time and capital.

Sincerely,
Harry Strawbridge
Mariposa, CA.