In Idaho, it’s Midas and Barrick Gold that need to get comfortable with new concepts

Laurel Sayer, CEO of Midas Gold Idaho, said Midas and its partner Barrick Gold withdrew their offer of a community agreement to Valley County because “... people need time to get comfortable with new concepts.” (McCall Star-News, Jan. 31)

The community agreement would have established a long-term business partnership between the county and Midas/Barrick. It would have made the county a de facto stockholder of Midas/Barrick, and it would have made the county a beneficiary of a profit-sharing deal with the proposed gold mine.

Valley County residents and taxpayers demonstrated that they have no intention of ever getting comfortable with any such agreement. They recognized the clear conflict of interest inherent in the agreement and the impropriety of any local government signing the agreement. They realized that Midas/Barrick would eagerly play the community agreement as an endorsement of the mine by Valley County. Plus, they knew of the questionable legality of such an agreement under the Idaho Constitution.

That’s why a significant majority of the citizens who testified at three informational sessions sponsored by the city of McCall and two public meetings held by the Valley County Commission urged both the city and the county to reject the community agreement.

If Sayer and Midas/Barrick plan on staying around here — by no means a given — perhaps it is they who need to get comfortable with new concepts.

Perhaps Sayer should try to get comfortable with the new concept that the tactics she learned in her career as an operative for Washington, D.C., politicians are unlikely to work here in Valley County.

She should get comfortable with the new concept that public testimony opposing the community agreement certainly was not “... filled with a fair amount of misinformation and mischaracterization ....” (McCall Star-News, Jan. 17). Midas/Barrick was compelled to withdraw the community agreement because of overwhelming public opposition and clear, factual and well-reasoned public comment. An opinion by assistant chief deputy of the Idaho Attorney General’s Office, Brian Kane, affirmed the questionable propriety of the community agreement.

I suggest that Ms. Sayer and Midas/Barrick get comfortable with the concept that most people around here are appalled by the idea of a strip mine with three open pits and a 400-foot-high dirt and rock tailings dam impounding millions of tons of toxic sludge in the headwaters of the South Fork of the Salmon River.

They might try to get comfortable with the concept that many U.S. citizens strongly resent foreign mining companies removing billions of dollars worth of minerals from public land, paying not one penny in royalties, and walking away from the remaining mess.

I hope Sayer gets comfortable with the concept that Valley County property taxpayers won’t sit idly and allow Midas/Barrick to shift the mine’s enormous economic, environmental and social costs onto their backs.

It would behoove Midas/Barrick to get comfortable with the concept that their mine will jeopardize years of effort and millions of dollars the Nez Perce Tribe has invested to restore endangered salmon in Johnson Creek and the East Fork of the South Fork of the Salmon River.

Maybe they could try to get comfortable with the concept that their endlessly repeated claim, “We are restoring the site,” is an insult to the intelligence of anyone who has ever seen an open-pit strip mine.

Sayer and Midas/Barrick definitely need to get comfortable with the new concept that, from here on out, the permitting process for their mine likely won’t be as easy as they would have their investors believe.

This story was originally published February 21, 2019 at 7:07 PM.