<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2769" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><A
href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/11/20/MNGT3FRC7H1.DTL">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/11/20/MNGT3FRC7H1.DTL</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><A href="http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/"><IMG height=21
alt="San Francisco Chronicle" hspace=0
src="http://www.sfgate.com/templates/brands/chronicle/images/chronicle_logo.gif"
width=150 border=0></A><BR>
<DIV id=divider><!--divider--><!--catheader
tophoriznav --><!--divider-->
<HR>
<!-- /divider --></DIV>
<H1><FONT size=5>Mining law change key to buying of public land <BR>Private
claim can be filed, expanded -- ban lifted on passing it into full
ownership</FONT></H1>
<H2><FONT size=3></FONT></H2><!-- END HEADLINE/DECK & SUBHEADLINE/SUBDECK -->
<P class=author><!-- START WRITER CREDIT--><FONT size=2>Kirk Johnson, Felicity
Barringer, New York Times</FONT></P>
<P class=date><FONT size=2>Sunday, November 20, 2005</FONT></P>
<DIV id=contentbody><!-- START OBJECT THUMBS AREA-->
<TABLE id=relatedcontent cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=3 width=160 align=right
border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD>
<DIV id=contentobjects><A
href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2005/11/20/MNGT3FRC7H1.DTL&o=0"
target=""><IMG
alt="Rainbow Talc Mine is inside Death Valley National Park; t..."
src="http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2005/11/20_t/mn_DEATHV_t.gif"
vspace=1 border=0></A> </DIV>
<DIV id=utilitymenu>
<UL class=simplemenu>
<LI class=print><A
href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/11/20/MNGT3FRC7H1.DTL&type=printable">Printable
Version</A>
<LI class=mail><A
href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/11/20/MNGT3FRC7H1.DTL&type=friend&emailcolor=%234C353E&origin=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi%3Ffile%3D%2Fc%2Fa%2F2005%2F11%2F20%2FMNGT3FRC7H1.DTL">Email
This Article</A> </LI></UL></DIV></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD>
<DIV id=additionalcontent><!-- dropin=polls/2005/11/19/budget/dropin.txt -->
<SCRIPT language=JavaScript>
<!--
function makeremote(pollid) {
remote = window.open("","remotewin",
"width=200,height=300,resizable=yes,scrollbars=auto,screenx=15,screeny=15,toolbar=no");
remote.location.href = pollid+'/q';
if (remote.opener == null)
remote.opener = window;
remote.opener.name = "opener";
}
function makeDisclaimer() {
remote = window.open("","disc","width=300,height=300");
remote.location.href = "/templates/types/polls/disclaimer.html";
if (remote.opener == null)
remote.opener = window;
remote.opener.name = "opener";
}
//-->
</SCRIPT>
<FORM action="javascript:makeremote('/polls/2005/11/19/budget');"
method=post>
<TABLE
style="BORDER-RIGHT: #99cccc 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: #99cccc 1px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #99cccc 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #99cccc 1px solid"
cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 width="100%" bgColor=#eeeeee border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 6px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 2px; BORDER-BOTTOM: #99cccc 1px solid"
colSpan=2><IMG hspace=4
src="http://www.sfgate.com/templates/types/polls/graphics/skins/homepage/header.gif"
vspace=4> </TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 6px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 2px"
colSpan=2><IMG
src="http://www.sfgate.com/polls/2005/11/19/budget/result.gif">
</TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 8px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 2px; PADDING-TOP: 0px"
vAlign=bottom align=left><INPUT type=image
src="http://www.sfgate.com/templates/types/polls/graphics/skins/homepage/vote_button.gif"
border=0 name=action> </TD>
<TD vAlign=bottom align=right><FONT
face="geneva, arial, sans-serif"><A
href="javascript:makeDisclaimer()">Disclaimer</A></FONT> <BR><IMG
height=3
src="http://www.sfgate.com/templates/types/gatemainpages/images/clear.gif"
width=1> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></FORM></DIV><!-- end #additionalcontent --></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><SPAN
class=althead><STRONG>
<P>
<H3><FONT size=3></FONT></H3>
<P></P></STRONG></SPAN><FONT size=2>
<P><FONT size=3><STRONG>Denver</STRONG> -- Private companies and individuals
would be able to buy large tracts of federal land, from sagebrush basins to
high-peak hiking trails around the West, under the terms of the spending bill
passed Friday by a two-vote margin in the House of Representatives. </FONT>
<P><FONT size=3>On the surface, the bill reads like the mundane nip and tuck of
federal mining law its authors say it is. But lawyers who have parsed its
language say the real beneficiaries could be real estate developers, whose
business has become a more potent economic engine in the West than mining.
</FONT>
<P><FONT size=3>As the law is now, a mining claim is the vehicle that allows for
the extraction of what are called hard-rock metals, such as gold or silver.
</FONT>
<P><FONT size=3>Under the House bill passed Friday, for the first time in the
history of the 133-year-old mining law, individuals or companies can file and
expand claims even if the land at the heart of a claim has already been stripped
of its minerals or could never support a profitable mine. The measure would also
lift an 11-year moratorium on the passing of claims into full ownership. </FONT>
<P><FONT size=3>The provisions, sponsored by Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Tracy, have
struck fear through the West from the resort areas of the Rockies such as Aspen
and Vail in Colorado and Park City in Utah, which are all laced with old mining
claims. Critics say it could open the door for developers to use the claims to
assemble large land parcels for projects such as houses, hotels, ski resorts,
spas or retirement communities. </FONT>
<P><FONT size=3>Some experts on public land use say there is a possibility that
energy companies could use the provision to buy land in the energy-rich fields
of Wyoming and Montana on the pretext of mining, but then drill for oil and gas.
</FONT>
<P><FONT size=3>"They are called mining claims, but you can locate them where
there are no minerals," said John Leshy, who was the Interior Department's
senior lawyer during the Clinton administration. Leshy said the legislation
"doesn't have much to do with mining at all. It has to do with real estate
transfer for economic development." </FONT>
<P><FONT size=3>Supporters of the bill, including Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev.,
argue that critics such as Leshy are missing the point of the legislation, and
that allowing more mine-claim lands to be purchased would be an economic boon to
rural communities that often struggle in the boom and bust cycle of mining.
</FONT>
<P><FONT size=3>"Not only is this rhetoric false, it is an affront to the rural
American families whose livelihoods depend on sustained economic development,"
Gibbons said in a written statement. </FONT>
<P><FONT size=3>Debate over the bill, with its echoes of the West's old and
thorny relationship with mining, has created some strange bedfellows. In
Montana, hunting and fishing groups have rallied to fight the measure, fearing
that it could reduce public access to treasured trout streams. The Jewelers of
America, a trade group for retailers, has denounced it as well, fearing a
backlash by consumers. </FONT>
<P><FONT size=3>In Colorado, one question centers on the "fourteeners," as the
state's string of 14,000-foot peaks is known. Public access to three of the
peaks about two hours from Denver was closed this summer by owners of mining
claims who -- unbeknownst to most hikers -- control sections of popular trails
to the summits. Hiking groups are concerned that if those sections can be
expanded by the owners, many more mountain areas could be closed. </FONT>
<P><FONT size=3>Many major environmental groups seemed to be distracted during
the buildup to Friday's vote, though some, like the Wilderness Society and
Earthworks, lobbied heavily against the changes in the mining law. </FONT>
<P><FONT size=3>But with limited political capital to spend, many of the groups
concentrated this fall on getting Republican support for eliminating from the
House version of the spending bill those provisions that would have opened the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, known as ANWR, to energy exploration. </FONT>
<P><FONT size=3>The Sierra Club and other lobbying groups were successful in
that battle and on another provision that would have allowed new offshore
drilling. But their credit was apparently used up when the mining provisions
arose. </FONT>
<P><FONT size=3>"You got 22 Republicans to fall on their swords on ANWR," said
Richard Hoppe, the communications director of the Izaak Walton League of
America, a fishermen's group. "Those 22 are unlikely to fall on their swords for
mining." </FONT>
<P><FONT size=3>Gauging the impact of the bill -- and the volume of transfers
that may occur -- is a complete guess, most land experts say. In some cases,
lawyers say the language now in the bill, which probably will be altered by a
House-Senate conference committee, is vague and would almost certainly lead to
court challenges. </FONT>
<P><FONT size=3>Environmental groups, looking to the database of mining claims
created by their colleagues at the Environmental Working Group, say private
owners could gain title to 5.7 million acres of federal forests, rocky
promontories and grasslands. </FONT>
<P><FONT size=3>The bill's supporters put the number at a minimum of 360,000
acres, but do not include in that figure claims that expand the boundaries of
current private holdings. </FONT>
<P><FONT size=3>Leshy, the former Interior Department lawyer, and other experts
say that perhaps 300 million acres of public land -- almost all of it in the
West -- remains open to the filing of mining claims. The House bill appears to
specifically exempt any new mining in national parks and wilderness areas from
conversion of claims into ownership, but other land experts say the issue is
less certain because of language elsewhere in the bill that says claimants with
"valid existing rights" may now be able to exercise those rights to patent their
claims. </FONT>
<P><FONT size=3>"What does 'subject to valid existing rights' mean?" asked Mat
Millenbach, who oversaw public lands in Montana as the director of the Federal
Bureau of Land Management until he retired in 2002. "To me it means if you have
a valid claim, say in Death Valley National Park, I would claim it's a valid
existing right, and I would take it to patent." </FONT>
<P><FONT size=3>An executive branch lawyer and geologist advising Republicans on
the House Resources Committee said anxiety about the bill was overstated because
the hurdles for proving a mine claim and moving on to full ownership remained
high. </FONT>
<P><FONT size=3>People or companies filing or buying mining claims would have to
prove that the land contained mineral deposits, though they would no longer have
to show that these could be mined at a profit, said the lawyer, who spoke on
condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the press.
</FONT>
<P><FONT size=3>Because mineral deposits are relatively scarce, he added, the
amount of land involved would also be modest -- certainly, he insisted, not the
millions of acres the bill's opponents claim. </FONT>
<P><FONT size=3>Mining industry officials said that if the new owners were then
to use a mine claim for purposes other than mining, say for building
condominiums, the Interior Department could file a lawsuit to revoke the
transaction as a deal done under false pretenses. </FONT>
<P><FONT size=3>"They'd have to be willing to defraud the U.S. government," said
Carol Raulston, a spokeswoman for the mining industry's trade group, the
National Mining Association. </FONT>
<P><FONT size=3>How often such challenges by the federal government arise is
another question. The executive branch lawyer acknowledged that such suits by
the Interior Department or Forest Service were relatively rare, but he said that
if a mining claim was purchased "and in a year you turn around and have a ski
area, you're going to have someone's undivided attention over in the inspector
general's office." </FONT>
<P><FONT size=3>The bill has still left some Western congressmen, like Dennis
Rehberg, R-Mont., in the hot seat. After a coalition of sporting and fishing
groups in his state condemned the bill last week, Rehberg agreed that he did not
like the mining provisions either but might have to vote for the larger budget
bill anyway. </FONT>
<P><FONT size=3>Rehberg's office then issued a letter from Pombo, the chairman
of the House Resources Committee. Pombo promised in writing that he would work
in the conference committee to make sure that language protecting recreational
access was added. </FONT>
<P><FONT size=3>Sporting groups, nonetheless, remained unsatisfied. </FONT>
<P><FONT size=3>"How are you going to protect hunting and fishing access
opportunities and the diverse wildlife that exists on our public lands if it is
no longer in public hands?" asked Craig Sharpe, the executive director of the
Montana Wildlife Federation, a hunting and fishing group.
<BR></FONT></P></FONT></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>