Proposed Changes To Mining Law In 2016

[Steve Herschbach]

The budget process under way includes some proposed changes to the mining law that claim owners or those thinking of owning claims need to be aware of.

From BLM Bureau Highlights page 12 http://www.doi.gov/budget/appropriations/2016/highlights/upload/BH007.pdf

"The second legislative proposal institutes a leasing pro- cess under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 for certain minerals—gold, silver, lead, zinc, copper, uranium, and molybdenum—currently covered by the General Mining Law of 1872. After enactment, mining for these metals on Federal lands will be governed by the new leasing process and subject to annual rental payments and a royalty of not less than five percent of gross proceeds. Half of the receipts will be distributed to the States in which the leases are located and the remaining half will be deposited in the Treasury. Existing mining claims will be exempt from the change to a leasing system. The proposal also increases the annual maintenance fees under the General Mining Law of 1872 and eliminates the fee exemption for miners holding ten or fewer mining claims. These changes will discourage speculators from holding claims that they do not intend to develop. Holders of existing mining claims for these minerals could voluntarily convert their claims to leases. The Office of Natural Resources Revenue will collect, account for, and disburse the hardrock royalty receipts."

Note that these are listed under a heading as changes relating to hardrock mining reform. Without seeing the actual proposed legislation it is not clear but it would seem unlikely that this would not end up applying to all claims on federal land, including placer claims. In the future there would be no new claims, only leases, subject to leasing fees and a royalty of not less than 5% of gross receipts. This means you could lose money and still owe a royalty. Furthermore the Small Miners Exemption would be eliminated, and annual fees increased for existing claims.

Before everyone goes ballistic keep in mind proposals like these have been floated for decades and so it is not a given it will come to pass. The big boys will certainly fight the leasing and royalty portions. However, they will not care about the Small Miners Exemption. If you do, you may want to dig deeper into the proposals and keep an eye on their progress. This would have a devastating impact on club ownership of claims in particular.

[AkNugget]

Steve you should forward this to Rep. Don Young's office.  He was on the radio last week saying how much he dislikes the BLM and EPA in Alaska and how he and the Republican led house and hopefully the Senate are going to do everything in their power to fight these types of changes and to cut BLM & EPA funding when and where ever they can.  He says Obama's trying to lock up as much land as possible before leaving office.

 

Aknugget

[El Dorado]

I sent a letter of protest to my Congressman, Tom McClintock. He is definitely pro mining......

[Gold Seeker]

 I posted this info at the first of this month on many of the gold forums, not many seemed interested and most of those that responded think it will only apply to lode claims, but I think otherwise, I don't see how this cannot affect both lode and placer claims, it's a backdoor attempt to completely change/get rid of the 1872 mining laws, IMHO!!

Most seems to have the "let's wait and see what this is really about" mindset, once they see "what it's about" it will be too late.

I have recommended that everyone contact their representatives to stop this budget proposal before it's too late.

This leasing and royalty plan is what all the environmentalists have been going after for many years now and they now have a partner in the White House that will try his best to make it happen if we don't speak up and make some noise!!

[Jim_Alaska]

Minerals have always been classified under "Locatable" under the mining law. To allow them to be included under "Leasble/Saleable would be a grave injustice.

If we allow this to take place only history will record the error of our passive attitude.

The mining law of 1872 is a grant from the Federal Govt. to the citizens of this country. Under it the most important thing we will lose if we let it fall under leasable/saleable catagory will be the conversion of a claim to private property.

As the law stands now, once a claim is perfected it becomes private property and is removed from Public Domain.

It's the "camel's nose under the tent" syndrome.

[deathray]

I encourage everyone to check out AMRA(american mining rights association) Shannon is in the fight for all of us on issues like this...and the dude has big huevos...he doesnt back down .

[tvanwho]

I am confused Jim? I thought under present law, we could only get non- patented claims which cannot be had with a deed? How would you get a claim under present law and have it converted to private property? Jim,what do you mean by perfected ? I'd actually prefer a claim in my permanent possession  so the govt can't kick me off of it, if the gold is good...

 

-Tom V.

[Clay Diggins]

This same BLM budget proposal comes around every two years. If you understand the strength of the mining lobby you understand why this is a no starter.

Just yesterday I was reviewing an OMB audit of the mining claims fees from 2001 and lo and behold they included reference to this same BLM proposal exactly. Near as I can tell it was originally written during Carter's time in the late 1970's.

Some congresscritters keep this around as a bargaining chip come budget time. It will never pass committee but it makes certain congressmen appear as if they deserve greenie votes - and funding.

The OMB audit was much more interesting than this proposal.

Barry

[Jim_Alaska]

On 2/24/2015 at 8:02 PM, tvanwho said:

I am confused Jim? I thought under present law, we could only get non- patented claims which cannot be had with a deed? How would you get a claim under present law and have it converted to private property? Jim,what do you mean by perfected ? I'd actually prefer a claim in my permanent possession  so the govt can't kick me off of it, if the gold is good...

 

-Tom V.

Tom,

I am going to copy and paste information that should answer both of your questions.

__________________________________________

The discovery of a valuable mineral deposit within the limits of a mining claim located on public lands in conformance with state and Federal statutes validates the claim. The classic statement of a mining claim as property is found in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Wilber v. rel. Krushnic, 280 US 306 (1930):

When the location of a mining claim is perfected under the law, it has the effect of a grant by the United States of the right of present and exclusive possession. The claim is property in the fullest sense of that term…The owner is not required to purchase the claim or secure patent from the United States; but so long as he complies with the provisions of the mining laws, his possessory right, for all practicable purposes of ownership, is as good as though secured by patent.

___________________________________

In Nancy M Swallow, supra, the Board summarized the law concerning the segregative effect of a valid mining claim: “…As the Court stated in St. Louis Mining & Milling Co. v. Montana Mining Co.,  171 U.S. 650, 655 (1898):

Where there is a valid location of a mining claim, the area becomes segregated from the public domain and becomes the property of the locator. Such segregation amounts to an appropriation of public land to private use so far as subsequent competing entries by others.”

___________________________________

Under the Mining Law of 1872, it not only authorizes, it also reveals the various stages of the granted right to mine and uses reasonably incident thereto. The Cadastral surveying is based in this law; however to complete the patenting process, the citizen is required to hire the surveying of the boundaries of his location (30 USC 28-2 & 39). Entering, prospecting and occupation begins the process to find the valuable mineral deposit (30 USC 22); when it is found, it is located by placing monuments and it is filed with the county, where found, and it is filed with the BLM state office (Section 28  and 28(a) through (f)). These actions appropriate the land from the public domain to private use (30 USC 26). It is BLM’s job, when necessary, to certify or validate the mineral deposit and the Forest Service is required to relinquish the land; the mining location is property and as such it can be re-conveyed by transfer of deed to any other person by inheritance or by other instrument.

[Steve Herschbach]

Hi Clay,

I agree with you though I lack confidence in the Small Miner Exemption surviving much longer. Looks like low hanging fruit to me.