The U.S. Mining Industry and the Rosemont Decision (CRS Report for Congress)
Premium Purchase PDF for $24.95 (19 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 |
Aug. 26, 2024 |
| Report Number |
R48166 |
| Report Type |
Report |
| Authors |
Emma Kaboli; Adam Vann |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
Summary:
The General Mining Act of 1872 (Mining Act) formed the bedrock of U.S. mining policy during
westward expansion in the 19th century. The law remains in effect. Among other provisions, it
allows parties to explore for and mine hardrock minerals—such as gold, silver, copper, iron, and
lead—on federal lands without specific authorization from the federal government. Upon
discovery of a deposit of specified materials, parties may file a claim with the government and
begin the process for approval and permitting of production.
The scale of modern mining operations is significantly larger than that of the 1800s. With these
changes, new laws have been enacted to address certain subsets of mining and extraction activities on federal lands, including
coal, oil, and natural gas extraction; gravel and sand materials sales; and reclamation of lands used for energy extraction.
However, the core provisions of the Mining Act—which have remained generally unchanged since its enactment more than
150 years ago—continue to guide hardrock mineral exploration and production on federal lands.
A 2022 ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit related to the proposed Rosemont Copper Mine in
Arizona contributed to renewed attention to this framework. In the Rosemont case, a number of parties challenged the
proposed use of certain “claimed” federal lands to deposit waste from mining operations. Despite assertions from the mining
company that using federal land to deposit mining waste was a long-standing practice generally allowed by the Bureau of
Land Management, the court found that this was not a viable use of the claimed land under the Mining Act, noting that the
Act allows parties to obtain a different type of claim for mining waste.
Responses to the decision have been varied. Some mining industry advocates assert that the newfound uncertainty over how
to manage waste from mining operations on federal lands will increase waste disposal costs and limit production. Some
environmental groups and other stakeholders contend that the Mining Act was never intended to authorize large-scale
operations such as the proposed Rosemont operations and that increased federal oversight of hardrock mining operations is
long overdue. A number of stakeholders have proposed a variety of amendments to the Mining Act and federal mining
regulation more broadly. This has occurred within the context of increased attention to the mining industry at large, brought
on by the influx of interest and investment in the market for critical minerals and materials.
Congress has considered, and may further consider, a range of potential issues related to mining and mineral policy,
including but not limited to mining waste disposal on federal lands that was at the center of the Rosemont dispute. Some
Members in the 118th Congress have introduced legislation to amend the Mining Act, including the Mining Regulatory
Clarity Act (H.R. 2925 and S. 1281) and the Clean Energy Minerals Reform Act of 2023 (H.R. 3495 and S. 1742). Both of
these bills address the mining waste storage issue raised in Rosemont, among other things.
