{
  "id": "RL30310",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL30310",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 104424,
      "date": "1999-09-14",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:42:30.370941",
      "title": "The Mining Law Millsite Debate",
      "summary": "Under the General Mining Law of 1872, the holder of a mining claim has the right to claim and\npatent nonmineral, noncontiguous lands for millsites to mill and process ore from mining claims on\nfederal lands. At issue is whether language in the statute that states, \" ... no location made on and\nafter May 10, 1872 of such nonadjacent land shall exceed five acres,\" limits the claimant to a\nmaximum of five acres per mining claim. An Opinion by the Solicitor of the Department of the\nInterior, John Leshy, in November 1997 concluded that the Mining Law provides only one millsite\nof no more than five acres per mining claim. Critics argue that nowhere in the statute (30 USC  42),\ndoes it state that there can be only one millsite per mining claim. Based on the November 1997\nOpinion, the Solicitor ruled in March 1999 that the Battle Mountain Gold Company's plan of\noperation could not be approved for the Crown Jewel Mine in the state of Washington because the\nnumber and acreage of millsites exceeded the five acre limit per mining claim. As part of the\nEmergency Supplemental Bill ( P.L. 106-31 ), Congress overturned the Solicitor's decision at least\nfor the remainder of FY1999.\n  Two opposing views have been staked out within the context of the Interior Appropriations bill\nfor FY2000. The Senate Appropriations Committee approved language that would permanently\nprohibit limits on the number and acreage of millsites per mining claim. The House passed language\nthat supports the Solicitor's view. Some would like the issue resolved in the context of broader\nrevisions of the General Mining Law of 1872. \n  The House language supporting the Solicitor's Opinion is considered far too restrictive by the\nindustry. According to the National Mining Association (NMA), many operations would not\nsurvive. The NMA contends that modern mining operations typically require much larger tracts of\nland for waste disposal. Miners also believe that a one-to-one claim to millsite ratio would make\nit necessary to go outside the federal domain to obtain sufficient area to locate milling facilities. \n  An alliance of environmental groups known as the Okanogan Highlands Alliance has opposed\nthe Crown Jewel mine and contends that overall tougher environmental provisions are needed in the\nMining Law. Specifically, the Alliance has expressed concern over how the \"excess\" acreage for\nwaste disposal would affect water quality. The Alliance argues that the mine waste would have\nsignificant impact on the headwaters of several creeks that flow into the Kettle and Columbia rivers.\n  Solicitor Leshy had stated that the millsite provision is a \"hopelessly anachronistic or\nambiguous provision of the General Mining Law because of Congress's inability to confront head-on\nthe need for new laws better suited for modern conditions.\"",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL30310",
          "sha1": "ede10ace1e483d71f3f7c0599be7657f65c6d786",
          "filename": "files/19990914_RL30310_ede10ace1e483d71f3f7c0599be7657f65c6d786.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/19990914_RL30310_ede10ace1e483d71f3f7c0599be7657f65c6d786.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Appropriations"
  ]
}