Archive for mining, mining law, prospector, mining claim, 1865, 1866, 1872, legal, illegal, government, policy, administrative, mineral, grant, right, forest, service, BLM, DEQ, wild, scenic, hobby, gold, placer, hard, rock, hardrock, dredging, highbanking
  Forum Index -> Mining Law Tibits

memorandums from DOI office of the solicitor

Disposal of Mineral Materials from Unpatented Mining Claims -1999

Surface Management Provisions for Hardrock Mining- 2001

Legal Requirements for Determining Mining Claim Validity Before Approving a Mining Plan of Operations -2005

Good Job!  I hope all the members will post these types of information, regardless of state or federal.

I've studied both of these in the past.

Personally, I have a large number of issues with the Opinion on Validity.

For example, from the get-go, the solicitor actually contradicts the Act of 1872. He quotes the act where it states that "ALL (emphasis added) valuable mineral deposits in lands belong to the United States" were to be open, then he adds "The mining law thereby authorizes (people) to enter federal lands that are open to the Mining Law". This is a very serious contradiction to the black and white in the Act of 1872 and the idea that some lands are "not open" is not within the law.

The document continues with other similar nonsense, but stands as a good example of how the agencies are operating.

and the perfect reason why we need to know EXACTLY what the 1872 mining law dictates.

BLM Policy

BLM Manual sec. 3890:Mineral investigations.......I find this interesting...It describes what each officer of the blm including the directors role is, among other things.
".02 Objectives. The Bureau will timely adjudicate mining claim documents and collect the required fees to keep the status of all mining claim files current." just a taste!

This is from Heftys post from gvpaa forum learning mining laws....PAGE 10

Having determined that the plaintiffs' preemption claim is ripe, we now address Cole's challenge to the district court's order declaring the Lawrence County ordinance preempted by federal law and enjoining its enforcement. Cole argues that the Lawrence County ordinance is not preempted by the Federal Mining Act because the ordinance is a reasonable environmental regulation of mining on federal lands. Specifically, Cole claims that because the ordinance only bans one type of mining, surface metal mining, and does so only within a limited area, the ordinance does not prevent the accomplishment of the purposes and objectives of federal mining law.4 That was a futile attempt in my opinion...

The Supreme Court has set forth the analysis we must apply to determine if a state law is preempted by federal law:


State law can be pre-empted in either of two general ways. If Congress evidences an intent to occupy a given field, any state law falling within that field is pre-empted. If Congress has not entirely displaced state regulation over the matter in question, state law is still pre-empted to the extent it actually conflicts with federal law, that is, when it is impossible to comply with both state and federal law, or where the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.
The above paragraph pretty much lays it out there...Nice find/research  Hefty! Forum Index -> Mining Law Tibits
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum