Tuesday, April 21, 2015

Sugar Pine Mine - When is a mining claim private property?

If you've been listening to statements by a co-owner of the Sugar Pine Mine and to the coverage of most media, you'd think the federal government was taking someone's home and private property. That's not the case.

But while we wait for the legal wrangling to play out, a 2014 ruling concerning other disputed mining claims in southwest Oregon helps shed light on when a federal mining claim is constitutionally protected property against the United States.

Galice Creek is a direct tributary of the famed Wild and Scenic Rogue River

The gist of the current controversy is that some people have tried to turn what started as a failure to comply with rules for occupancy and mining on public land into one of property and constitutional rights.

The Sugar Pine Mine is located in southwest Oregon on public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The mine is on the North Fork of Galice Creek, a tributary of the world famous Wild and Scenic Rogue River.

As we're seeing with the current controversy, miners frequently argue that all federal mining claims are a constitutionally protected property right. However, the courts have long held otherwise. In another local long-standing dispute over mining claims, the District Court of the District of Columbia had this to say about when a mining claim becomes a property protected by the constitution:
Prior to validity proceedings, unpatented claims amount to a potential property interest, since it is the discovery of a valuable mineral deposit and satisfaction of statutory and regulatory requirements that bestows possessory rights. See Ickes v. Underwood, 141 F.2d 546, 548–49 (D.C.Cir.1944) (until there has been a determination that there has been a valuable discovery, claimants had only a gratuity from the United States); Payne v. United States, 31 Fed.Cl. 709, 711 (1994) (rejecting plaintiff's argument that in the absence of a challenge to validity, the court must take at face value their assertion that claims are supported by an adequate mineral discovery)
See Walter B. Freeman v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 2014 WL 1491248, *3 (D.D.C. 2014).

The Sugar Pine mining claim is unpatented and there has been no validity proceedings for it. So using the D.C District Court's criteria in Freeman v DOI, the Sugar Pine mining claim is not constitutionally protected private property.

Nonetheless Rick Barclay, one of the owners of the Sugar Pine Mine, has gone to a local TV station to explain his argument with the BLM. He describes it as:
“a basic property rights issue of someone claiming ownership of land that they can’t provide documentation of land that have right to control.”
The reporter's ill framed question—"What do you think BLM’s ultimate goal is with your property”—elicited this reply:
"It’s a land grab pure and simple."
No Mr. Barclay it's not. The BLM is trying to enforce regulations governing mining on federal public lands. They could hardly be grabbing land the government already owns and holds in trust for all American—both current and future generations.

Sample of recent media