How People Voted
 |
 |
19% For, 81% Against
Take Action
  |
Alert Your Friends and Colleagues |
  |
Write Your Representative in Congress |
| Save & Share | |
 |
del.icio.us |
 |
Digg |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Yahoo! |
H.R. 2262, The Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007
- This item is from the 110th Congress (2007-2008) and is no longer current. Comments, voting, and wiki editing have been disabled, and the cost/savings estimate has been frozen.
Version saved on October 22, 2007, 18:05:25, by webmaster:
H.R. 2262 would modify the requirements applicable to locatable minerals on public domain lands, consistent with the principles of self-initiation of mining claims.
Detailed Summary
Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007 - Applies this Act to any mining claim, millsite claim, or tunnel site claim located under the general mining laws.
Conditions federal issuance of a patent for any mining claim located under the general mining laws upon specified determinations made by the Secretary of the Interior.
Subjects production of locatable minerals from a mining claim to a royalty of 8 % of the net smelter return.
Sets forth requirements governing: (1) lands open to location; (2) environmental protection standards, including reclamation, in connection with mineral activities on mining claims, millsite claims, or tunnel site claims; and (3) state or local law that meets or exceeds requirements of this Act.
Establishes the Abandoned Locatable Minerals Mine Reclamation Fund and the Locatable Minerals Community Impact Assistance Fund.
Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretaries) to establish user fees to reimburse federal expenditures in administering this Act.
Requires the Secretaries to inspect and monitor mineral activities to ensure compliance with the environmental protection requirements of this Act.
Amends the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to subject oil shale claims to the reclamation requirements of this Act.
Declares the Multiple Minerals Development Act, and specified federal law regarding unpatented mining claims, applicable to all mining claims located under the general mining laws and maintained in compliance with this Act.
Subjects deposits of specified mineral materials to disposal only under the Materials Act of 1947.
Status of the Legislation
Latest Major Action: 10/18/2007: House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Points in Favor
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)
Points Against
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)
Cost per :
Learn More
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)
Visitor Comments
Gus
May 21, 2007, 11:02pm (report abuse)It appears Rahall is in the pocket of huge global mining corporations. The requirements in this bill will financially break most small to medium domestic mining companies operating on federal lands. Mom and Pop operations will all close due to the tremendous costs proposed. That will leave only the largest international mining corporations able to mine on federal lands in the U.S. They will then control the markets much as the oil corporations and cartels do to oil products.
The U.S. economy will be harmed by this bill and the american public will lose their minerals to global cartels that will get the best prices from China,Indonesia and India.
JOHN FAUGHN
May 22, 2007, 11:31am (report abuse)JUST ANOTHER SELL OUT , OUR SO CALLED ELECTED OFFICIALS HAVE SOLD THEM SELFS , AND NOW ARE SELLING THE REST .
[ STEALING WITH OUT REPRESENTATION ] . BY ANY LEGAL DEFINITION THESE ARE PUBLIC RESOURCES & IF PUT EXCLUSIVELY IF LARGE CORPRITE HAND S WE AS A PEOPLE LOSE EVERYTHING .
Jim
May 23, 2007, 3:18pm (report abuse)This bill would rip off the American public. radical environmental groups could bring unending lawsuits against mining companies trying to find or mine valuable minerals. It would retroactivly harm companies already operating on public lands by provisions never considered during feasability studies.It would kill 10s thousands of jobs in both mining and associated industries. It will lose education and the govenment from county to federal levels 100s millions of dollars in tax revenue yearly. Rahall is working against the best interests on America. He is working for the multi-national corporations to eliminate domestic mining comptition. This can be the only reason for many provisions of his bill. His political campaigns profit hugely from green groups and major corporate contributions. It is obvious that he is willing to put his campaign welfare above the welfare of the United States. Congressman Rahall has no honor.
steve reid
May 23, 2007, 3:31pm (report abuse)You are taking a viable outdoor recreation away from many people
Marc Abbott
May 23, 2007, 11:59pm (report abuse)This would take away from our outdoor recreation that we do with both the family as well as cub scouts & boy scouts. We can teach the history of gold in our area but letting the kids pan & sluice really brings it home as to how it was done & the enjoyment of finding a little bit of gold.
MICKEL HALL
June 3, 2007, 7:45pm (report abuse)THIS BILL IS A CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF BIG BUSINESS AND GOVERNMENT OVERPOWERING THE SMALL GUY. THERE HAS GOTTA BE A HAPPY MEDIUM HERE. I UNDERSTAND THE NEED TO PRESERVE OUR ENVIRONMENTS HEALTH AND BEAUTY FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS AND I UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR US, AS A SPECIES, TO EXPLORE AND MINE NATURAL RESOURCES IN OUR PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. THERE ARE MANY GROUPS OF PEOPLE THAT FEEL THAT WE THAT WE SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY CONTACT WITH OUR ENVIRONMENT AT ALL. WHAT IS SO WRONG WITH OUR FOOTPRINT IN THE SNOW.
Jim Hinesley
June 8, 2007, 9:23pm (report abuse)This bill would make it impossible for the recreational or small miner to even exist. Then all we would have is large corporations using our mineral resources and controling the economy like the oil companies. Whats next?
Valerie Vaugn
June 17, 2007, 7:47pm (report abuse)It is outrageous that Congressman Rahall is trying to destroy domestic mining and award our natural resources located on Federal lands to giant international corporate interests. These huge mining companies will
make promises and cut special deals with the government and get rights to destroy huge areas of our sensitive environment. The home offices of most of these giant mining corporations are not even located in the United States so any actions taken to force them to
comply with our laws or to pay fines will be very difficult to enforce! Look at the ASARCO mess and the attempts to get a huge Mexican mining corp, Grupo that owns ASARCO to finance clean ups at numerous sites in the U.S. I don't like mining, but I understand it is necessary at this time in our history. At least domestic mining companies can be held accountable for environmental damages and environmental reclamation on federal land under the current laws and regulations.
Tom Chambers
June 27, 2007, 12:10am (report abuse)This bill is the pinnacle of "Bad Government"
It was mining stones to make arrowheads that enabled man to emerge from pre-history. It was mining that brought about the Bronze Age. It was mining that enabled all of the great civilizations to flourish. It was mining that enabled the industrial revolution to happen. It is mining that enables us to drive cars, live in luxury and it's mining that allows us to use the computers we are e-mailing comments about lousy seditious legislation...
sammy clark
June 27, 2007, 7:55am (report abuse)why is our goverment being taken over by the environutz. this bill is junk and should be thrown out with the trash
Jim Ray
July 1, 2007, 5:38pm (report abuse)Nick Rahall represents the coal country of West Virginia. He is attempting to close all coal mines on federal lands in the west to cut out competition. He cloaks it behind an 1872 overhaul. He introduced a bill several years ago that would have limited the size of coal mines allowed on federal lands while allowing unlimited coal mining on private ground in the east. He supported creation of Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. It's creation put off limits to mining, the largest low sulfur coal deposit in the world. The only other deposit is in Indonesia, owned by a family that contributed heavily to Clinton and the Demo. party. Mining of this drilled and permitted deposit would have allowed the use of clean coal technology on a large scale and would have eliminated most of our nations current energy crises, while at the same time cleaning the air by taking the place of high sulfur coal. Congressman Rahall is a hypocrite!
Ross
July 29, 2007, 10:12pm (report abuse)Another single minded political agenda for big business with use of environmental control. This bill must be rejected with prejudice. The U.S. will end up being owned by other countries if not already. The use of "public lands" will no longer be useable by the public with more restrictive regulations. Just need to clarify the old regulations and enforce them.
russ pearce
July 30, 2007, 7:04am (report abuse)Rahal is nuts! if this goes into effect the cost of everthing that you could think of will esculate so much that youll never be able to buy it!everything is either grown or mined! stopping mining in the USA will force us to buy foreign countrys! and you know what that would mean for us!!!
Tarzan
August 2, 2007, 11:40pm (report abuse)I think your all missing the point. In 1872, Congress created the Mining Law as a way for our nations old west to grow and encourage economic development. Now that the west is all grown up and all settled we see a different and in 1872 an unforeseen development. There are over 16,000 miles of rivers polluted, thousands of reservoirs and lakes contaminated, tens of thousands of abandoned mines, ground water near mines that so acidic it can dissolve a metal, the numbers of birds, fish, and other wildlife that has been killed is uncountable. However with a reformed Hard Rock Mining Act these health and environmental injustices can possibly be averted in the future. Im sure this bill will be regected however at should have been revised 30 years ago!
MojaveJoe
August 5, 2007, 9:04am (report abuse)This bill would do nothing to correct the mistakes of the past. Mining today is so environmentally friendly that you'd be hard pressed to prove it does ANY harm to the environment or the people. Unlike this bill, which will negatively impact all Americans eventually.
Scott Udall
August 5, 2007, 7:57pm (report abuse)This bill is just a blatant attempt to halt all mining on public lands.
I have visited several mine sites that have had environmental problems including the Grouse Creek Mine in Idaho that had a cyanide spill that went into the Salmon river.
There is no lasting environmental degredation as steps have been taken to correct the situation. The mine is closed as the price of gold dropped below economic value in early 2000s. The reclamation is ongoing.
In addition the corp. helped create additional wetlands down stream.
This type of activity is happening
at several problem mines.
It is obvious that the current Federal Land Policy Managment Act with the 3809 regs as well as the EPA and state environmental regs have plenty of authority and expertise to govern current mining operations on both public and private property. The industry does not need another layer of federal bureaucracy increasing production costs in the west while protecting depleated mines in the east.
Nick Hadley
August 8, 2007, 7:16pm (report abuse)With the recent cave in, in the mine in Utah, came the news that over 52% of our electrical power comes from coal fired generation plants. Of this coal the majority comes from federal lands located in several western states. These states also have the largest known reserves in the U.S. and represent about 29% of all coal reserves world wide. The Rahall bill would keep most of the reserves from ever being mined and harm the existing mines by raising costs through a royalty. This extra cost would be passed on to the consumers and the 8% would go into the government coffers to be spent by congress on their special whims. The money would never paid to the public as Rahall says. It looks to me like he is into protectionism of his cohorts in the eastern coal mining industry while figuring out a way to screw both the mining corporations in the west and the consumers nation wide.
Mel Wisenor
August 29, 2007, 8:59am (report abuse)This bill would let big companies control these resources as they have the oil and also the commercial fishing industry. Where will this stop??? When the American people have no free enterprise,all resources controlled by corperate and foreign money??? We are 1/2 way trough the beginning of the end for the freedom and way of life for the American people, let's not excellerate it by passing a bill like this.
tramp
September 20, 2007, 3:22pm (report abuse)this will kill the small miner and will inhibit any mining done by the small miner.. if you remember history, the small miner made the usa back in 1849...did you forget san franisco? and most of california.. I AM AGAINST THIS BILL... and i am a miner and proud of it..
Mike Romero
September 20, 2007, 3:37pm (report abuse)This proposed bill if passes would be disasterous to mining communities across the west. As I read the proposal it appears that after five years all mines on federal lands would have to comply with the requirements and that all expansions, modifications and even normal day to day activities could be challenged by any organization without proof of wrong doing, just allegations. This bill if padded will cause the closure on many mines across the country and bring hardship to all the families who depend on the mines for a living. What irritates me even more is the fact that in the Southwest the majority of workers in most mines are of Hispanic heritage.
Nancy Lithgow
September 22, 2007, 6:19pm (report abuse)Way to go Rahall! Let you buddies in the coal and shale mining industries filth up our lands because they contribute to your campaign fund. Shut western mining down to insure your foreign CFR buddies have less competition. Yep cause thousands of American workers to lose their jobs so third world worker can have more 5 cent an hour jobs. Rahall, you are a worm and the epidemy of a crooked, twisted politician who has been in Washington far too long. Time for you to get the boot!
Roger Johnson
September 28, 2007, 1:59pm (report abuse)If you like the price of gasoline you will love the prices of metals if this goes through.
Here we thought we got rid of a bunch of crooked politicians and now we see the new ones are even worse. We just had a major change pertaining to land use in the CFR 3809 Surface Managment regulations. The Democrats and liberals can't stand anyone making a profit and the liberal environmentalists want to halt all mining.
Mr. Romero. I hear you on the Hispanic issue. I think this should be addressed in part as a racial or ethnic issue. Rahall's bill would be devestating to the Hispanic sector of society that is most in need of having access to higher paying jobs without having a degree. I would not want to see the economic damage to towns across the wast, Many that are largely Hispanic in population.
Mike Ryan
September 29, 2007, 1:47pm (report abuse)Governments view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves tax it, if it keeps moving, regulate it, if it stops moving, subsidise it. (Ronald Reagan 1986)
Government is the great fiction through which everybody endevours to live at everyone else's expense. (Frederich Bastiat 1801-1850)
russ pearce
September 30, 2007, 6:40am (report abuse)this bill if it were to become a law would put a end to small scale mining in the United States.then we would be forced to buy our natural resources from another country and that would drive the prices up for everything.with a reccession looming on our horizone we should be looking more towards our own extended development of our nature resources and thanking small scale miners for the development and work they have done for America , not chase this work out of the states! i say vote a resounding NO for this HR2262
Steve Wandt
September 30, 2007, 6:35pm (report abuse)Current mining requires bonds be posted in the amount that would cover reclamation. Mining that left abandoned sites is a thing of the past. If we make it harder and even more prohinative than it currently is in this country that will certainly leave us more and more dependant on foriegn resources.
lsa
October 6, 2007, 9:37pm (report abuse)why would you use liberal and environmentalist in the same sentence?these are labels meant to bring pavlovian instead of intelligent responses. speak about the issues/the facts. and how can the environment, the air we breath, the water we drink, the food we eat ever be a partisan issue?
francis m. little
October 7, 2007, 12:46pm (report abuse)Just to let congress know that there are many recreational miners that rely on our public lands to be able to recreate in there mining hobbies. This may include gold, silver, copper and various minerals that are to numerous to mention. Please consider making allowances for this kind of activity. I do not favor some forms of big open pit mining that is dotting landscapes now but to close down areas to mining recreations would be a blow to the weekend hobbist. Thanks Francis
Victor Ramerez
October 13, 2007, 4:09pm (report abuse)I live in a mining town in Arizona.
I have worked in the large mines and know many in my community that do also. Most workers in this town and the next are Hispanic or Native American as I am. I am third generation Mexican American and proud of it.
My father and I operate a small copper and silver mine a few miles out of town on BLM mining claims.
We sell our ore directly to the large mining company. This environmental requirments in this proposed law would put my family out of business and we would have to lay off three other workers. I also know several small miners who mine Turquoise, gold and
copper who would be put out of business.
Congressman Rahall needs to help the small busness people. He should not be shutting down minority businesses and hurting the entire mining community.
I hope someone is letting him know this and that all the mining people will stand up against this bill.
Charlie Begay
October 13, 2007, 7:18pm (report abuse)I am a Navajo that lives in N.E. Arizona. I work for a rock quarry that is located on federal lands and ships stone across the entire west. The operator has shown the employees the portions of H.R. 2262 that pertain to rock quarrys located on federal lands and let us know that if it passes he will not be able to stay in business due to the added expenses that will be cause by additional restrictions and environmental requirements.
Charlie Begay
October 13, 2007, 7:19pm (report abuse)This closure will directly effect over 30 Native American employees and families. Jobs with good wages are rare around the Navajo Nation. It is difficult for me to imagine why Mr. Rahall would want to destroy the industry and jobs here as well as across the nation. In addition there are several other rock industries here that will fall to this law change including a crushed aggregate plant, a sand and gravel plant and two other rock quarries. I understand that there is also some small scale mining in the area but have never been to those. This could cost 100s of jobs in and around the reservations. I agree with Mr. Ramerez in that those of us in Quarrying and mining, especially those in minority situations, need to get in contact with our Representatives and Senators to let them know we strongly oppose this bill. This will cut across all ethnic and party lines while it destroys entire communities and returns to poverty thousands of people.
Rockhound Lynne
October 17, 2007, 10:21am (report abuse)This bill would limit recreational rock hunting for all people interested in surface collecting. I belong to one of the largest Gem and Mineral Organizations in Idaho and we recover all areas and collect other people's garbage and keep the
areas we collect clean. We have a "Code of Ethics"
we follow. We promote Good Outdoor Manners and protection of public lands. I am strongly apposed.
Collin Gray
October 19, 2007, 1:43pm (report abuse)It looks to me that Congressman Rahall is doing something even more sinister. Uranium is a locatable mineral. Over 90% of all uranium mined in the U.S. has or continues to come from mines on federal lands. A current uranium rush is under way as 3 new Nuke Power Plant are due their permits this year and next and there is a world shortage. It appears to me that if Rahall can cause the implementation of these draconian laws, he will be able in a single fell swoop to keep the coal and oil shale interests, within and without his state, in the cat bird seat. This appears to be a huge power play, hidden behind enviro and revenue concerns, for the heart and soul of our nations power production health. This is a massive protectionist effort by Rahall on the part of giant coal and oil interests to retain the status quo. This at a time the national energy debate includes the strong possibility of going from 20% atomic energy to over 80%, I strongly oppose this bill and urge everyone to do so.
Skipper Phagan
October 19, 2007, 4:23pm (report abuse)I think that we better be prepared to suffer the consequences if this is allowed to pass, we will be at the mercy of the middle east oil magnates!!!
And an end to what built this country in the first place, small scale miners, and pioneers!!!
I know that in today's times small scale mining does contribute much in the way of our nation's economy, but it does support a lot of people's income and jobs, and will show up at the unemployment offices and homeless shelters as these people's income and jobs will be forever gone!!!
Not to mention fun and safe family recreation!!!
And prospecting is an "NATIONAL HERITAGE"!!
Gene West
October 22, 2007, 1:57am (report abuse)Please consider where our goods come from...if they are not grown, then they must be mined. Their seem to me to be more than enough laws regulating us as it is, and the Mining Law of 1872 has served us well so far. Keep it as it is!
idiggold2.com
October 23, 2007, 8:16pm (report abuse)This is another flawed bill in a long line of bad legislation continually being forced upon small-scale miners and their businesses. The entire industry needs to stand up and send a clear message to congress in order to stop this bill. Rural economies will suffer if this becomes law.
Dan Wilkins
October 25, 2007, 9:52pm (report abuse)Smells like something stinks here. Maybe a investagation on Rahall and others in favor of this bill is in order.
russau
October 27, 2007, 1:48pm (report abuse)the democratic party is tring anything to appease the wacoenviromentalists that are supporting them to get back incontroll of the white house. if this kind of back stabbing politics is what they have to offer, count me out!rahall isnt using any common sense in this!
Kemt Stevens
October 27, 2007, 6:15pm (report abuse)H.R. 2262 is a bad bill. Congressman Rahall is attempting to destroy our energy future as well as our mineral future. If this bill passes we will be completely dependent on other countries for metals and be locked into using oil and coal for electric generation instead of being able to persue nuclear power. So much for Congressman Rahalls avowed pro-environmental protection stance. What a hypocrite Rahall is. This makes any rational person wonder just who Rahall really represents and how many multinational corporate hip pockets he is in. I hope eveyone who reads this page will be sure to send a comment and this pages web address to your U.S. Representatives and Senators. I also suggest sending this to all your friends and relatives with an explanation as to why this bills passage would be devastating to the United States health and wellfare.
Rex Mueller
October 29, 2007, 10:05am (report abuse)HR2262 is the death blow to small scale miners which was the intent that the Mining Act of 1872 was defined to protect. Only corporations with the financial backing for the surety bonds will be allowed to stake and claim public lands for exploration.
This is a bad bill through and through and hurts the small miners.
Mel Williams
October 30, 2007, 11:29am (report abuse)Dear Sir,
As a voting supporter in your district and a recreational gold prospector who enjoys panning America's streams for gold I urge you to vote 'NO' on the forthcoming bill that would take away my rights to enjoy this outdoor activity. The motto/creed of the casual prospector is, "To leave the land in as good or better shape than which you found it", is in no way environment un-friendly so I see no reason to take away another freedom we citizens of the United States now or in the future so purely enjoy. I sincerely hope you agree. This I wrote to my Congressman.
kent roche
October 31, 2007, 9:38pm (report abuse)Rahall is an on going nightmare that won't go away. If you people think that he is in the pocket of Big Mining Corporations, you are nuts!! He doesn't care about mining at all. He is a stooge for the radical enviro groups that helped to kill the New World Project back in Clinton's Presidency. I am the owner and managing partner of a company with 181 claims on National Forest lands, and if this bill is passed I might as well go on Social Security and call my life's work a waste of time, all 35 years of it, because NO ONE will take so much as a second look at our project and we have had Majors drooling over it! 2 million ounces of gold that will NEVER be mined because of this f**king idiot and his pack of goons! Screw you Rahall!!!..and you too Mrs. Hillary F**kin' Clinton!!!!!!!!
Clenis
November 1, 2007, 7:04am (report abuse)Eventually it all leads back to the Clintons, doesn't it? /snark/
What about environmental concerns, water, etc.?
What about purchasing public land for $5/acre?
The above gentleman who is owner and managing partner of 181 claims on national forest land - without all the bullhits - how exactly does this impact you? Less profit? I'm interested.
Clenis
November 1, 2007, 7:13am (report abuse)[He is a stooge for the radical enviro groups that helped to kill the New World Project back in Clinton's Presidency.]
And what exactly is this so-called 'New World Project'? And if you would, point me to reputable references, please.
Joe
November 1, 2007, 1:31pm (report abuse)Clenis,
Yes it does because she is running. Smirk Your humor sucks
To answer your question about environmental concerns, You show me proof of one mine that can operate in disreguard of the EPA and I will agree that this should be a concern, otherwise quit using the environmental scare tactics that are unwaranted.
Joe
November 1, 2007, 1:31pm (report abuse)Clenis,
Your second question about land for $5--- When was the last time the BLM issued a mining claim patent? Even if they still were, do you know how many millions of dollars a company used to spend in our economy to prepare that mining venture, perform studies, etc etc etc to be able to get that land for $5 dollars an acre? This $5 thing is just another scare tactic.
The real issue here is that this new bill will make it impossible for the ordinary citizen of this country to locate, develope, and reach production of any new mine in our nation, and will instead let huge foriegn companies take the profits overseas that they make from AMERICA'S natural resources and the small "rent" they pay the USA won't even compare to the money our economy recieves under the current system we now use called the 1872 mining law as amended. If it ain't broke don't fix it, and I have not seen one arguement that is a legitamate reason to change this law.
Citizen
November 1, 2007, 1:55pm (report abuse)The mining law of 1872 is what allowed America to become the Great Nation that it was. The stripping of our rights is what has made America of today the joke it is. This bill is nothing more than another one of our rights being stolen from us. Contrary to what you might think, the mining law of 1872 as currently amended is one of the most important rights our citizens have, and this bill will take that right from us and the monies our economy recieves under this bill will be miniscule compared to the money our economy recieves right now.
kent roche
November 2, 2007, 2:58am (report abuse)Clenis! The $5 an acre, is the FILING FEE for the patient application. By the time a company gets to this stage they have spent millions of dollars on exploration and development work. The cost is more like MILLIONS an acre. But what are little things like facts to a shill like you? Tell us what your enviro affiliations are? The New World Project was the name given to Noranda's Henderson Mtn. deposit near Cooke City Mt. It was bought out by the Feds about 11 years ago because of lies and BS disseminated by people like you and the Greater Yellowstone Coalition. It covered about 200 acres of private patented property that belonged to an 86 year old woman. It consists of about 4 million ounces of gold that will never be mined because of hysteria generated by people like you over it's effects upon an active resurgent caldera (an active volcano) called Yellowstone Park!
kent roche
November 2, 2007, 3:08am (report abuse)The 181 claims started out 20 years ago as TWO claims and a sometimes hobby! Through hard work and sacrifice, and the help of life long friends it has become what it is today! As for the enviro concerns, check out NEPA! Google it and see what is required to operate exploration on Public Lands! The exploration process has resulted in the expenditure of over $800,0000 into a very poor, high unemployment area, that needs economic stimulus. As for the notion that Big Mining Corps. are behind Rahall's bill, that is a joke! It is Big Mining Corporations that Rahall seeks to injure and destroy the most with his madness. Tell us your enviro affiliations Clenis! Earth First? Sierra Club? Alliance for The Wild Rockies? Environmental Working Group? Who do YOU represent stooge?
Waterwitch
November 5, 2007, 11:52am (report abuse)The Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007 would have nothing to do with the regulation of coal mining. Coal mining is regulated by SMCRA - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. The requirements under this act are much more stringent than the existing Hard Rock requirements. SMCRA has done alot to correct the abuses of early mining and the result is a much safer and cleaner environment--although it is not perfect by any stretch. Witness the valley fill controversy in the east--such a mess and abuse of streams. I'm holding out for the day when hard rock mining has to meet requirements for reclamation as stingent as those required of coal mine operators.
Jack Higgins.
November 5, 2007, 4:59pm (report abuse)Good Lord, Now we have a tree hugging water Wiccan telling us what we already know as far as the difference between locatable and leasable minerals.
However she will know nothing of the CFR 3809 Regulations pertaining to surface managment on federal lands or the fact that they require far more reclamation then coal regulations. Sweety, go back and play in the water and dream of drunken dancing druids and nubile nymphs.
KKRich
November 5, 2007, 8:39pm (report abuse)This is A badddd bill for all of us in the USA
Scott Miller
November 5, 2007, 10:16pm (report abuse)Bad, bad, bad. There is no good side to this.
The government already gets fees, taxes and who knows what else. Do you actually think that when they make a profit, pay employees or buy equipment they don't get taxed each step of the way? And if you remove the 1872, these people who work for and depend on mining will loose immediately. Then we all loose. The mining will go overseas, where they have NO laws about the environment.'
Another envirowacko ploy to turn us to solcialism.
Scott
Melvin
November 6, 2007, 3:37am (report abuse)good bill, kick out the small scale miner. that guy who cleans up the river because he likes to mine and fish. he will not use mercury on the mine site or Cynde.
in stead turn all the land over to big mining corps. thay love to do just the opposite of the small scale miner.
if you check all the laws miners must obey. good thing rafters, dont need to do all the things we must do. thay would be marching in the streets.
William Denney
November 6, 2007, 8:30pm (report abuse)The only way we can stop the madness and insanity which prevails in Washington is to vote ALL the elected officials out and start with a CLEAN slate. These have been in so long they think they OWN America. VOTE THEM ALL OUT NOW@@@
Anonymous
November 6, 2007, 11:40pm (report abuse)We seem to have a lot of treasonous people in public service who are actually not serving the public at all. Instead, they are pandering to the wishes of big global mining corporations. Our forefathers committed treason to make this a free country, and made it our duty through the constitution to throw down enemies of the state both domestic and foreign by taking up arms if need be. I have seen many erosions of our freedoms by our legislators, and I am wondering when people will take up arms against those in government who have acted treacherously (treasonously) these past 50 or so years. I am not suggesting any such thing, but it does make you wonder.
THERESA SISKIND
November 8, 2007, 11:40am (report abuse)YES, I'M A TREE HUGGER AND PROUD OF IT! I'D RATHER EMBRACE A TREE THEN MOST PEOPLE. WHY DON'T YOU ALL MOVE TO CHINA WHERE THEY HAVE NO ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS! I MUST WARN YOU, TAKE PLENTY OF BOTTLED WATER AND BRING PLENTY OF MASKS...
citizen
November 8, 2007, 1:57pm (report abuse)Theresa Siskind,
It is from the hard work of miners that has created this country you are so proud of. If it is not grown, it is mined, that includes EVERYTHING we use in this world today. It is the tree huggers who have destroyed our forests and are now trying to destroy our economy. Your thoughts on rather embracing a tree than a person show just how warped your mind is. HR2262 is the worst peice of legislation that has ever been written, and pacified servants like you are why it might pass into law. If you think that there are not enough environmental protection laws on the books already, you don't know a thing about existing mining regulations and your comments are just wasted air.
Ulf T. Teigen
November 12, 2007, 1:44pm (report abuse)A repeal of this Bill would probably be too late to save USA
from complete destruction.
Gaja
November 13, 2007, 10:05pm (report abuse)Lets put mother nature on trial for her ugly revolt to our divine quest. We are humans and we have the right to do what we want to the land. The environment is beginning to speak to others and we must stop her vision of making the world a better place. That would me no more mining, development, consumption. That is what we do best. Who cares if we have to destroy a little bit and leave a mess for the children of the future. Do we really believe that the world can support us much longer? Of course not so lets get the most from the land before we all go extinct!
xxxxxxx
November 21, 2007, 10:13am (report abuse)Taking arms against those in goverment who need to be taken out would need major public support, really the public in the most part do not even know so it would not work. like one day between soaps 100 000 000 women learn that a rebel arms is taking over a major goverment office, those criminals they'll think.
Dick
December 1, 2007, 7:26pm (report abuse)Gaja, Give up your house/apt., your auto, all mass transportation, most medical supplies and medicine as well as your pet/s.
Grow all your own food using only wooden tools carved with flint. Hunt meat with a bow and butcher an animal every 3rd or 4th day as refridgeratiuon would no be available.
Then speak like an ass when it comes to mining. If it's not grown it must be mined, AND the harvesting is done with what? Metal tools and machinery. What happened to you people that you are so ignorant as to where your living standard comes from. Did your mothers give you shaken infant syndrom or did an alien suck your brains out when you were a babe and replace it with wool?
Elitists like you would cause the starvation of millions of people world wide just so you could have the perception that you are saving your earth goddess Gaia.
Anthony
December 9, 2007, 8:11pm (report abuse)The USA has some of the most stringent hard rock mining environmental rules in the world. If this bill goes into effect, it will destroy the hard rock mining industry in this country. All you tree huggers can say "hooray we saved the earth!"
Here's what you don't want to believe:
This bill, if passed, will not decrease global demand for metals. Instead, it will force countries like China to expand their mining industry, causing extensive damage to their environment under lax regulations. Forcing them to pillage their land to provide people like you with goods is called imperialism.
I am a student in mining engineering and I am proud of the stewardship mining companies in this country show to the environment.
Myron
December 30, 2007, 1:01pm (report abuse)Once again environmental rules to take away our freedoms from us. I strongly vote no on this bill
Bluelime
January 3, 2008, 1:08pm (report abuse)I hope this bill dies quickly in the senate in 2008. As a small time pick and shovel prospector and recreational miner as my father was before me, I sure can't afford anymore fees and goverment interference than I now already have on my mining claims. I am a good steward of the land and I don't see where I cause any harm. Too bad the old timers didn't patent when they had the chance as my claims go back to 1889 but they just didn't want to be put on the tax rolls. The minerals are there and I'm well aware that it has always been the little guy that has located them. I want to continue this recreational pastime into my GOLDen years. Please don't kill me off prematurely. Put this bill down a deep shaft and blast it closed. It is a very bad idea.
Allan J. Willy, P.Eng., P.Geo.
January 8, 2008, 4:41pm (report abuse)I am a senior Canadian mineral exploration consulting geologist and also a junior mining company executive and have had over 35 years experience in the business mostly in Canada.
I have been following comments on this bill by the National Mining Association of the USA and agrfee with them. No professional in the mining business wishes to rape and pillage the land...either in their own countries or in third world countries. Exploration and mining can be done using enviromentally-sound methods and be profitable to citizens through normal business taxation without resorting to super royalties.
Americans, please listen to your mining associations with an unbiased ear and try not to think of them as being like the Hearst character on the tv series "Deadwood".. Fiction is fiction and reality is reality. You really need self-efficency in metal production and you do not have to sacrifice normal taxation or the enviroment.
Christina
January 16, 2008, 6:01pm (report abuse)I strongly oppose this Bill. We need to get the word out for everyone we know to help us in this fight.Spread the word.
Open Mind
January 23, 2008, 12:30pm (report abuse)It seems that pro-mining individuals are very knowledgeable about current mining laws and environmental controls, but refuse to acknowledge or choose to ignore the REALITY that MINING DOES DAMAGE our ENVIRONMENT. At the same time, while environmentalists are extremely aware of the impact mining operations have around the world, they similarly refuse to acknowledge the impact that drastic legeslation will have on the price of mined goods. Perhaps a middle ground should be supported by both sides before one or the other so quickly (and probably without factual support) rejects the opposing argument. Anyone who denies that mining operations have significant environmental impact should visit a few abandon mines around the country, which by the way do exist. Environmentalists should exercise their right to free speach and debate, but perhaps you should leave your car at home and make this one a walking tour...stringent mining laws WILL AFFECT the price of goods greatly.
Granted Right
February 9, 2008, 4:06pm (report abuse)Sincerely,
~signature~
Ron Gibson
Vice President of the Southern Oregon Mining Association.
Phone-541-592.3893
Email-dritecrg@hotmail.com
A1) The Encyclopedia Americana, 1919, Volume M Mining Laws of the United States, Page 184.
A2) Page 185.
B 1) Handbook of America Mining Law, Geo. P Costigan, Jr„ 1908. Pg. 11.
B2) Page 10, Moore v. Smaw 17 Cal. 199 79 Am. Dec. 123
B3) Page 15, Ivanhoe Mining Co. v. Consolidated Min. Co., 102 U.S. 167. 173, 26 L.Ed. 126,
B4) Page 19, Section 3
C I ) American Law Relating To Mines And Mineral Land within the Public Land States and Territories and Governing The
Acquisition and Enjoyment of Mining Rights in Lands of the Public Domain, Curtis H. Lindley, of the San Fransisco Bar Volume I, l897, Section 80.
C2) Section 5S, Page 62.
C3) Section 8l, Page 84.
D1) Missouri, K. & T.R. Co. v. Kansas Pac. R. Co. 97 U.S. 491 (1878).
CC: Congressman Greg Waldon
Granted Right
February 9, 2008, 4:06pm (report abuse)We believe, as a matter of law, the Resolution approved by the House is without lawful
authority in the first instance. We believe, with good cause, these facts divest the
Congress of the United States, the grantor of the proprietary mineral holding, of any
authority to "amend", condition, control, regulate or retake the mineral estate, long-since,
residing in the intention of a grantee. Despite the question upon the lawfulness of the
Resolution, we nonetheless vigorously oppose H.R. 2262 as passed by the House, now
heading to the Senate and otherwise or by any means, primarily, though not singularly,
for the reason thus far stated.
So that we might act in accord, we are writing this day to inquire if you are aware of the
threat H.R. 2262 poses? And if you are, we ask what your position is concerning H.R.
2262 and the response, if any, you plan to make to it?
Granted Right
February 9, 2008, 4:07pm (report abuse)that the Act did not purport to be a
mining code and its object was not to regulate mining as such,A1 in that, [t]he system does
not seek to regulate or control mines or mining within the lands held in private
ownership, except such only as are acquired directly from the government under the
mining laws, and then only forming a muniment of the locator's or purchaser's title,
that the grant gave the locator the right to get a patent for his "mine," we believe this
otherwise unconditional grant foreclosed the grantor's continuing disposition of the
property itself, either in exploitation or right of acquisition of the grantee's mineral
property. We can find no authority providing a grantor may come at some future time to
steal back the property subject of a grant whether or not in tangible possession of a
grantee. We fully appreciate the immense implication of such a finding long-since lost to
memory, today requiring resurrection and enforcement.
Granted Right
February 9, 2008, 4:07pm (report abuse)that the Act did not purport to be a
mining code and its object was not to regulate mining as such,A1 in that, [t]he system does
not seek to regulate or control mines or mining within the lands held in private
ownership, except such only as are acquired directly from the government under the
mining laws, and then only forming a muniment of the locator's or purchaser's title,
that the grant gave the locator the right to get a patent for his "mine," we believe this
otherwise unconditional grant foreclosed the grantor's continuing disposition of the
property itself, either in exploitation or right of acquisition of the grantee's mineral
property. We can find no authority providing a grantor may come at some future time to
steal back the property subject of a grant whether or not in tangible possession of a
grantee. We fully appreciate the immense implication of such a finding long-since lost to
memory, today requiring resurrection and enforcement.
Granted Right
February 9, 2008, 4:08pm (report abuse)[t]he minerals do not differ
from the great mass of property, the ownership of which may be in the United States or in
individuals, without affecting in any respect the political jurisdiction of the stated it has
as well been settled with that fixed and definite legislative policy granting its mineral lands the Proprietor, Congress, in the name of the United States, forever abandoned the idea of exacting royalties, instead giving free license to all citizens," the notion of royalty in the product of the mines was forever relinquished.B3
Moreover, the only reservation with the granting of the mineral estate was the mode, the
regulation by which a claimant would formalize his intention and to perfect purchase by
patent. Being this reservation expressed in the praesentio grantD1 of July 26, 1866, and
May 10, 1872 as amended was regulation only for the purpose of administration the
formal location and purchase of the public domain,
Granted Right
February 9, 2008, 4:08pm (report abuse)In researching an answer we found the courts long recognizing the Act of July 26, 1866,
and May 10, 1872 as amended, "present grant" "revolutionizing the whole land policy of
the government, abdicating in the name of the nation its authority and jurisdiction over the richest mineral possession on the face of God's earth,”A1 conveyed the mineral estate of the United States completely, an absolute gift of all the mineral wealth without condition and without limitation to all citizens.A2
It has long-since been settled that the federal system treats the mineral estate as a
proprietor holding paramount title B1 to its public domain and not as an attribute of
sovereignty. B2,C1 Standing in no different relation to the sovereignty of the state than that
of any other property which is subject to barter and sale,B2
Granted Right
February 9, 2008, 4:09pm (report abuse)As representative and Vice President of the members of the Southern Oregon Mining
Association and by our members we have become aware of House Resolution 2262, the
"Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007", H.R. 2262, which recently passed the
House of the Congress of the United States. We find this Resolution of great concern,
potentially very harmful, and constituting a takings if passing into law. We understand
the only remaining obstacle to its passage into law merely awaits Senate action. We feel
the threat H.R, 2262 poses is of compelling interest and of dire consequence to us all.
Our concern began in asking the question, Can a grantor lawfully executing and
memorializing a free grant of property return at some future time to condition, control,
regulate or retake the property subject of the grant, dispossessing the grantee?
Our findings are that a grantor may not come at some future time to steal back the
property subject of a grant.
Granted Right
February 9, 2008, 4:09pm (report abuse)From a letter OCR recently submitted to Oregon Senator Smith, and for wider distribution.
Senator Gordon Smith
Security Plaza 1175 E. Main St. Suite 2D
Medford, Oregon 97504
Ron Gibson
P.O. Box 226
Selma, Oregon 97538
January 18, 2008
Dear Senator Smith,
Glynn Burkhardt
February 23, 2008, 3:28pm (report abuse)The Arizona Small Mine Operators Association strongly opposes H.R. 2262 and views it as a direct attack on the mining industry in America by those who would sell the American people out to remain in power and influence. Ths proposed legislation would make America dependent on foreign sources for our industrial and precious metals supplies. next
Continued
February 23, 2008, 3:28pm (report abuse)Congressman Rahall and this bills supporters have shown their willingness to destroy one of the last basic industries in the United States. This while placing our society's mineral availability into the hands of multi-national corporations as happened with the oil industry. We can not stand for this. I urge all in the industry to contact your U.S. Senators and urge them to oppose further movement of this bill in the senate this year. I then ask all to contact Senator John McCain's presidential campaign office to let him know that to garner the support of the mining industry he must not support changes to the current mining laws.
Sincerely,
Glynn A Burkhardt
President
Arizona Small Mine Operators Association
Glynn A. Burkhardt
February 29, 2008, 4:34pm (report abuse)For those against this bill, please be sure to sign the "Support The 1872 Minig Law" petition here.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/miningpolitics/signatures.html
Mike
April 29, 2008, 2:04pm (report abuse)This is a great bill. Hard rock mining on public lands is so consistently and permanently damaging to the landscape that the claim that there is no impact from mining is a mendacious joke.
As a hunter and NRA member, I'd throw my support wholly behind this bill, in the interest of preserving good recreational use habitat for outdoorsmen.
As a taxpayer, I am pleased at the prospect that finally the US Taxpayer-Landowner will stop having to subsidize those Communists who currently take public assets without compensating the public.
Larry N
May 5, 2008, 8:17pm (report abuse)Mike, you are typical of the ignorant people who supports bills that damage the US economy. There are no subsidies to mining corps. The exploration costs come directly from their profits and it takes millions of dollars to find, explore and develope even a small mining operation. You love to hunt but tell me. Just where the hell do you think the metals such as iron in the barrel and action, the brass in the cartridges and the chemicals in the gun powder cam from... MINING!!!!! Maybe the US government should finance the exploration for minerals and take a 25% net profit royalty after metals sales. Then the Amecicans like you would understand what mining production costs truely are and how you gain from the current laws.