Limestone expansion ban on lands

Summary#

This bill would stop the U.S. Department of the Interior from approving any federal action that would expand limestone mining on certain Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands near Glenwood Springs, Colorado. The main change is a statutory ban on processing or approving expansion requests, sales contracts, or similar federal approvals for limestone in those defined parcels. The stated aim, implied by the title and text, is to protect the area around Glenwood Hot Springs by blocking quarry expansion on specific BLM-managed sections.

Key changes:

• Main change: The Secretary of the Interior must not process or approve applications to expand existing mineral operations or to issue mineral material sales/contracts for limestone on specified BLM land in Garfield County, Colorado.
• Scope: The prohibition applies only to limestone on BLM-managed land described by specific land sections in the bill.
• Legal instruments affected: The ban covers actions under the general mining laws, the Materials Act of 1947, and the Surface Resources Act of 1955, as applied to those lands.
• Who introduced it: The bill was introduced in the Senate by Senators listed in the provided material.

What it means for you#

• Quarry owner/operator (Mid‑Continent Limestone Quarry):

  • The company could not get federal approval to expand limestone operations onto the listed BLM sections. Existing, approved operations are not explicitly repealed by the bill, but expansion approvals are barred.
  • This could limit future growth plans that needed federal processing or contracts for mineral materials on those federal lands.

• BLM and federal agencies:

  • BLM staff must refuse to process or approve expansion applications, mineral material sales, or related applications for limestone on the specified parcels.
  • The agency’s discretion over those specific lands would be limited by law.

• Local workers and businesses:

  • If quarry expansion had been expected to create jobs or increase local supply of limestone, those prospects could be reduced or stopped. This is a likely effect but not explicitly stated in the bill.

• Local residents, visitors, and recreation/tourism businesses:

  • The bill is aimed at preventing quarry expansion near Glenwood Hot Springs. This could be intended to reduce industrial impacts on the springs, nearby views, or recreation, but the bill text does not list specific environmental or recreational protections.

• Mining claimants or other companies wishing to mine limestone on those parcels:

  • They would not be able to obtain federal approvals or contracts for expansion of limestone operations on the listed BLM lands.

• State and local permitting:

  • The bill controls only federal approval actions described in the text. It does not clearly change state or local permitting processes for non-federal lands.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

Possible costs or budget effects that are not estimated in the materials:

• The BLM may have administrative costs to implement and document the prohibition.
• There could be lost federal receipts from mineral material sales or contracts that would otherwise have occurred on the affected parcels.
• Local economic effects (such as reduced quarry-related business or tax revenue) could occur if expansion plans are cancelled, but the bill text provides no fiscal estimates.

Proponents' View#

• The bill appears intended to prevent expansion of limestone mining near Glenwood Hot Springs by blocking federal approvals for expansion on specified BLM land.
• A possible argument for the bill is that preventing expansion will help protect the local natural, recreational, or scenic values associated with Glenwood Hot Springs and nearby areas. The title and the geographic focus in the text support this reading.
• The bill creates a clear, direct rule that leaves no room for federal approval of specified expansion proposals on those parcels.

Opponents' View#

• One concern is that the bill permanently removes federal processing and approval options for limestone expansion on the listed parcels, which may hurt the quarry operator’s business plans and local economic opportunities (jobs, sales, taxes).
• The bill does not explain how it affects existing permits, contracts, or rights in detail; it only bars processing or approval of expansion applications. It is unclear whether any existing authorizations remain valid or how pending applications are handled.
• The law narrows BLM discretion for the listed land. This may raise questions about how the prohibition interacts with general mining laws, existing claims, or future legal challenges.
• There is no fiscal note or cost estimate provided, so the size of any federal revenue loss, administrative cost, or local economic impact is not known from the supplied material.