This site requires Javascript to be turned on. Please enable Javascript and reload the page.

Crow Coal History: Draft 12/24 Main Menu Introduction Introduction Timeline and Map Timeline and Map of Major Events Detailed History In-depth Historical Information Resources Resources Contact Contact Page About About page

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA)

43381

Signed into law in 1977 by Jimmy Carter after several versions were vetoed by Gerald Ford, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) is a federal regulatory apparatus that provides oversight of surface mining to improve environmental effects. SMCRA oversees both active mines and mine reclamation for mines abandoned before 1977.

This page is referenced by:

1960s-1970s At the start of the 1960s, the Crow Tribe and other Indigenous groups did not have control over the lease rates and final approval of the leases. Driven by the exploitation of their minerals without their informed consent and control, however, Indigenous Nations including the Apsáalooke Tribe, would wrest it back from the federal government over the course of the next several decades.

The early 1960s were marked by growing interest from energy companies in Crow coal, even as the Tribe grappled with continued challenges, such as the Yellowtail Dam. Crow Tribal members tried to capitalize on the growing national and international coal market during the 1960s. In 1966, Crow tribal members formed Crow Coal Inc.,a mineral development company run by Tribal members, although it struggled to get off the ground.

Two years later, the Tribe, led by Chairman Edison Real Bird, began holding auctions for coal leases. Those auctions resulted in leases with low royalties of 17.5 cents per ton mined. The companies that bought those leases included Shell Oil, Peabody, and Gulf Mineral Resources.⁠   A third auction in 1970 resulted in a higher payout to the Tribe, including from one the winners, Westmoreland Coal Company. The assertion of Tribal sovereignty in the form of these mineral auctions finally did result in a literal payday for the Tribe and its members. Each Tribal member received $100, call a per capita or “per cap” payment, and the Tribal government had some funds to work with to develop infrastructure like water, sewer, and Tribal buildings on the reservation. In 1968, Congress passed the 1968 Crow Mineral Act which strengthened Tribal control over mineral leases on the reservation. However, the limited success of the auctions hinted at the challenges the Tribe would face in the 1970s.
In the 1970s, interest in coal extraction in the United States grew, in large part due to an energy crisis (specifically cost). This acceleration in coal mining was met with growing concern and opposition grew from environmental groups, agricultural interests, and groups within Indigenous Nations. On the Northern Plains, apprehension towards coal development dramatically increased with the 1971 publication of the North Central Power Study by the Bureau of Reclamation.

The study proposed massive new fossil fuel mining efforts and the building of power plants and infrastructure in the Rocky Mountain West, including Montana. Environmentalists, agricultural interests, and Tribal groups were incensed by the study, and it served to help turn those groups against coal and energy development in Montana. Several Supreme Court cases also complicated mineral extraction on Indigenous reservations, including coal. The Davis v. Morton (1972) decision, applied new environmental review rules to Indigenous natural resource leases, including the Crow reservation, where where a sizeable portion of Tribal members especially without Tribal representatives having all the information  about coal lease proposals.

In the fall of 1973, in response to shifting public sentiment and concerns about the decision-making structure within the executive branch, the Crow legislature established the Crow mineral committee to enhance oversight. Crow leaders used the recent Supreme Court decisions, as well as changing Tribal committees and sentiment, to apply pressure on Westmoreland Company during renegotiations in the early 1970s.
Negotiations with Westmoreland resolved in March and April of 1974, but was placed on hold until after the conclusion of tribal elections. Significant back-and-forth occurred between the new administration of Patrick Stands Over Bull during the summer of 1974 and Westmoreland.
Under the new terms, which included a higher royalty rate and Tribal veto of new extraction complexes, the Tribe approved the new lease in November, 1974. Westmoreland wasted no time in excavating Crow Coal from the Absaloke mine. Westmoreland's mine was off the reservation on the ceded strip, at least off the surface of the reservation proper. However, the rest of the 1970s were neither calm nor settled for the Crow Tribe and coal companies.

In late 1974, Shell tried to negotiate a coal lease directly on the reservation, instead of on the ceded strip, like the Absaloke mine. With these negotiations, Shell tried going directly to the Crow people to influence approval of their proposed lease. As an example, they mailed letters to Tribal members in the summer of 1975, taking advantage of a change in Crow governance that authorized the membership to decide yes/no on coal development (with Mineral Committee just negotiating and executing) and bypassing Stands Over Bull's administration.  Stands Over Bull and other Tribal officials protested Shell's negotiation tactics by decrying attempts to dictate monetary distribution and violations of Crow sovereignty. In response to criticism from Crow Tribal members, upset over Shell's tactics, and to compel better negotiations with mineral companies, Stands Over Bull filed a lawsuit in 1975 to to stop and void all leases on Crow land, except for Westmoreland’s. Over the next year, Stands Over Bull's administration and the Tribe implemented stricter taxes, reclamation regulations, and other rules aimed at mineral companies, while also facing opposition from both pro and anti-coal factions within the Tribe.

Several factions within the Crow Tribe fought for greater Tribal oversight of mineral leases and more generally against Stands Over Bull’s administration. This opposition was driven in part by burgeoning Indigenous sovereignty and rights movements, concerns that Stands Over Bull was overreaching his authority in negotiations with mineral companies, and anxieties over negative effects of coal development. As a result, in 1976, tribal council created another committee to oversee mineral leases and negotiations, Crow Coal Authority, as a permanent, expert operating company to handle all the coal development projects, somewhat removed from the back-and-forth of tribal politics, in addition to attempts to impeach Stands Over Bull. The Crow tribe was not the only Indigenous Nation asserting authority over their mineral rights and futures, as seen when Indigenous representatives formed the Council of Energy Resource Tribes (CERT) to represent Indigenous interests in mineral development. Although Crows and other Indigenous people pushed for greater input and oversight of mineral leases, Tribal opinions on coal mining remained divided, and they continued to face challenges to their sovereignty from other governments and entities.

One such challenge came in 1975, when the State of Montana passed several new coal taxes. The Tribe challenged the applicability of the tax on coal from Crow land, including the Ceded Strip, by filling a lawsuit against Montana a few years later and passing a Tribal severance tax that remained unenforced. The case continued over the coming decades, further exasperating a tenuous and uncertain situation between mineral companies, Tribal government, and state and federal government.

The future of coal extraction in the latter part of the 1970s was further challenged by growing anti-coal sentiment at the national level, as part of a the expanding environmental movement. State and federal governments passed laws and regulations targeting coal mines and negative environmental impacts, including the 1977 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. While these laws were crucial to mitigating the environmental harm caused by coal mining, they also challenged tribal sovereignty by restricting tribal governments' authority over reclamation projects.

This page references:

Surface Mining Control And Reclamation Act (SMCRA) of 1977