Sugar Pine Mine - What does the law say?

In addition to the 1872 Mining Law, those at the heart the Sugar Pine Mine controversy are wrongly citing the Surface Resources Act of 1955. The miners' argument seems to be that because the Sugar Pine mining claim is old (predating the 1955 Act), the current claim holders have property rights against the United States. They further say their occupancy and mining is not subject to regulation.

We did a little research into the Surface Resources Act and the regulations at 43 CFR part 3710, subpart 3715 implementing it. This is what we found. The effects of the 1955 Act are a little different than local miners would have you believe.

Most concerning is the miners' argument—that pre-1955 mining claims are somehow immune from federal regulation. This is wrong. The 1955 Act principally allows the federal government to permit non-mining uses on mining claims (e.g. recreation, grazing, etc.), thus taking away the “exclusive possession” claimants had under the 1872 Mining Law.

The Act does not stand for the proposition that a pre-1955 claimant somehow owns the surface estate. All they have—whether pre-55 or post-55—is a claim to the minerals and a right to occupy the surface to use in support of mining. 

While the holder of a pre-55 mining claim can argue that BLM can’t allow other non-mining uses on the claim (assuming the claimant has kept it up to date, filed the paperwork, etc. every year since 1976), BLM or USFS authority to regulate mining on that claim is not reduced simply due to its pre-55 status.

The caretaker of the Sugar Pine Mine is on YouTube saying that BLM employees came in through two locked gates on clearly market private property and when he confronted them he asked, "What are you doing on my property." Even if the claim or claims have grandfathered surface rights under the 1955 Surface Resources Act (and the BLM says they do not), the title to the land still remains with the United States.