Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mining Reclamation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate approves bill to formalize surety calculation process for small mining operations after floor questions
Summary
Senate Bill 15 requires the Division of Oil, Gas and Mining to present its statewide average reclamation cost to the Board of Oil, Gas and Mining for annual public establishment, while leaving operators able to supply alternative cost calculations; the bill passed after senators raised concerns about urban reclamation costs and a conflict of interest was noted on the floor.
The Utah Senate approved Senate Bill 15 on third reading Wednesday, a measure intended to formalize how the state calculates surety for reclamation of small mining operations.
Sponsor Senator Dennis Stoll told the Senate the Division of Oil, Gas and Mining had been using a calculated statewide average reclamation cost without going through the board’s public approval process. "This bill requires that it go before the oil, gas, and mining board after it's calculated," Stoll said on the floor, adding that operations may elect to submit their own cost numbers instead of using the average.
Senator Valentine, who said he had raised concerns the previous day, told senators he worried that a statewide average might understate reclamation costs in areas that abut urban development. "My concern is that the division having that discretion ... there is a significant difference in the average cost to do remediation in a rural area ... versus an urban area," Valentine said. He later noted on the record that he had a conflict of interest involving property affected by mining and the clerk acknowledged the conflict before the roll‑call vote.
Under the approved language senators discussed, the Board of Oil, Gas and Mining will annually establish an average through a public process; a mining operator that contests the average may present alternative calculations. Sponsors said the bill does not itself require bonding for non‑active operations and preserves operator options.
The Senate recorded 27 yea votes, 0 nays and 2 absences and forwarded SB 15 to the House.
Why it matters: The change codifies a public‑process check on how reclamation surety is determined and preserves a path for individual operations to submit project‑specific costs. The debate flagged the practical difference between rural and urban reclamation costs and recorded a potential conflict by a senator with local ties.
Next steps: SB 15 moves to the Utah House for further consideration.
