Committee advances overhaul of cyanidation permitting; conservation groups raise process concerns

Senate Bill 1170, a comprehensive rewrite of Idaho’s permitting framework for cyanidation facilities (uses of cyanide to leach metals from ore), was sent to the floor with a due-pass recommendation after committee debate and testimony from industry, regulators and conservation stakeholders.

Senator Phil Hart introduced the bill and said it replaces a roughly two‑page statutory framework adopted in 1987 with a substantially longer code section that adds definitions, clarifies environmental protection standards, and preserves a 180‑day permitting timeline while allowing more iterative, applicant–agency interaction. “The new code will keep the hundred and 80 day permitting process that is currently in Idaho code, but it requires that that permitting process be a much more interactive with interaction between the applicant… and the agencies who are reviewing it,” Senator Hart said.

Benjamin Davenport, executive vice president of the Idaho Mining Association, told the committee the bill aims to bring current industry practices and environmental standards into statute, clarify design and engineering expectations, allow phased review of complex applications, avoid duplicative permitting across agencies, and streamline coordination between the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and Idaho Department of Lands (IDL). He said the bill was negotiated with DEQ.

Dale Kerner, a professional geologist and vice president for permitting at Integra Resources, described operational controls and treatment processes industry uses to detoxify process water before discharge and said process water is recirculated during operations and treated before any environmental discharge.

Jonathan Oppenheimer, government relations director for the Idaho Conservation League, said his group accepts the need for a workable permitting path but objected to removing certain negotiated administrative rules that had been developed through negotiated rulemaking. Oppenheimer asked that the bill be sent to amending order so conservation groups and other stakeholders could seek clarifications; proponents opposed amending order in committee.

Key provisions discussed in testimony and sponsor explanation include: retention of a 180‑day statutory review period, ability for the director and applicant to agree to phased or extended reviews (including extensions of 60 days or longer), a requirement that financial assurances and permanent closure plans be in place before final permit conditions are satisfied, a 60‑day public comment period on a draft permit, a 30‑day director decision window after public comment, and a two‑year window to begin construction after permit issuance. The bill also proposes moving some current IDAPA rule provisions into statute and clarifies that DEQ may require early‑detection monitoring and points of compliance without creating duplicative requirements with other state permits.

After debate the committee voted to send SB 1170 to the floor with a due‑pass recommendation. A roll‑call nay by Senator Taylor was recorded in the transcript; the chair announced the motion carried.