Democrats and Republicans again at odds over mining laws in Maine

After changing Maine’s mining law last year to pave the way for the extraction of a significant cache of lithium, a key component of low-emission energy technology, legislators are again trying to amend it. 

Democratic legislators want to add additional human and environmental health requirements, while Republicans are eyeing an exemption to sidestep the guardrails established last year. The Maine Department of Environmental Protection is opposed to doing either. 

Last session the Legislature took up a slate of bills to alter mining laws in the state, sparked by the discovery of one of the world’s largest lithium deposits in western Maine, the news of which the Maine Monitor broke in 2021. 

A lightweight metal, lithium can hold significant amounts of energy, making it a key component of rechargeable batteries and thus the transition from reliance on fossil fuels to renewable energy. But, metallic mining is also one of the most polluting industrial activities.

The Maine Metallic Mineral Mining Act is considered one of the strictest mining laws in the country. However, not anticipating the monumental discovery that would come, legislators didn’t specify where lithium fell in these regulations, leading to several proposals last session, which saw mixed success.  

Republican legislators are looking to exempt pegmatite mining, which involves extracting lithium and other valuable minerals from large-grained igneous rocks, from a rule passed last year. 

That rule now allows for exempting extractions of certain metallic minerals from the state’s mining regulations if a developer can prove the operation won’t pollute the nearby environment. 

Conversely, Democratic legislators have put forth a bill to add more requirements to ensure both human and environmental health are protected. More than 80 people submitted testimony largely in support of the legislation. Several said there is a need for state-level assurances in light of the direction the federal government is headed, pointing to the executive order President Donald Trump signed last week invoking wartime powers to increase the production of critical minerals. 

A recreational mining exemption — or is it?

Sen. Joseph Martin (R-Oxford) pointed to recreational mining when explaining why he wants the Legislature to exempt pegmatite mining activities from the Maine Metallic Mineral Mining Act.

LD 795 would allow the Department of Environmental Protection to authorize a person to engage in this mining through a permit by rule, if the mining otherwise satisfies the requirements of the quarrying law and the mining area covers 20 acres or less in total.

“Pegmatite formations often contain beautiful and collectible minerals, like gemstones, feldspar, mica and lithium-bearing rocks,” Martin said. “This bill recognizes that small-scale mining of these materials, especially on sites 20 acres or less, is fundamentally different from large-scale industrial mining and should be regulated accordingly.”

Testifying in opposition to LD 795, Maine Bureau of Land Resources Director Rob Wood said the 20 acre excavation site seems substantial and questioned that the intent is limited to only recreational activities. 

Regardless, Wood said LD 795 would sidestep the rules the Department of Environmental Protection finally approved in 2024. 

The Maine Department of Environmental Protections worked with the Environmental and Natural Resources Committee to develop a process to exclude the extraction of metallic minerals from the requirements of the Mining Act when such extractions don’t have the potential to endanger human or environmental health.

The Legislature ultimately directed the department to adopt major substantive rules that outline how to make this determination, which the department proposed to the Board of Environmental Protection in the fall of 2023. 

During the second-half of the last session, in 2024, the Legislature agreed to approve the rules but with several changes, including requiring that an excluded mining activity can only have a pit size up to five acres, following lengthy deliberations about where to set such a cap. 

Martin said on Monday he thinks 20 acres is a fair cap. 

“I know it was put in last year by the people that want to mine commercially,” Martin said. “I didn’t think they put in enough, to be quite honest with you.” 

Several representatives of environmental groups who testified in opposition to the bill questioned the higher cap. 

“If it’s about hobby mining, I don’t understand why we would need to move from five acres to 20 acres?” asked Eliza Townsend, Maine conservation policy director of the Appalachian Mountain Club.

As far as extracting lithium-bearing deposits, Wood said the department’s position is that it is appropriate for that activity to go through the new requirements to prove an extraction wouldn’t cause harm, however the department would be open to discussing altering the five-acre limit. 

No one from the public testified in support of LD 795, but the environmental groups that testified in opposition argued the process established last session afforded needed safeguards and was set through thorough, careful deliberations.

Townsend raised concern about LD 795 shifting to a permit by rule system, significantly reducing regulatory oversight. Under the bill, an operator would have to notify the DEP rather than seek approval, and the rules to implement the law would be routine technical, meaning they wouldn’t be subject to legislative review. 

Francesca “Ches” Gundrum, director of advocacy with Maine Audubon, said that while metallic minerals are critical for shifting from reliance on fossil fuels to renewable energies to reduce harmful emissions, the immediate environmental concerns of extraction shouldn’t be overlooked for long-term gain. 

“We strive to strike a balance between the need for metals in our lives with the protection of Maine’s vital natural resources with particular expertise and attention,” Gundrum said. “Permit by rule is designed for activities that have minimal environmental impact, while the full permitting process is required for more complex projects that could have significant environmental impacts and require detailed review, public input and site-specific mitigation.”

Adding more restrictions 

Rep. Ambureen Rana (D-Bangor) told the committee on Monday that the idea that Maine boasts the nation’s most environmentally protective metallic mining regulations is an untested one “with significant vulnerability as it does not include clear public health warnings, guidelines and protections.”

LD 1073 would significantly expand the scope of the Mining Act, including by requiring a comprehensive baseline health assessment for mining communities prior to initiation of mining operations, requiring adequate monitoring of toxic waste after closure and requiring insurance coverage for any pollution-related health event occurring in the community.

Many of these requirements were initially in the bill that established the rule last year, but that bill language was struck late in session to provide a vehicle for the major substantive rule change instead. 

The reason for this bill, Rana said, is to prevent a disaster before it happens, not after the fact.

Wood argued some aspects of the bill would result in redundancies and that the department is not well-equipped to absorb the additional responsibilities that would be required under this bill. 

The bill would also add smelting and refining under the activities restricted by the Mining Act, which Wood argued are already subject to stringent regulations under other rules. 

Additionally, Wood said the assessment would require modeling that isn’t currently conducted for any other license applications and is beyond the department’s expertise. He added that it would also require applicants to provide population health data that isn’t publicly available, making it challenging for the department to verify. 

Wood reiterated, of the existing rules, “We believe these are probably the most protective rules in the country, outside of an outright prohibition.”

Some who testified in support disagreed, including Vassalboro resident David Nishizaki, who pointed to Wisconsin’s “Prove It First” law that requires demonstrating safe operation and closure before permitting.

Nishizaki and others also argued Maine should place further restrictions on mining to safeguard health in light of changes likely to come from the federal government. 

“The Trump and [Elon] Musk administration has clearly stated intentions to unabashedly pilfer all natural resources possible from all lands and waters in their pursuit of world domination through military force and their dystopian sci-fi dreams of AI dominance, self-driving cars and populating Mars,” said Sasha Nishizaki, also from Vassalboro. “We have no reason to believe that this resource grab will be done with any care for the harm it will cause to the many communities and ecosystems in its wake.”