The Mining Law Millsite Debate (CRS Report for Congress)
Premium Purchase PDF for $24.95 (11 pages)
add to cart or
subscribe for unlimited access
Pro Premium subscribers have free access to our full library of CRS reports.
Subscribe today, or
request a demo to learn more.
| Release Date |
Sept. 14, 1999 |
| Report Number |
RL30310 |
| Report Type |
Report |
| Authors |
Marc Humphries, Resources, Science, and Industry Division |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
Summary:
Under the General Mining Law of 1872, the holder of a mining claim has the right to claim and
patent nonmineral, noncontiguous lands for millsites to mill and process ore from mining claims on
federal lands. At issue is whether language in the statute that states, " ... no location made on and
after May 10, 1872 of such nonadjacent land shall exceed five acres," limits the claimant to a
maximum of five acres per mining claim. An Opinion by the Solicitor of the Department of the
Interior, John Leshy, in November 1997 concluded that the Mining Law provides only one millsite
of no more than five acres per mining claim. Critics argue that nowhere in the statute (30 USC 42),
does it state that there can be only one millsite per mining claim. Based on the November 1997
Opinion, the Solicitor ruled in March 1999 that the Battle Mountain Gold Company's plan of
operation could not be approved for the Crown Jewel Mine in the state of Washington because the
number and acreage of millsites exceeded the five acre limit per mining claim. As part of the
Emergency Supplemental Bill ( P.L. 106-31 ), Congress overturned the Solicitor's decision at least
for the remainder of FY1999.
Two opposing views have been staked out within the context of the Interior Appropriations bill
for FY2000. The Senate Appropriations Committee approved language that would permanently
prohibit limits on the number and acreage of millsites per mining claim. The House passed language
that supports the Solicitor's view. Some would like the issue resolved in the context of broader
revisions of the General Mining Law of 1872.
The House language supporting the Solicitor's Opinion is considered far too restrictive by the
industry. According to the National Mining Association (NMA), many operations would not
survive. The NMA contends that modern mining operations typically require much larger tracts of
land for waste disposal. Miners also believe that a one-to-one claim to millsite ratio would make
it necessary to go outside the federal domain to obtain sufficient area to locate milling facilities.
An alliance of environmental groups known as the Okanogan Highlands Alliance has opposed
the Crown Jewel mine and contends that overall tougher environmental provisions are needed in the
Mining Law. Specifically, the Alliance has expressed concern over how the "excess" acreage for
waste disposal would affect water quality. The Alliance argues that the mine waste would have
significant impact on the headwaters of several creeks that flow into the Kettle and Columbia rivers.
Solicitor Leshy had stated that the millsite provision is a "hopelessly anachronistic or
ambiguous provision of the General Mining Law because of Congress's inability to confront head-on
the need for new laws better suited for modern conditions."
