Archive for americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org 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
 


       americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> COURTS & CASE LAW
Hefty

One for the books!!! Good News for Small Miners!!!

http://www.plp1.org/images/USA_v._Tierney.ORDER.pdf

Laughing
beebarjay

Thanks for the post Hefty...good info.  But even after reading the court determination it makes me give rise to other questions regarding the validity of the CFR's vs law.  But I will continue to challenge such potential questions when they arrise.  Just because a miner uses mechanical big equipment does not, in my understanding, dictate a "significant" disturbance.

Per an earlier Woof posting that is relevant:

There is no definition of "surface disturbance"  

The term "significant surface disturbance" was a way for the Secretary to try to get around the legal standard "unnecessary or undue degradation" found in the FLPMA. Don't be distracted by the words. The following is the only legal definition on which the BLM or Forest Service can rely.

Supreme Court wrote:
"[a] reasonable interpretation of the word 'unnecessary' is that which is not necessary for mining.

'Undue' is that which is excessive, improper, immoderate or unwarranted."

Utah v. Andrus, 486 F. Supp.

995, 1005 n.13 (D. Utah 1979)
bejay
Jristrogy

You are the master of all What you most want to be like.

       americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> COURTS & CASE LAW
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Home|Home|Home|Home|HomeHome|Home|Home|Home|Home