Currently, Idaho law requires mining operations using cyanide to obtain a cyanidation permit from the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) before construction can begin. Idaho’s Administrative Rules outline the detailed procedures, specifications, and protections that must be followed to obtain this permit.
SB 1170 proposes shifting many of these procedures from Administrative Rules to Idaho State Law (statute) while also making modifications that appear to weaken environmental protections. This is concerning because no mines using cyanide have been approved under the existing rules, meaning their effectiveness in protecting water, land, fish, and wildlife remains untested. Locking these rules into state law now would be premature. Instead, any changes should go through Negotiated Rulemaking — a transparent and collaborative process that allows for stakeholder input and thorough technical review.
Why are cyanide rules important? In the 1980’s and 90’s cyanide spills at the Yellowjacket and Blackbird Mines, both near Salmon, together released of around 40,000 gallons of cyanide-contaminated waste, resulting in significant downstream impacts. And in the early 90’s, over 100 waterfowl died after landing in cyanide-laced tailings pond at the DeLamar Mine in Idaho’s Owyhee Mountains. Other states ensure that public health and fish are protected. Montana voters banned the use of cyanide in mining after dozens of mishaps.
The Idaho Conservation League (ICL) is particularly concerned that the Idaho Mining Association—along with one of its largest members, Perpetua Resources (the company behind the controversial Stibnite Gold Project)—is bypassing this process to push for a more industry-friendly permitting system, potentially paving the way for their pending permit to be approved. The new rules appear to lack protection for key resources, like wildlife or groundwater quality. And it completely undermines the integrity of the administrative rulemaking process. The miners suggested that they excluded ICL because we’re challenging mining projects in court. But as ICL pointed out in our testimony before the legislature, just because we have concerns about Stibnite and other mining projects doesn’t mean that they should be changing the rules of the game, especially as the permit applications are still pending.
Regardless of the fate of SB 1170, ICL will continue to advocate for Idaho’s cyanidation statute and Administrative Rules to contain safeguards to protect our water, land, wildlife, and environment.
