Red Lodge Clearinghouse

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia found the Office of Surface Mining and Reclamation provided a acceptable interpretation of "valid existing rights" in the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act.

The National Mining Association had challenged the office's definition, saying it violates the Constitution's takings and due process clauses by denying owners of coal deposits the value of their claims.

The panel's ruling judges affirmed a 2006 decision by Judge Richard Roberts of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that the rule was "not inconsistent with the discernible congressional intent" of the mining law.

Writing for the panel, Judge Robert Griffith agreed with the trade group that Interior's definition is vague, but he said the group "offers no basis for finding the secretary's interpretation unreasonable "

The law sought to restrict activity on tracts designated by Congress as unsuitable for coal mining, including those near residences and public buildings. But the law failed to address mining rights in restricted areas that predate the reclamation law's regulations.

The law's regulations were published in 1979 and define "valid existing rights" as those in existence on Aug. 3, 1977, the day that Congress passed the bill. The regulations also required that property owners have all necessary permits to make their claim.

Mining groups have filed a series of legal challenges concerning owners who failed to get permits before the deadline. After several years of litigation, the federal mining office issued a final ruling in 1999 that said property owners could claim valid existing rights if they could demonstrate a good-faith effort to get the necessary permits (Greenwire, Sept. 25, 2007).

NMA spokesman Luke Popovich said the group was disappointed with the ruling, arguing that the court reaffirmed the requirement for good faith on the owner of a deposit, "which would be impossible to comply with."

He said the agency was studying the ruling and evaluating its options.

Click here to view the decision.

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Name

Email

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (Registered users only)

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment