Lawmakers must focus on mining industry

To the editor:

Finally our legislators are beginning to focus on the inequitable tax treatment of the mining industry, and perhaps they will ensure that taxes on mine operators are commensurate with the revenues they earn ("Nevada mining industry avoids audits," Friday Review-Journal).

But a far greater and virtually unspoken issue regarding mining in Nevada is the lack of a compulsory requirement for environmental restoration of the degraded land once mining ceases. And water is the major polluted resource.

Nevada is one of only two states (Arizona the other) that still accept "self-guarantees." As a former resident of Colorado, I witnessed first-hand the disastrous results of the failure of mining companies to honor their guarantees. The scenario is simple: Mine till the ore plays out, then create a new corporation, move the assets to the new corporation and declare the former mining company bankrupt, leaving the state with the cost of reclamation.

At present there is a U.S. taxpayer liability of $12 billion to clean up and restore hard rock mines. But I am sure there are no funds allocated to restore the land and protect the water quality of Nevada's mining districts in light of the federal government's financial crisis.

This legislative session is the ideal time to correct this glaring oversight and take affirmative action -- and make the polluters pay to protect our most precious resource, our water.

Stacy Standley

Las Vegas

Cowboy poets

To the editor:

I just about fell out of my chair laughing at the latest "foot-in-mouth" comment from our senior U.S. senator.

Harry Reid says we can't cut government spending because it would impact the Cowboy Poetry Gathering in Elko.

If this represents one of his highest priorities, we are indeed in deep doo doo.

John Wayne would roll over in his grave.

R.A. Salter

Henderson

Less bureaucracy

To the editor:

Steve Sebelius' Sunday column made interesting reading, but he missed the point ("Cut spending! But not mine"). There is a difference between government representation and government bureaucracy.

The Republicans preaching small government really want less spending on bureaucratic functions, not reductions in political representation.

I am sympathetic to our neighbors up north of any political leaning, because population shifts will inevitably reduce their political representation in the Legislature. We, like them, would fight to keep from losing legislative representation, but I would bet most of the upstate folks would still like to see less government bureaucracy.

Richard N. Fulton

Henderson

Great job

To the editor:

I have been reading the Review-Journal since 1976. Your March 13 editorial and commentary pages were without exception the most brilliant pages of all time.

I'm speaking of the editorials and columns by Thomas Mitchell, Vin Suprynowicz, Sherman Frederick and John Brummett. I humbly suggest that a copy of these two pages be sent to all our elected officials -- city, county, state and federal as well as to all the schools in Nevada.

These two pages just say it all about what now is the steady decline of the greatest country in the world.

Thank you, gentlemen, and the Review-Journal, for a breath of fresh air.

P.J. Snyder

Las Vegas