browse Browse

pac.dog pac.dog / CRS reports

R48166 — The U.S. Mining Industry and the Rosemont Decision

Reports · published 2024-08-26 · v5 · Active · crsreports.congress.gov ↗

Read
HTML · PDF
Authors
Emma Kaboli · Adam Vann
Report id
R48166
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.

Bills cited (9)

Curated by CRS — every bill listed in this report's relatedMaterials. Edge type cited_in_report, gold confidence.

pac.dog is a free, independent, non-partisan research tool. Every candidate, committee, bill, vote, member, and nonprofit on this site is mirrored from primary U.S. government sources (FEC, congress.gov, govinfo.gov, IRS) and each state's Secretary of State / election commission — no third-party data vendors, no paywall, no editorial intermediation. Citations to the originating source are on every detail page.