Government role affirmed in mining regulation
Mining assoc. states contrary view ‘absurd’
From our weekly issue dated November 25, 2009
A public stance on mining rights that runs quite counter to the claims of area activists is being advanced by the executive director of the Northwest Mining Association (NMA) based in Spokane, Wash.
An Oct. 28 letter from Laura Skaer to several Washington state officials has been circulated by Siskiyou Project Executive Director Shane Jimerfield. In the letter, Skaer provides a much different interpretation of mining rights than those provided in recent months by members of the Southwest Oregon Mining Association (SOMA).
The issue of mining on public land has become increasingly controversial since the Sept. 9 arrest of Gold Hill miner Clifford Tracy after a traffic stop near his claim on Sucker Creek in Illinois Valley. Tracy subsequently was convicted of mining without a permit, and the incident has caused outrage among SOMA members.
That arrest came the day after area environmental groups contacted officials with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and asked that more enforcement action be taken against miners operating on public land. Several prominent officials, including Gov. Kulongoski, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Springfield) have since requested the withdrawal of mining from the Siskiyou Wild Rivers area from U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack and U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar. Those agencies oversee USFS and the Bureau of Land Management.
SOMA Vice President Ron Gibson has publicly questioned the authority of those agencies to regulate mining activities, based on rights codified by an 1866 mineral grant. However, Skaer disagreed in her Oct. 28 letter.
“We know of no competent mining lawyer or responsible miner who would assert that neither the federal land management agencies nor the states have regulatory authority over mining activity on federal mining claims in order to ensure compliance with all applicable federal and state environmental laws and regulations,” Skaer wrote. “The law is well settled in this area.”
Skaer wrote that the Mining Law of 1872 superseded the Mining Act of 1866 and the Placer Act of 1870, and that the property clause of the Constitution “gives Congress plenary power over the property belonging to the United States.
“The 1872 Mining Law specifically provides that a citizen’s right to explore, occupy and purchase valuable mineral deposits in lands belonging to the United States is specifically subject to regulations prescribed by law,” Skaer said. “Since 1872, the General Mining Laws of the United States have been amended or conditioned by many subsequent acts of Congress.”
Advertisement:
Also cited by Skaer were the 1955 Surface Resources Act and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. Skaer wrote that the 1955 law enabled Congress to “address abuses in the use of surface resources on mining claims.”
“The law is so well settled in this area that no reasonable person would question the authority of the states or the federal land management agencies to regulate mining activities on federal mining claims to ensure compliance with all applicable environmental laws and regulations,” Skaer wrote. “To assert otherwise ... is absurd.”
NMA is a 115-year-old nonprofit organization with more than 1800 members nationwide. Skaer wrote that the group is “proud of the modern mining industry’s environmental record.”
“Our members demonstrate on a daily basis that they are able to conduct exploration and mining activities while complying with the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, The Endangered Species Act and all other applicable federal and state environmental laws and regulations,” Skaer wrote.
“We are disappointed that a member of the mining community would assert that the federal and state government lacks the authority to regulate the surface and air impacts of mining activity on federal lands.
“We are confident that this is a view of a fringe group of small-scale miners similar to those who assert that the government has no right to tax their property.”
Advertisement:
