There are some in this community who are looking for the future in the rear view mirror, who have managed to convince themselves that a mining proposal by a foreign company with no reliable income, debt, and declining stock value is going to somehow save Grass Valley from the recession that has the rest of the country in the doldrums.

Are we so lacking in imagination in this town that we cannot see beyond hardrock gold mining for jobs? Sustainable industries, including those that employ alternative energy and energy efficiency technologies, are beginning to take off in other more forward thinking counties in California.

Think about what a massive mining operation within city limits would do to property values and tourism, whether more desirable employers would even be interested in relocating here, and whether young families would want to live here.

As one contributor to the local newspaper recently stated so eloquently, “we have to stop thinking short-term profits for a few at the expense of long-term consequences for all of us”.

The Idaho-Maryland mineral boundaries cover 2800 acres underground — clockwise from Glenbrook Basin, over to the airport, down to the Y at Brunswick and Hwy 174, and under the Nevada Memorial Hospital — almost as large as the entire surface area of Grass Valley itself.

Click for Larger Image

Emgold’s own estimates for both the proposed tile factory and gold mine at full production indicate that the project could potentially yield, at most, 0.4% of Nevada County jobs. Clearly, reopening the Idaho-Maryland Mine would have little positive effect on the recession locally. And if other more desirable employers leave the area because of the mine, and tourists and buyers stay away because of heavy truck traffic 24/7 and air pollution, then the presence of an industrial hardrock mine in Grass Valley would result in a net job loss.

Why would we risk our town’s future by opening a huge cyanidation gold mine anywhere near our water supplies, our homes, our businesses, our schools, our hospital? Fools might, but our City Council and planning staff must look behind the curtain, do their homework, and take a rational, independent view. When they do that, they’ll get busy attracting industries that will not wreck our town in exchange for a few temporary jobs.

Everyone with an interest in this issue should take the time to become fully informed by reading the draft environmental impact report (DEIR), the consultant reports, the public comments, and Emgold’s latest project description. All of these documents are available to the public, and they make a strong case against opening a hardrock gold mine within city limits. Further, the most recent independent audit of Emgold’s financial statements posted on Emgold’s own website points to “material uncertainties” concerning Emgold’s ability to continue as a going concern, specifically the lack of adequate operating funds, no proof of economically recoverable reserves, and low stock price.

After more than two years of delays in submitting a revised project description, Emgold is now asking the city for another open-ended extension to try to drum up the funding for the revised DEIR, and to demonstrate that the company has the ability to honor any of the many promises it has made to the City of Grass Valley.

Some in our community may not like that local citizens have organized against re-opening the Idaho-Maryland mine, but a close look at the economics of hardrock gold mining within city limits raises many alarms and hard questions that are not answered by Emgold’s self-interested spin, or the current price of gold, or the potential benefit/loss to investors.

Bolstering Grass Valley’s economy in the short and long-term requires a much broader perspective and a forward view. The past is not our future.

J. Pelton is a homeowner in Grass Valley.

Emgold Asks for Another Delay

GRASS VALLEY Calif. December 9, 2011 – The Idaho-Maryland Mine Corp. (IMMC), a subsidiary of Canadian Emgold Mining Co., has requested that the City of Grass Valley put their mining project application on hold due to a lack of funds. The City is requiring a $440,000 deposit from IMMC for independent consultants before continuing with the project, and IMMC will need another $3-4 million to complete the permitting process.

As per financial reports on September 30, 2011, Emgold had a working capital deficit of $695,764 and an accumulated deficit of $49,327,646. CEO David Watkinson earns $185,000/yr. According to a recent statement by Emgold, the most recent stock offerings are specifically to be used for projects other than the Idaho-Maryland Mine. It is not known when or if financing will become available for the Grass Valley project.

Statement from CLAIM-GV:

“For the last 3 years, parent company Emgold has claimed that they are in the ‘advanced stages of permitting’. It seems irresponsible to keep saying this to investors, knowing that they are basically starting over with the process and that they lack any means of funding.”

“In addition, their project depends upon sales of massive quantities of tile created by fusing mine tailings, a process that has never been used on a commercial scale. Basically, this Canadian Corporation has almost no working capital, has no regular source of revenue, and has no track record of ever even running a mine or a tile factory. It’s hard to believe they are serious when they claim they can sell 48,000 sq-ft of tile per day retail in Grass Valley, and 480,000 sq-ft of tile per day regionally.”

The last public hearing on this project was in January 2009, when the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was reviewed by the Planning Department and the public submitted comments. The draft was subsequently deemed inadequate. Since then the project has undergone some minor revisions and been resubmitted. On November 8, 2011, the Grass Valley City Council approved contracts for hiring new consultants to start the process again and prepare a new Draft EIR. The process will take at least a year.

Four of the five members of the Grass Valley City Council, in its meeting of November 8th, voted unanimously to approve the proposed contracts with ASCENT Environmental (for the revised Idaho-Maryland Mine EIR) and with Emgold (the reimbursement agreement). Dan Miller was absent.

Before the vote, Mayor Jan Arbuckle allowed public comments, within the following guidelines:

“I’m going to allow public comments on this, but before I do I want us to be clear that what we’re talking about is not the merits of the Idaho-Maryland Mine, whether it should happen or it shouldn’t. This is strictly to award the contract for the revised EIR. So, we’re not going to make a decision on whether the mine should go forward or should not go forward. It’s just to grant the contract for the revised EIR.”

Several of the nearly one dozen speakers specifically addressed contract issues, calling on the city to include some time constraints in the new contract with IMM, and to avoid the sort of unlimited, open-ended agreements that have allowed Emgold to drag-out the process with no action over the last several years.

Other speakers called for a new economic viability study to be provided in the contract for the revised EIR. And still others suggested refraining from entering into the ASCENT contract for the revised DEIR “until Emgold has bonded the money for the completion of the work up-front.”

Notice that these are all business considerations regarding the contracts, not environmental issues regarding the re-opening of the mine itself.

Why, then, did the council members — when all the public comments were complete — vote immediately to approve the contracts, with no discussion of the relevant business concerns raised by these speakers?

There is no way to know what thoughts were in the council members’ minds as they listened to the public comments, although they did appear to be awake.

Had they misunderstood what they were hearing as criticisms of the mine project itself, rather than — as was the case — criticisms of the structure of the proposed contracts with IMM and ASCENT?  Or, also possible, had they simply made up their minds in advance?

One of the speakers in favor of the project, Libertarian Gary Bryant, dismissed all the critics as environmentalists who, he said, he was “sure are doing God’s work, but … “

David Watkinson, President of Emgold, who — as usual —  contrived to have the last word, also mis-stated these issues of the flawed contracts as environmental issues. He said, “the questions that most of the people brought up tonight will be addressed in the CEQA process.” That is clearly not true, since several speakers called for time-limited contracts.

Here are the videos of most of the dozen or so speakers in the order they occurred.

Note: David Watkinson was the only speaker of the night whom Mayor Arbuckle inexplicably allowed to exceed the 3-minute time limit during the public remarks. He spoke for nearly 6 minutes publicly before being invited by the council to sit down and answer some more questions. I’ve combined both of his opportunities to speak into one nearly 9-minute video below.

Ralph Silberstein
Excerpt:

“I applaud the fact that the city is requiring initial deposits totaling $440,000, but given the past history of IMM, it may be many months or years before the deposit is made. So I am here tonight to ask the city to not create another open-ended contract with IMM. This is not fair to the consultants, and it is not fair to the community.

In summary, what I am asking is a simple common sense approach: put an expiration date in. Require that the contract should specify that the initial deposits are to be made within 30 days, or the contract is canceled. If they are not prepared to make the deposit now, after over 3 years since the project was submitted, then they have no business being here.”

Ray Bryars

“I wanted to bring the Council’s attention to a recent press release that is on the Emgold web site and to request that no contracts be approved at this time and that Emgold be given a deadline as to when they must fund the DEIR or withdraw their application.”

Tom Grundy
Excerpt:

“As soon as the city signs the contract with Ascent for preparation of the revised draft EIR, Emgold intends to immediately ask for an indefinite deferral before the contract work actually begins – because they do not have the money to pay for it.

“Emgold also specifically spells out the possibility of terminating the application if they cannot get enough money to pay for Ascent’s work.”

Julie Carroll

Bob Bogart
Excerpt:

“Since the tile factory is such an integral part of the project, I ask that an independent study be made of the economic aspects of the tile factory that I have outlined here. And that this study be prepared as part of the RDEIR so that it can be reviewed and commented upon by the community.”

Suzanne Smith
Excerpt:
Suzanne Smith said she noticed that in Emgold’s revised project description they provided for some shifts to run as long as twelve hours, so she called CAL-OSHA and asked about that issue:

“I called CAL-OSHA and asked, ‘Do you allow mining operations to have their employees work 12 hours, because it seems dangerous to me?’ And he said, ‘Whoa … yeah, they can come in with that proposal, but accidents start happening after 8 hours, and that’s when we step in.’”

Joseph Cochran

Mike Pasner
Excerpt:

“Please protect the people who elected you with a full disclosure statement. As you hire Ascent make sure they know the IMM has already asked for another 60 or 90 day extension and that this is their method of operation … Whenever you are doing business with someone who is deeply in debt, it makes sense to get the money up front and have a drop dead deadline.”

Olivia Diaz

Gary Bryant

Kent Penwarden
Excerpt:

“I’m totally baffled … From a plain business aspect of this thing, it seems very strange to me why you are even considering this business prospect this evening, under the condition that the only person you are dealing with … is a semi-broke in-debt pennystock company from Canada and no one else is even knocking on the door that I’m aware of to try to start this mine … “

David Watkinson
Excerpt:

“The questions that most of the people brought up tonight will be addressed in the CEQA process.”

In an Oct 26 news release, Emgold has finally admitted what the “invisible hand of the market” and many other community members are saying about the reopening of the Idaho Maryland Mine project.  Emgold is asking the City of Grass Valley to put the project on hold for 60 – 90 days and possibly drop the project altogether because Emgold cannot raise any more money to fund the revised DEIR process now pending before the City of Grass Valley.

A severely underfunded company, Emgold cannot afford to spend money on all the promises it has been making to lure Grass Valley into agreeing to this project.  The risks of Grass Valley taxpayers being stuck with clean-up costs left by a bankrupt mining company are all too great and all too familiar.

Concerned community members have been pointing out that even if Emgold can scrape together the money for the DEIR, how will they then raise $200M – $300M to build the mine and the ceramics plant and the aggregate factory?  If Emgold cannot raise $1M how will they raise 200x – 300x that amount?  And will gold mine investors want to invest extra money on items that have nothing to do with the gold (ceramics plant, aggregate factory, mitigation measures)?

Having no income, Emgold must sell stock in order to finance its operations.  Why is it so hard to get investors to see the “gold at the end of the tunnel?” you might ask.  Emgold surely sees it, but no other investors or companies can see it.  Clearly these potential investors have no faith in Emgold, which, based on the evidence (its stock has lost > 97% of its value while gold has risen by 260% since 2006 ), is an accurate assessment.  Further, no experienced gold mining companies have tried to purchase control of Emgold in order to get at the Idaho Maryland gold, which would be cheap at present valuations of Emgold.  Another sign of lack of faith in mining at the Idaho Maryland mine.

In case you missed the Oct 26 release from Emgold, here are two key points.

First, Emgold is proposing another stock sale at 10 cents per share, proceeds of which “… will be primarily used for exploration activity on the Company’s Buckskin Rawhide Property in Nevada, property acquisition in Nevada, exploration of its Stewart Property in British Columbia, and general working capital.”  Note that none of this money is targeted at reopening the Idaho Maryland Mine.

Second, “IMMC will request that the City of Grass Valley put the Idaho-Maryland Project temporarily on hold… In the event that insufficient funds can be raised to move the Idaho-Maryland Project forward …  Emgold may have to delay the project until market conditions improve or, as a worst case, drop the Project entirely to focus on the other quality assets the Company currently has in its portfolio….” (Reference:  Go to www.emgold.com and click News Releases).

“The market’s” judgment is that despite the bubble-like fervor surrounding gold, reopening the Idaho Maryland mine surrounded by homes, businesses, and medical facilities is not worth pursuing.  Grass Valley must wake up and stop wasting time and energy on a project that has already been judged a loser.  Emgold has no money.  Investors are saying no to Emgold.  Emgold has never run a mine.  No other mines anywhere in the world melt their waste into tiles.  No senior mining companies seem interested in Emgold or IMM.  Lots of No’s.  Grass Valley: face the reality that Emgold is not capable of opening or operating the Idaho Maryland Mine.  Let’s join “the market” and just say NO to Emgold ourselves.  Let’s move on to more promising projects that will provide a 21^st century economy for Grass Valley.

Bob Bogart lives in Nevada City.

There’s an old adage that “the best defense is a good offense.”

Emgold, the Canadian company that proposes reopening the Idaho Maryland Mine near downtown Grass Valley has employed this Machiavellian principle in attacking local residents raising legitimate questions about Emgold’s speculative and high-risk scheme.

In recent weeks, Emgold and its supporters have dismissed hundreds of residents’ concerns as “fear mongering,” “scare tactics” and “distortions.” By going on the attack, however, Emgold feeds speculation that it has something to hide.

Emgold’s decision to attack local residents is predictable, but disappointing. Given the many serious questions about the mine and whether Emgold can deliver on its promises, Emgold should be addressing the legitimate concerns of local taxpayers and property and business owners – not dismissing them with overheated rhetoric and name-calling.

For starters, Emgold (which has never operated a gold mine anywhere in the world) could reassure locals that it can achieve financial stability. Currently, the signs aren’t good: despite record high prices for gold, Emgold’s stock has sunk 98% in the last four years, and it currently trades for less than 10 cents per share.

Worse still, Emgold has admitted that it is out of money, deep in debt and its executives are working without pay. In its latest financial report Emgold stated that as of June 30, 2011 it was almost $250,000 in debt, faced $820,000 in outstanding bills, wasn’t paying its executives and didn’t have sufficient cash on hand to conduct the basic economic and environmental studies required to reopen the mine. Readers can see Emgold’s financial reports for themselves. [Emgold Mining Corporation Quarterly Report, June 30, 2011; www.sedar.com ]

Emgold could try reassuring homeowners whose wells may go dry when it starts draining mine tunnels, which stretch for miles and go down more than 5,000 feet. Studies show that dozens of wells near the mine could be dewatered.

By any measure, the mine would vastly impact Grass Valley. Projections show steam plumes could reach hundreds of feet over downtown Grass Valley, and hauling mine waste will require 220 20-ton trucks through Grass Valley every day. That’s one truck every 6 minutes, if you’re wondering, with increased noise, traffic, air pollution and public safety concerns. Many wonder how tourists will react to industrial operations in the heart of scenic Grass Valley, and whether they’ll take their money elsewhere.

Finally, Emgold could substantiate its biggest but shakiest promise of hundreds of long-term jobs and millions in tax revenue. Emgold admits that at least half of the promised jobs aren’t even in the mine – they’re in a proposed new ceramics factory that Emgold says will convert half of the mined waste rock into ceramic tiles.

There are many obvious problems with the ceramics plant, however. First of all, Emgold’s process isn’t used commercially anywhere in the world. Does Grass Valley want to gamble on being their guinea pig?

Furthermore, the Union reported in June 2009 that Emgold lost its license for an experimental rock-to-tile process after it defaulted on license payments. With that kind of track record, can Emgold be trusted to keep its word in the future?

And according to Emgold’s and tile industry figures, the factory’s production would exceed 30% of the total US tile production – an ambitious, if unrealistic goal, to say the least. Emgold promises that Grass Valley will get millions of dollars in sales taxes collected on those tiles, but if the tiles aren’t made or don’t sell, Grass Valley won’t see the promised revenue or jobs.

Finally, Emgold’s latest proposal includes what it euphemistically calls “Operational Variability,” which is a fancy way of saying that Emgold ceramics factory may not even make as much tile as promised! No tile production means no tile factory jobs and no sales tax revenue for Grass Valley to offset the millions of dollars in anticipated infrastructure and public safety costs.

The simple fact is that reopening the Idaho Maryland Mine will impact local businesses and residents enormously, but Emgold has dismissed concerns about those impacts as “fear mongering” and “scare tactics.”

Emgold does itself and the community a disservice when it resorts to such name-calling. After all, insulting the locals doesn’t address the legitimate concerns about reopening the Idaho Maryland Mine. And it’s just not a smart defense – or offense, for that matter.

How many times can a corporation break the law and continue to exist? Inside the fight to revoke Massey Energy’s corporate charter.

By Sarah Van Gelder

A majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices and some politicians like to refer to corporations as “persons.” Few actual people, though, could get away with years of lawless behavior resulting in injuries and deaths, and the destruction of entire communities and ways of life. To do that takes the protection of a corporate charter and a legal and regulatory system that has succumbed to concentrated money and power.

On Friday, two public interest groups asked the attorney general of Delaware to revoke the charter of Massey Energy, a company they call a criminal enterprise.

“Massey Energy operates outside the law,” says Lorelei Scarbro, who lives a few miles from the West Virginia’s Upper Big Branch mine, which is owned and operated by Massey Energy. Scarbro traveled to Delaware to speak in support of revoking the Massey charter. “The people of Appalachia are collateral damage; they believe it’s okay to wipe out a whole culture.”

An April 2010 disaster at the Upper Big Branch mine claimed the lives of 29 coal miners. The accident investigation, commissioned by West Virginia Governor Earl Ray Tomblin, pins the blame for the disaster squarely on Massey’s “total and catastrophic systemic failures … in the context of a culture in which wrongdoing became acceptable, where deviation became the norm.”

According to the report, Massey is also responsible for “incalculable damage to mountains, streams and air in the coalfields; creating health risks for coalfield residents by polluting streams, injecting slurry into the ground and failing to control coal waste dams and dust emissions from processing plants; using vast amounts of money to influence the political system; and battling government regulation regarding safety in the coal mines and environmental safeguards for communities.”

Massey is chartered in Delaware, which is known for its corporate-friendly policies, although the company has no operations there.

The two public interest groups, Appalachian Voices and Free Speech for People, cited the company’s long history of safety violations in asking the state attorney general to revoke Massey’s charter. They also pointed to the thousands of Clean Water Act violations resulting from the company’s mountaintop removal mining practices.

“I know people who have died. I know people raising family on poisoned water. We need the attorney general to know that atrocities are occurring on the ground on account of an outlaw corporation,” Scarbro said at a press conference on Friday. Scarbro is part of a family of coal miners going back three generations, and a leading spokesperson in a campaign to stop mountaintop removal mining on Coal River mountain and instead install a 328-megawatt wind farm on its ridges.

How has Massey been able to routinely ignore health and safety standards and environmental regulations?

“Many politicians were afraid to challenge Massey’s supremacy because of the company’s superb ongoing public relations campaign and because CEO Don Blankenship was willing to spend vast amounts of money to influence elections,” notes the report to Governor Tomblin. “In one well-documented instance, he used his resources to elect a relatively obscure judge to the state Supreme Court.”

“It is well established that the corporate charter is a privilege, not a right,” says Jeff Clements, co-founder of Free Speech for People. “Delaware, as with other states, reserves the right to revoke or forfeit state corporate charters when they are abused or misused, as in cases of repeated unlawful conduct.”

“The Massey Energy Company presents a classic case of a corporation whose charter should be revoked,” says Clements.

“We are strongly urging Attorney General [Beau] Biden to stand up to corporate power and say, at some point, corporations do not have the power to dismantle our democracy and to violate our laws willfully and systematically,” said Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who has been part of the effort to decharter Massey.

Jason Miller, a representative for the Delaware Department of Justice, told YES! that the petition to revoke Massey Energy’s charter is “under review.”

Interested?

• Public Pressure Saves 2,200 Mountain Acres
  An Appalachian victory in the battle against mountaintop mining.
• Real People v. Corporate “People”: The Fight Is On
  The Supreme Court says corporations can spend as much money as they want on political advertising. Millions of Americans say they’ve had it.
• Sitting In With Wendell Berry
  An interview with Wendell Berry midway through his four-day sit-in in the Kentucky governor’s office in protest of mountaintop removal coal mining.

This is the single — and conspicuously leading — poll question:

“With gold and unemployment at near-record highs, would you support reopening the Idaho-Maryland mine?“

Since The Union doesn’t mind asking leading questions, maybe it should consider asking it this way:

“With gold and unemployment at near-record highs, and the guarantee that you will be massively infested with fleas if you say no, would you support reopening the Idaho-Maryland mine?

To participate in the poll, click on either of the two links above.

“Who doesn’t support the sustainability movement?” you might ask.

Well, in Jeff Ackerman’s account, mostly the federal government:

Last week I went to see a documentary called “Farmageddon,” which convinced me that our government has declared war on this sustainability movement. The last https://minetalk.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=538&action=edit#category-allthing Uncle Sam wants today is a society able to think and act for itself. He’d rather have us clamped firmly on his teat and as far away from a goat or cow’s udder as he can keep us.

If we start drinking milk straight from a goat or cow — like our ancestors did before us — what would happen to the food industry, or the federal Food and Drug Agency that controls it?

… Most of the small farmers grow food and milk cows and goats to feed their families, friends and neighbors. This country was once a nation of farmers, and that’s the way we operated. The upside to this down economy is this sustainability movement, which is encouraging us to return to the days when we fed ourselves, our families and our neighbors with food and milk we grew and raised with our own two hands.

It’s nice to see an editorial in The Union in support of sustainability.

I’m curious to know, though, whether this now means that Jeff Ackerman has joined the growing number of Nevada County residents who oppose the ginormous local non-sustainable project being considered by the City of Grass Valley, the re-opening of the Idaho-Maryland Mine for speculative exploration, a project that he has previously supported? Hardrock mining for gold, a non-renewable resource, is the epitome of non-sustainability.

But back to Farmageddon. I need to understand this better: Is the government at war with organic farming, at war with sustainability, or just at war with raw milk?

Maybe I’ll start by watching Farmageddon, which I’ve not yet seen.

Today’s cartoon visually suggests that this relationship may be about to get more complicated by the arrival of the US mining gorilla, Newmont Mining Corporation, which is shown in the cartoon as a gigantic hairy-armed torso towering over the city and over Emgold’s IMM project. (Newmont recently purchased the 700-acre North Star Property for the purpose, they say, of building a mine-water treatment facility).

Crabb’s sweet image of the city of Grass Valley itself bears a strong resemblance to the helmeted goddess, Athena, patron of Athens, protector of the polis: She is shown wearing a toga and a common (non-regal) warrior’s helmet. She’s an image of purity, a portrayal of the democratic ideal in peril, looking up in wary hesitation at the fearsome hulking figure of Newmont.

The most interesting feature in the scene is the image of IMM as a diminutive figure holding up a Canadian flag, completely wrapped like a mummy in red-tape by the city of Grass Valley, which applies the tape with one hand while holding an endless roll of it in the other.

Newmont, in Crabb’s rendering, is wielding a miner’s pickaxe, and is much too massive and powerful a creature to be restrained by red tape wielded by a mere village.

My first strong impression when I saw this cartoon was that it shouted out the message, “Poor IMM would go forward if it weren’t for all that unreasonable red tape!”

The truth, as is so often the case in politics (including political cartoons), is far different and far more nuanced.

The city, in fact, has much to fear from Emgold and its proposed IMM project. There is increasing realization among local citizens of the massive scale of the project, in striking contrast to Crabb’s miniscule image of it.

IMM’s underground mineral rights map comprises 2800 acres, an area nearly as large as the entire city of Grass Valley itself.

Look at a map of those 2800 below-surface acres and you will see that they underlie Sierra Nevada Memorial Hospital at one extent, Loma Rica at another, the airport at a third, and finally out to the confluence of Brunswick Road and the Colfax Highway.

Also massive is the use of resources it would require, if approved.

“The proposed ceramics plant would double Nevada County’s total yearly natural gas consumption. (1,100M cu. ft. per year)

“No natural gas service exists to the old mine site, and Nevada County may not have enough total pipeline capacity to supply the plant.

“The proposed mining operation yearly electric consumption is more than one third of the 2006 PG&E total supplied to all of Nevada County. (172GWhr per year)

“Diesel to fuel up to 214 20-ton truck trips per day, every day.”

(From “Energy Consumption of Proposed Emgold Mining Operations”).

These are huge impacts. Every part of Western Nevada County would be affected by that project.

The only thing about the IMM proposal that’s not huge, ironically, is the number of jobs that it would create.

Half the promised jobs would occur only if the very problematic patent-pending ceramics plant is built, and there is no way to know how many of the few remaining jobs would go to locals. But think about it: Studies of mining industry jobs show that most require both secondary education (special training) and prior experience. Does this sound like our local workforce?

Sadly, when compared to the General Plan for that site, the IMM project represents a net job loss to Nevada County, along with a huge loss in quality of life for everyone here.

Clearly, the strongest argument against approving Emgold’s IMM project application is a business argument.

If the Idaho-Maryland project application is approved, the image of Athena in that scene will need to be revised to depict a world-weary Athena dressed in a tattered and soiled robe, on her knees in abject apology to the citizens of her village, whom she has so badly served.

Dear Friend,

Back in May, more than 26,000 Earthjustice supporters stood up to tell the Obama administration to close a massive Bush-era loophole in the Clean Water Act that is allowing mining companies to dump their toxic and dangerous mining waste directly into the waters we rely on.

That mining waste loophole still exists, and each day that the Obama administration doesn’t close it, a gold mine in Alaska pumps hundreds of thousands of gallons of toxic wastewater slurry into Lower Slate Lake, killing its fish and aquatic life. This is happening in Alaska, and rivers and streams in many other states could be next. High gold and metal prices have triggered a mining boom that, without stronger regulation, threatens countless lakes, streams and wetlands in Alaska and throughout the country.

For the next two days, we ask you to help us follow-up on those 26,000 letters by taking part in our National Call-In Event to protect our waters from dangerous mining waste. Thousands of Earthjustice supporters will be joining with supporters of the National Wildlife Federation, EarthWorks, and Natural Resources Defense Council to make a strong statement to the Obama administration: This loophole must be closed immediately!

You can help stop the mine and protect clean water by calling the Environmental Protection Agency. This will only take a few minutes, and it’s easy. Please take action to tell the Obama administration to close this loophole immediately.

After you call, please let us know how it went by logging your call on our website.

Make Your Call Today Or Tomorrow:

The Environmental Protection Agency: (202) 564-4700

When the receptionist answers the phone, please express your desire to leave a public comment for the agency. Please urge the agency to close the loophole in the Clean Water Act immediately so mining companies can’t dump toxic waste into the nation’s waters.

Here’s a sample of what you can say (and we hope you will add your personal touch, too):
“Hello! My name is [first name] [last name], and I live in [my city], [my state].

“I’m calling to ask the Environmental Protection Agency to close the loophole in the Clean Water Act so mining companies can’t dump toxic waste into the nation’s waters.

“Mining companies are using the 2002 loophole in the Clean Water Act rule to bury streams and lakes with untreated mining wastes.

“The EPA should close the mine waste dumping loophole immediately.”
After You Make Your Call: Please let us know about your call experience by logging your call on our website, or by emailing action@earthjustice.org.
Why are we calling the Environmental Protection Agency?
The Environmental Protection Agency, along with the Army Corps of Engineers, is responsible for managing the Clean Water Act, and the EPA can act directly to close the loophole. That’s why it’s important that they hear from concerned citizens like you.
Thank you for taking the time to speak out! If you have a few extra minutes and would like to join the Earthjustice supporters who are calling the other agencies, you can call the White House Council on Environmental Quality at (202) 395-5750 and the Army Corps of Engineers at (202) 761-0099.

©2011 Earthjustice | 426 17th Street, 6th Floor, Oakland, CA 94612 | 510-550-6700 | action@earthjustice.org

PHOTO CREDITS: Top: Lower Slate Lake in Alaska, before the Kensington Gold Mine’s waste dumping and after. (Before: Irene Alexakos; After: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.) Middle: Aerial photos of Lower Slate Lake before and after the Kensington Gold Mine’s dumping of mining waste. (Before: Photo by Pat Costello, courtesy of LightHawk.) Bottom: Polluted Cabin Creek, near Leewood, West Virginia. (Mark Schmerling)