The federal government manages the mining rights and mineral ownership on public lands as regulated by the General Mining Law of 1872 and subsequent amendments. This law was enacted to permit mining claims practices that are currently being used during the California Gold Rush of 1849. They then a decade later spread through the West. The 1872 General Mining Law was beneficial as it promoted exploration, development as well as influencing the settlement of the territories in the West between 1804 and 1853 in US. However, this law has come under a strict scrutiny due to the fact that it allowed mineral giveaways from land that belonged to the public (Coyne, Allin & Adams, 1998). Nowadays, mining is being characterized by operations of a larger scale relative to the pick and shovel operations that were written to be covered by the General Mining Law in the 19th century. As a result, many people have called for transformations to be effected to the law that is becoming obsolete and to be replaced by a more applicable one in this 21st century (Williams et al., 2003).
The 1872 Mining Law gave precedence of the hard-rock mining over the other federal land. This law is outpaced and its associative consequences have been severe. This law does not block the extraction of gold, copper, uranium and other minerals that are encroaching the millions of land acres no matter the potential consequences the permission will pose. The prices of metal are soaring across West and this drives new mining proposals. A good instance is the proposals to mine gold along Oregon’s Chetco River. This river has gin-clear waters teem containing salmon and wild trout more specifically the giant Chinook salmon that tips scales of more than 60 pounds. This was spoking the designation by the Congress in 1988 that the river be reserved as a national wild and scenic site and be reserved for the benefit of the then generation as well as for the future generation (Williams et al., 2003). Suction dredges vacuumed up the river bottom in search of gold and left the water muddy and the clean gravel disrupted where the salmon spawned. The United States Forest Service despite the Congress agreement was virtually powerless to halt the mining because of the 1872 law.
The 1872 amendment was full of flaws as it asserted that the highest holding prospector of an ore body the right to pursue it underground. This assertion welcomed a bigt deal of legal action as it paved a way for contesting interests to fight over which claim really included this vital portion of the ore. Other critics also asserted that this amendment had failed to overhaul the previous year’s assertion that the local mining practices were a form of common law. However, Stewart maintained that such previous mining district regulations practiced should not be changed as the action will open a room of chaos throughout the West. This debate progressed despite the Congress’ effort to address the conflict that existed between the advocates of free mining and the wishers of charging for accessing the minerals held publicly. In the early 21st century, the energy-producing materials were removed from the jurisdiction of the 1872 mining law by the federal action including oil, coal, gas and phosphate. The potential for extravagant profits as well as the National security motivated the government to make a choice between conserving those materials and charging their extraction. However, the Congress left the most precious metals like gold, copper, silver, zinc and lead under the jurisdiction of the 1872 National Mining Law (Coyne, Allin & Adams, 1998).
There needs to have a focus on what ought to be changed on this century-old law by environmentalists. This has to reject claims that revenues would not project to the levels it has been hitting. Whether the marginal operations will shut down, shifting work to foreign site or not or whether the federal fees will force mining companies to dissolve or not, the 1872 law has to be subjected to reforms to adequately address the land reclamation and the environment as a whole. There has been little application of the subsequent federal legislation to mining industry and the 1872 Mining Law remains to be an obstacle to those who are wishing to protect groundwater and land reclamation. However, the mining industry maintains that in order to meet stringent environmental standards, the existing national laws such as the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act as well as the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and state laws that govern land reclamation and groundwater need a modern mining. The reform of the National Mining Law seemed to be inevitable in 1993 as the Democrats controlled of the Congress and the White House (Mineral Exploration and Development Act of 1993, 1993). But the consensus on this challenging subject remained obscure. Political imbalance has barred amendments to the law since 1995.
In a paper published in the journal Fisheries in 2010, there were critical recommendations which were outlined on changes to the mining policy. The federal land managers must have a choice and an option to take part in the balancing of mining with other land uses and have the power to say no to the proposals to mine presented to then when indispensable. There should be clear conditions and environmental standards that will promise the restoration of wildlife and fish habitats before mining commences as well as satisfactory reclamation bonds that fully cover the cost of cleaning up the mess left behind after mining. This could take the form of a dedicated funding being established to cater for the expenses of the cleanup of the thousand mines left behind that continue polluting the main streams (Hollis, 2010).
There are so many powerful friends to the mining industry in Washington. However, nothing comes out of the efforts exerted by individuals who propose for changes in the current regulations. The Democrat of Massachusetts, Representative Edward J. Markey is assertive on a measure that will deem it necessary for the mining companies to pay a royalty that is equal to the same amount paid over decades by the other industries. To add on this, they should also safeguard the clean waters from being dirtied and give communities and other agencies a chance of a say concerning where mining is allowed. This Bill has an advantage of being subjected to a hotly contested debate based on the bipartisan support. I think it is not a clever idea for the intelligent to allow this century-old law to keep on operating at the expense of health fisheries, clean water, public lands as well as taxpayer dollars (Williams et al., 2003). It must be brought into the 21st century.
Reference List
Daniel Hollis. (2010). United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 1982. Retrieved in June 22, 2010, 12:00 am
Mark S. Coyne, Craig Willard Allin, McCrea Adams. (1998). Natural Resources: Abrasives; general mining law of 1872. Ipswich:Salem Press - Political Science - 964 pages
Michael P. Dombeck, Christopher A. Wood, Jack E. Williams. (2003). From Conquest to Conservation: Our Public Lands Legacy. Washington, D.C: Island Press - Business & Economics - 232 pages
Mineral Exploration and Development Act of 1993: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Mineral Resources Development and Production of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, One Hundred Third Congress, First Session, on S. 257, to Modify the Requirements Applicable to Locatable Minerals on Public Domain Lands, Consistent with the Principles of Self-initiation of Mining Claims, and for Other Purposes, March 16, 1993, Volume 4: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993 - Mineral lands - 471 pages
United States. Bureau of Land Management. (1979). Surface management of public lands under the U.S. mining laws 43 CFR 3809: Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management - Law - 124 pages
