Madison Hare

Implementing Long Term Funding for Mine Drainage Remediation

Introduction
Mine drainage has a lot of controversial issues surrounding it. One of the most
prominent issue regards funding issues. To remediate mine drainage, it can cost up to a
million dollars to complete. There are two main methods in mine drainage remediation:
active and passive (Akcil, 2006). In many cases the passive option is picked because it
is the more cost effective method. The biggest policy issue is different among
stakeholders. The government and the companies that own the mines have fewer
issues with funding in the short term than the third party companies do. What are some
ways to better remediate mine drainage in terms of funding?
Background
Mining towns are created for one reason, mining. Before the mining began these
towns did not exist. The mountain brought the mining, and the mining brought the
people. The towns pop up because the workers in the mine need a place to stay. If not
for the mining business in that area, the towns would not exist. Mining towns are usually
in very remote areas. The communities build around mining are typically poor, and their
livelihood revolved around the mining business. The very people worked these jobs are
the ones who are affected the most by mine drainage.
Most mining regions where created long before regulations to protect the
environment and knowledge of effects were known. Every mine experiences

Page 1 of 10

contamination of some kind. In most cases the soil soaks up the mineral contamination.
Once in the soil it can greatly affect the groundwater.
An example of this process can be seen in the village of Questa, New Mexico.
Questa is small village east of the Carson National Forest and is the western base of
the Taos Mountains. The village blossomed from the extraction of molybdenum. Mining
in this area officially began in the 1920s. In the 1960s Molycorp, the company in
extracted the molybdenum, began to practice open pit operations. By the 1980s the
company went back to underground mining. The pit mining permanently changed the
mountain side. The area released heavy metals that dissolved when the rock was
exposed to the elements. The mining operations created acid mine drainage. The
damage caused contamination of the local watershed. In mid 2000 the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) placed the mine on their National Priorities List (Superfund)
(Home).
Stakeholder
The stakeholders relevant to mine drainage funding are the federal government,
the local economy, and third party companies who remediate the damage. Funding is
valued by all groups. Each stakeholder has a unique, but similar, issue revolved around
funding. In order to restore the area, someone or something must be financially backing
it. The biggest issue for all of these groups is who and where the money for these
projects should come from. Across the board no regulations have been clearly set on
who funds the project. In some cases there is no party to be put responsible of the
damage, therefore nobody is responsible to financially back the project. The most ideal
situation in most peoples' eyes is if the site can be deemed a Superfund Site. This way
Page 2 of 10

they are able to have a some financial backing for immediate remediation and
protection for those who will work towards that goal.

Page 3 of 10

Policy Option Evaluations

Policy Options

Current owner funded

Environmenta
l
Sustainability
Local
ecosystems
restored (+)

Government funded

Local
ecosystems
restored(+)
Environmental
issues may
take longer to
accomplish (-)

Government and
Company funded

Local
ecosystems
restored(+)
Long term
environmental
problems have
a better chance
to be
addressed (+)

Economic
Sustainability

Social Equity

The company who

caused the problems
could use some of the
same employees to
help remediate the mine
leading to prolonged job
security (+)
The employees not
employed for the
remediation would be
unemployed (-)
Employees of the area
would be handling the
remediation causing job
loss (-)
With training, some
people will acquire jobs
(+)
Government/Communit
y may not have the
finances to fund any
type of project that long
(-)
Both employees out of
the area and locals
would have job security
(+)

Unemployment negatively
effecting the community (-)
Company could potentially
lack funding down the road
causing the long term
project to cease (-)

Bulk of the community is

out of a job (-)

Short and long term

remediations will be met
leading to a higher chance
of maintaining the problem
(++)
Each party would want to
provide lesser funding than
the other (-)

When addressing who should be required to fund long term remediation mine
drainage projects, three mutually exclusive policy options surface. Each of these options
Page 4 of 10

will be evaluated based on three different categories. The first being the environment
sustainability, which is an evaluation of how the policy options will impact ecosystems.
The second being economic sustainability, which is considered to be how the policy
option will impact the local economy. The third being social equity, which is how the
policy option affects the local communities.
Requiring the government to fund long term projects impacts all three of the
evaluation criteria. Environmentally speaking, the local ecosystems should be restored
by funding the remediation projects. Vegetating the land damaged and remediating the
mine drainage, would restore the ecosystem back to a similar state that it once had. In
terms of economic sustainability this policy could potentially cause more unemployment.
Those who once worked at the mine were out of a job when the site closed down. With
training, some of those employees may be able find some job stability in the
remediation. Most of former employees would be out of a job when the government
agencies fund the remediation site. This causes the community to suffer from their lack
of employment.
Requiring the company owning the site to fund long term projects impacts all of
the evaluation criteria. The local ecosystems would be restored from the
implementation of funding. Those who worked at the mine before its closing could be
trained to be employed by the remediation project instead of losing their jobs. Those
without the training would lose their job stability causing a negative impact on the
community. The company owning the site could potentially lack the funds for long term
remediation causing the project and local ecology to suffer.

Page 5 of 10

Requiring both the company owning the site fund the project with help from the
government impacts the evaluation both negatively and positively. The local ecosystem
could be repaired with both parties funding the project. With both parties funding the
project the environment also has better chances of being restored to the fullest. Locals,
with additional training, could find job security in the long term projects. With the mine
drainage being properly addressed the community has less health risks and the
environment has a greater chance of restoration.
Local ecosystems
restored(+)
Long term
environmental
problems have a better
chance to be
addressed (+)

Both employees out

of the area and locals
would have job
security (+)

Short and long term remediation will be met

leading to a higher chance of maintaining the
problem (++)
Each party would want to provide lesser
funding than the other (-)

Recommendation
The policy I would recommend would be to require the company currently in
ownership of the site and the government to fund long term remediation projects. The
passive and active methods can both be used long term, but without funding to maintain
these methods the projects would ultimately have short comings. There are two
limitations to my recommendation.
My first limitation is a limited understanding of the statistics behind financial
backing. I had difficulties finding academic studies pertaining to long term funding of
mine drainage remediation. I am assuming based off stakeholder interviews and

Page 6 of 10

general knowledge that long term funding is difficult to come by. I am recommending
this option under the assumption that my sources are telling me what they believe to be
the truth. I was able to reason that their claims were sound because it was addressed
by all sides of the argument. Regardless, I find the benefits of having both the
government and the company owning the site fund the projects to outweigh the other
options.
My second limitation to my analysis is what are the conditions when there is no
responsible party for the damage. A company cannot fund a site if said company no
longer exists. In many cases the Bureau of Land Management owns the abandoned
site. When that is the case, who is left to fund the remediation other than the
government?
There are two concessions that must be addressed. This policy option only
addresses long term ramifications, but lacks addressing the short term issue. The
immediate problem would need to be addressed before one can consider long term
projects. Another concession would be the financial benefit the government would have
from strictly requiring whoever owns the site to be in charge of remediation. Requiring
the government agencies help fund more projects would put a financial burden on the
agencies.
Despite the noted concession and limitations, I have still chosen to have both the
company owning the site as well as the government fund long term mine drainage
remediation. Social equity in combination with environmental sustainability outweigh the
economic costs. Having two parties fund long term projects make the projects more
likely to implemented. When the long term problems are not addressed, the
Page 7 of 10

environment as well as the well being of the human population in the effected areas will
be left with the same risks, if not more. Mines are typically in remote and low-income
areas, these people can not afford to fix the problems themselves.
The most important consequence of choosing to have both parties pay for long
term remediation would be that a company could say they lack funding just so they do
not have to pay for the remediation. Sites that lack a responsible party would be forced
to make the government pay for all the funding for the project. These sites would require
the government agencies to take over. Although it is a setback for the agencies on many
sites they would be required to fund, this would require them to have less problems
down the road. The long term ramifications would lessen because of the long term plan
that would already be taking place, instead of constantly fixing the short term issue. The
short term issue would still need to be addressed. Another unintended consequence
would be a lack of a responsible party or a company fighting their responsibility to fund
the project. In the Questa Mine case it became complicated. The company, Molycorp,
that produced the bulk of the damage no longer owned the site. The site was owned by
Chevron when it was put on the Superfund list and began remediation. Chevron is doing
the remediation to the site. The company is currently suing the United States
government to fund the project because of their involvement in keeping the mine up and
running (Chevron v. United States Department of the Interior). Pinning down one exact
party responsible is difficult because of the governments involvement in mining,
especially during World War II
A complementary approach I would recommend would be to have companies
owning to fund the project initially. They should be doing all the immediate remediation
Page 8 of 10

that needs to happen; whether that be through their own company or a third party
company paid to do the work. Long term, the government should work in unison with the
responsible party in funding and remediation. The majority of sites will address the
immediate problem and move on afterwards because the long-term plan lacks
appropriate funding. This way neither party gets stuck with the bill.
In the end, somebody needs to funding long term mine drainage remediation
projects. The contamination done to the groundwater negatively effects the ecology and
humans inhabitation the area. Remediation projects need to be funded in order to
lessen the threats their sites are causing the population.

Page 9 of 10

Akcil, Ata, and Soner Koldas. "Acid Mine Drainage (AMD): Causes, Treatment and Case
Studies." Journal of Cleaner Production 14.12-13 (2006): 1139-145. Acid Mine Drainage (AMD):
Causes, Treatment and Case Studies. Web. 10 Apr. 2016.
CHEVRON MINING, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
Defendants. United States District Court, D. New Mexico. 30 Sept. 2015. Print.
"Home." Questa New Mexico. N.p., 09 Apr. 2014. Web. 11 Apr. 2016.

Page 10 of 10