WashingtonWatch.com - H.R. 2262, The Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007

Comment by Philip (June 8, 2008, 01:00:00)

Sun, 08 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EDT

Wasn't this introduced by a Democrat to a Democrat congress? What do you expect!!...

Comment by Larry N (May 5, 2008, 01:00:00)

Mon, 05 May 2008 00:00:00 EDT

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....

Comment by Mike (April 29, 2008, 01:00:00)

Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:00:00 EDT

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....

Comment by Glynn A. Burkhardt (February 29, 2008, 01:00:00)

Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:00:00 EST

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...

Comment by Glynn Burkhardt (February 23, 2008, 01:00:00)

Sat, 23 Feb 2008 00:00:00 EST

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...

Comment by Continued (February 23, 2008, 01:00:00)

Sat, 23 Feb 2008 00:00:00 EST

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...

Comment by Granted Right (February 9, 2008, 01:00:00)

Sat, 09 Feb 2008 00:00:00 EST

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...

Comment by Granted Right (February 9, 2008, 01:00:00)

Sat, 09 Feb 2008 00:00:00 EST

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?...

Comment by Granted Right (February 9, 2008, 01:00:00)

Sat, 09 Feb 2008 00:00:00 EST

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....

Comment by Granted Right (February 9, 2008, 01:00:00)

Sat, 09 Feb 2008 00:00:00 EST

Comment by Granted Right (February 9, 2008, 01:00:00)

Sat, 09 Feb 2008 00:00:00 EST

[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,...

Comment by Granted Right (February 9, 2008, 01:00:00)

Sat, 09 Feb 2008 00:00:00 EST

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...

Comment by Granted Right (February 9, 2008, 01:00:00)

Sat, 09 Feb 2008 00:00:00 EST

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....

Comment by Granted Right (February 9, 2008, 01:00:00)

Sat, 09 Feb 2008 00:00:00 EST

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,...

Comment by Open Mind (January 23, 2008, 01:00:00)

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 00:00:00 EST

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....

Comment by Christina (January 16, 2008, 01:00:00)

Wed, 16 Jan 2008 00:00:00 EST

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....

Revision by webmaster (January 11, 2008, 01:00:00)

Fri, 11 Jan 2008 00:00:00 EST

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 - (Sec. 3) States this Act applies to any mining claim, millsite claim, or tunnel site claim: (1) located under the general mining laws before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act; or (2) used for beneficiation or mineral processing activities, regardless of whether legal and beneficial title to the mineral is held by the United States.

Title I: Mineral Exploration and Development - (Sec. 101) Conditions federal issuance of a patent for any mining or millsite claim located under the general mining laws upon specified determinations by the Secretary of the Interior.

(Sec. 102) Subjects production of locatable minerals, including mineral concentrates or products derived from such minerals, to a royalty of 8% of the gross income from mining.

Imposes a 4% royalty upon federal lands subject to an existing permit.

Subjects to specified royalties certain federal land added to an existing operations permit.

Sets forth royalty payment requirements governing claim holders, operators, and transporters.

Makes each person liable for royalty payments under this Act jointly and severally liable for royalty on all locatable minerals, concentrates, or derived products lost or wasted from a mining claim maintained in compliance with this Act when such loss or waste is due to negligence on the part of any person or due to the failure to comply with any rule, regulation, or order issued under this Act.

Establishes a civil penalty for failure to comply with royalty requirements.

(Sec. 103) Sets forth a hardrock mining claim maintenance fee for each unpatented mining claim, mill, or tunnel site on federally owned lands, whether located before, on, or after enactment of this Act.

Requires waiver of such fee for a claimant who certifies in writing that on the payment due date the claimant and all related parties held not more than 10 mining claims, mill sites, or tunnel sites, or any combination of them on public lands, and had performed requisite assessment work.

States that nonpayment of the claim maintenance fee constitutes a forfeiture of the unpatented mining claim, mill, or tunnel site.

(Sec. 104) States that timely payment of the claim maintenance fee asserts claimant's authority to use and occupy the federal land concerned for prospecting and exploration.

Title II: Protection of Special Places - (Sec. 201) States that mining claims may be located under the general mining laws only on such lands and interests as were open to location immediately before enactment of this Act.

Designates the following lands as not open to location of mining claims under the general mining laws on or after the date of enactment of this Act: (1) wilderness study areas; (2) areas of critical environmental concern; (3) areas designated for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (including areas designated for potential addition, or eligible for inclusion in such system); and (4) any area identified in certain inventoried roadless areas maps contained in the Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation Final Environmental Impact Statement.

(Sec. 202) Permits a state, political subdivision, or Indian tribe to petition the Secretary for withdrawal of specific federal land from operation of the general mining laws in order to protect specific values that are important to such entities.

Title III: Environmental Considerations of Mineral Exploration and Development - (Sec. 301) Instructs the Secretary to ensure that mineral activities on federal land subject to a mining claim, millsite claim, or tunnel site claim are carefully controlled to prevent undue degradation of public lands and resources.

Prohibits the Secretary from granting permission to engage in mineral activities if the Secretary publishes a determination in the Federal Register that undue degradation would result.

(Sec. 302) Prohibits mineral activities on federal land that may cause a disturbance of surface resources unless the claim and permit were issued in compliance with this Act.

(Sec. 303) Sets forth requirements for the exploration permit process and for operations permits.

(Sec. 305) Prohibits the issuance or transfer of permits if the underlying claim is in violation of this Act unless corrective action has been taken according to specified requirements.

Prohibits any permit issuance if there is a pattern of willful violations of its environmental protection requirements by the applicant, an affiliate, or the operator or claim holder if different from the applicant.

(Sec. 306) Sets forth requirements for financial assurance as a prerequisite to a permit.

Requires such financial assurance to include the estimated cost of maintaining effluent treatment to meet effluent limitations and water quality standards after cessation of mineral activities.

(Sec. 307) Requires restoration of lands under this Act to a condition capable of supporting: (1) the uses they were capable of supporting prior to surface disturbance; or (2) other beneficial uses which conform to applicable land use plans as determined by the Secretaries. Sets forth operation and reclamation standards.

Instructs the Secretary of the Interior to work with state and local governments to ensure that surface or groundwater withdrawals as a result of mining activities do not cause undue degradation.

(Sec. 308) Declares that state law or regulations which exceed the requirements of this Act shall not construed to be inconsistent with such requirements.

States that an understanding before the enactment of this Act between the Secretary concerned and any state or political subdivision regarding mineral activities on lands subject to this Act may only continue in force until one year after the date of enactment of this Act.

(Sec. 309) Prohibits issuance of a permit authorizing mineral activities that would impair the land or resources of the National Park System or a National Monument.

Title IV: Mining Mitigation - Subtitle A: Locatable Minerals Fund - (Sec. 401) Establishes the Locatable Minerals Fund (Fund) composed of: (1) penalties, fees and royalties; (2) the Hardrock Reclamation Account, and (3) the Hardrock Community Impact Assistance Account.

Subtitle B: Use of Hardrock Reclamation Account - (Sec. 411) Authorizes the Secretary to use moneys in the Hardrock Reclamation Account for the reclamation and restoration of land and water resources adversely affected by past mineral activities on certain federal lands, including habitat reclamation and restoration.

Prescribes requirements for allocation among certain states of 50% of the amounts deposited into such Account.

Subtitle C: Use of Hardrock Community Impact Assistance Account - (Sec. 421) Makes the Hardrock Community Impact Assistance Account available to provide assistance for the planning, construction, and maintenance of public facilities and the provision of public services to states, political subdivisions, and Indian tribes socially or economically impacted by mineral activities conducted under the general mining laws.

(Sec. 422) Prescribes allocation of funds from such Account.

Title V: Administrative and Miscellaneous Provisions - Subtitle A: Administrative Provisions - (Sec. 501) Amends the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 to declare that it is federal mining and minerals policy to ensure that mineral extraction and processing not cause undue degradation of the natural and cultural resources of the public lands.

Confers responsibility upon the Secretary of Agriculture to implement certain policy provisions of such Act.

Amends the National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act of 1980 to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to promptly initiate actions to improve the availability and analysis of mineral data in public land use decision making with respect to National Forest System lands.

(Sec. 502) Authorizes the Secretaries to: (1) collect users fees; and (2) make inspections and monitor mineral activities.

(Sec. 504) Authorizes citizens suits to compel compliance with this Act.

(Sec. 505) Sets forth procedures for: (1) administrative and judicial review; and (2) enforcement, including penalties, suspensions and revocations.

any person who holds a limited patent or maintains a claim pursuant to this section shall be required to carry out reclamation as prescribed

Subtitle B: Miscellaneous Provisions - (Sec. 511) Amends the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to subject certain oil shale claims to the reclamation requirements of titles II and III of this Act.

(Sec. 517) Repeals: (1) the Building Stone Act; and (2) the Saline Placer Act.

Status of the Legislation

Latest Major Action: 11/5/2007: Referred to Senate committee. Status: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

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!)

Comment by Allan J. Willy, P.Eng., P.Geo. (January 8, 2008, 01:00:00)

Tue, 08 Jan 2008 00:00:00 EST

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....

Comment by Bluelime (January 3, 2008, 01:00:00)

Thu, 03 Jan 2008 00:00:00 EST

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....

Comment by Myron (December 30, 2007, 01:00:00)

Sun, 30 Dec 2007 00:00:00 EST

Once again environmental rules to take away our freedoms from us. I strongly vote no on this bill...

Comment by Anthony (December 9, 2007, 01:00:00)

Sun, 09 Dec 2007 00:00:00 EST

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....

Comment by Dick (December 1, 2007, 01:00:00)

Sat, 01 Dec 2007 00:00:00 EST

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....

Comment by xxxxxxx (November 21, 2007, 01:00:00)

Wed, 21 Nov 2007 00:00:00 EST

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....

Comment by Gaja (November 13, 2007, 01:00:00)

Tue, 13 Nov 2007 00:00:00 EST

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!...

Comment by Ulf T. Teigen (November 12, 2007, 01:00:00)

Mon, 12 Nov 2007 00:00:00 EST

A repeal of this Bill would probably be too late to save USA from complete destruction....