by Helen Sabin, Corvallis
Legislators can legally support mining projects like the proposed Sheep Creek Mine through indirect legislation that helps mining companies without ever naming a specific corporation. That allows companies and advocacy groups to operate politically while keeping their interests largely hidden from public view.
So, when candidates like Kathy Love, Kim Dailey, or Kenneth Allen claim the state can do little because Sheep Creek involves federal land, don’t believe them!
State legislators control many of the laws and policies that can make mining easier, cheaper, and more profitable.
Here are some of the main ways lawmakers can help industrial mining interests:
Permitting Reform
Legislators can shorten environmental review timelines, limit lawsuits, weaken state oversight under MEPA, and streamline permits. Supporters call it “reducing red tape.” Critics call it weakening environmental protections.
Tax Incentives
Lawmakers can lower severance taxes, create tax credits, reduce property taxes, or fund infrastructure benefiting mining operations. These policies can dramatically improve mining profitability while shifting costs to taxpayers.
Water Rights Legislation
Water is critical for mining. Legislators can change water permitting standards, prioritize industrial water use, weaken citizen objections, or alter adjudication procedures affecting agriculture, fisheries, groundwater, and downstream users.
Environmental Standards
Lawmakers can weaken reclamation standards, reduce bonding requirements, limit pollution enforcement, and restrict environmental challenges brought by citizens or local groups.
Infrastructure Funding
The state can indirectly subsidize mining through taxpayer-funded roads, transmission lines, rail access, broadband, and water systems supporting industrial development.
Agency Appointments
Governors and legislative leadership influence boards and agencies overseeing mining permits, water quality, environmental review, and reclamation. Personnel decisions can shape project outcomes for years.
Restricting Citizen Challenges
Legislators can narrow legal standing, shorten challenge windows, cap attorney fees, and limit judicial review, making it harder for citizens to oppose projects.
No one is claiming it is illegal for legislators to support industry. That only becomes unlawful if tied to bribery, undisclosed conflicts, or quid pro quo arrangements.
But voters should still ask HARD questions when outside political groups spend heavily supporting candidates with LITTLE TO NO experience in infrastructure, budgeting, water policy, or environmental oversight.
Montanans deserve legislators who answer first to the people of the Bitterroot, not to political organizations or industrial interests headquartered somewhere else.
Helen Sabin says
Linda and Bill – we must watch our legislators. Promises made are NOT promises kept. Too many including LOVE are running bills that do not benefit the state and its people. but themselves. Love voted against the valley twenty two times – that is why Bedey was elected. He keeps to his word. Go to Legmt.gov and check out Love’s voting record.
Keep your eye on Kim Dailey too.
Bob Williams says
At May 6 public forum re USCM plan for a mine at Sheep,
Kathy Love was in opposition to the proposed mine..
Said she “would go after anything that happens in the headwaters of a river.”
Said she was skeptical of USCM plan to cause less risk to the river..
Said “So I don’t trust anything that they’ve [USCM] said,”
Read the article and see what Kathy Love really said!
LTE’s should tell the truth about what a person said.
Not misrepresent what was said.
https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/political-candidates-pitch-ideas-impeding-controversial-sheep-creek-mine-saving-bitterroot
Linda Schmitt says
Good list, Helen. Thank you.