Make your support for Lake Pactola and Rapid Creek clear to protect recreation and quality drinking water
The Black Hills has a long and illustrious history of both underground and surface mining. Until the year 2000, the Homestake Gold Mine in Lead was the largest gold mine in the western hemisphere.
Another abandoned gold mine in the Lead-Deadwood area has been a Superfund site, and for many years the cyanide in Whitewood Creek caused contamination more than 100 miles downstream on the Cheyenne River. The Mining Law of 1872, which was enacted in the aftermath of California’s storied gold rush, specifically allows mineral exploration and mining on public land like national forests and gives it precedence over other land uses.
Nonetheless, there was considerable concern when F3 Gold, a prospecting company based in Minnesota, announced its intention to explore for gold in Jenny Gulch, which is an arm of Lake Pactola. The Black Hills National Forest issued a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) as to the planned exploration, allowing it to proceed, although a permit for actual gold mining around Pactola might lead to a different conclusion.
Lake Pactola and Rapid Creek is a treasured recreational resource for fly fishermen, campers and water skiers, and the watershed is also the primary source of drinking water for Rapid City and Ellsworth Air Force Base. If residents of western South Dakota cannot envision supporting actual mining within the watershed, they might wonder why exploration for gold should be tolerated.
Despite the Mining Law of 1872, there is a legal mechanism by which the Rapid Creek watershed could be protected. Congress could enact legislation which permanently protects the area from mining or mineral exploration, or the Forest Service could withdraw the watershed from mineral activity for a 20-year period.
Last year, in response to pressure from the Black Hills Clean Water Alliance and recreational users of Pactola and Rapid Creek, the Forest Service proposed to protect 20,574 acres, which is not the entire watershed but which would include the lake and the creek’s immediate surroundings. They have solicited comments from organizations and individual citizens, and are likely to make a decision early next month.
Environmental groups launched a grassroots campaign to encourage local residents to submit letters in support of the mineral withdrawal to the Forest Service. Rapid City has seen electronic billboards promoting the protection of its domestic water source. As a result, over 1,900 comments were submitted before the deadline late last month, and they overwhelmingly supported protection from mining in the watershed.
Of course, there were also a few letters which were submitted in opposition. Kwinn Neff, on behalf of the South Dakota Mineral Industries Association, called the protection of the watershed from mere exploration “arbitrary and capricious.”
Hunter Roberts, who is the South Dakota secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, asserted that South Dakota’s existing “mining and environmental laws ensure mines are operated in a manner protective of South Dakota's valuable surface and groundwater resources,” which makes federal protection of the Rapid Creek watershed unnecessary.
Since our state government has the whole matter under control, Roberts indicated that South Dakota “will not recognize any withdrawal of the watershed which purports to prohibit the appropriate (sic) of water.”
Roberts’ boss, Gov. Kristi Noem, also submitted a letter, attacking the mineral withdrawal as “federal overreach,” which is ironic, considering that the Forest Service had moved forward with the proposal to protect Rapid Creek in response to strong pressure from local citizens. Noem further asserted that South Dakota’s environmental laws are so strong that mining poses “no significant threat to local municipal water supplies.”
She also expressed the fear that increased use of electric vehicles will make America more dependent on China for mineral resources, perhaps thinking more of lithium than gold. The Pennington County Commission also expressed concern about the withdrawal, believing that the proposal came from the national level, not from the commission’s local constituents, and affirming support for “responsible mining in the Black Hills.”
It appears that Gov. Kristi Noem is moving on to greater challenges as Secretary of Homeland Security, where she will tackle the “crisis on the border” and also command the Coast Guard.
However, residents of Rapid City and the Black Hills who wish to protect the recreational resource of Lake Pactola and the quality of their drinking water need to do a better job of communicating to their elected officials, at both the state and local level, that the proposed mineral withdrawal in and around Rapid Creek has genuine grassroots support and is not the arbitrary whimsy of pointy-headed federal bureaucrats.
Jay Davis is a retired Rapid City lawyer and regular contributor to The South Dakota Standard.
Photo: Black Hills waterway, public domain, wikimedia commons
