30 U.S.C. § 612

Unpatented mining claims

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 30 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Prospecting, mining or processing operations

Any mining claim hereafter located under the mining laws of the United States shall not be used, prior to issuance of patent therefor, for any purposes other than prospecting, mining or processing operations and uses reasonably incident thereto.

(b) Reservations in the United States to use of the surface and surface resources

Rights under any mining claim hereafter located under the mining laws of the United States shall be subject, prior to issuance of patent therefor, to the right of the United States to manage and dispose of the vegetative surface resources thereof and to manage other surface resources thereof (except mineral deposits subject to location under the mining laws of the United States). Any such mining claim shall also be subject, prior to issuance of patent therefor, to the right of the United States, its permittees, and licensees, to use so much of the surface thereof as may be necessary for such purposes or for access to adjacent land: Provided, however, That any use of the surface of any such mining claim by the United States, its permittees or licensees, shall be such as not to endanger or materially interfere with prospecting, mining or processing operations or uses reasonably incident thereto: Provided further, That if at any time the locator requires more timber for his mining operations than is available to him from the claim after disposition of timber therefrom by the United States, subsequent to the location of the claim, he shall be entitled, free of charge, to be supplied with timber for such requirements from the nearest timber administered by the disposing agency which is ready for harvesting under the rules and regulations of that agency and which is substantially equivalent in kind and quantity to the timber estimated by the disposing agency to have been disposed of from the claim: Provided further, That nothing in this subchapter and sections 601 and 603 of this title shall be construed as affecting or intended to affect or in any way interfere with or modify the laws of the States which lie wholly or in part westward of the ninety-eighth meridian relating to the ownership, control, appropriation, use, and distribution of ground or surface waters within any unpatented mining claim.

Except to the extent required for the mining claimant’s prospecting, mining or processing operations and uses reasonably incident thereto, or for the construction of buildings or structures in connection therewith, or to provide clearance for such operations or uses, or to the extent authorized by the United States, no claimant of any mining claim hereafter located under the mining laws of the United States shall, prior to issuance of patent therefor, sever, remove, or use any vegetative or other surface resources thereof which are subject to management or disposition by the United States under the preceding subsection (b). Any severance or removal of timber which is permitted under the exceptions of the preceding sentence, other than severance or removal to provide clearance, shall be in accordance with sound principles of forest management.

(July 23, 1955, ch. 375, § 4, 69 Stat. 368.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 73 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1956–2024 · leading case: United States v. Rory Doremus & David Doremus, 888 F.2d 630 (9th Cir. 1989).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Rory Doremus & David Doremus, 888 F.2d 630 (9th Cir. 1989). · cites it 9× “On appeal, appellants contend that their activity was permissible as “reasonably incident” to their mining operation (see 30 U.S.C. § 612 (1982)) and that the regulations are unconstitutionally vague.”

United States v. Backlund, 689 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 2012). · cites it 7× “mining[,]” 30 U.S.C. § 612 (b), because the prohibition makes it financially impossible for him to mine his claims.”

United States v. Ray Shumway Molly Shumway, 199 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 1999). · cites it 4× “30 U.S.C. § 612 (a). . See 30 U.S.C. § 612 (b).”

People v. Rinehart, 377 P.3d 818 (Cal. 2016). · cites it 5× “( 30 U.S.C. § 612 (a); see U.S. v. Shumway, supra, 199 F.”

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Usfws, 33 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2022). · cites it 6× “” 30 U.S.C. § 612 (a) (emphasis added). For example, mining claim owners have no right under the Mining Law to use their claims for non- mining purposes such as timber harvesting or recreational fishing.”

United States v. Ned N. Richardson & Dorothy M. Richardson, Husband & Wife, 599 F.2d 290 (9th Cir. 1979). · cites it 8× “§ 26 , 30 U.S.C. § 612 , 1 16 *292 U.S.C. § 551, 2 and 16 U.”

Joshua Bohmker v. State of Oregon, 903 F.3d 1029 (9th Cir. 2018). · cites it 4× “This law prohibits the location of any mining claim for purposes other than mining, see 30 U.S.C. § 612 (a), and reserves in the United States – rather than granting to locators – the right to manage the surface resources of unpatented mining claims located after 1955, subject…”

United States v. Maynard Charles Campbell, Jr., 42 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 1994). · cites it 4× “We rejected the argument, raised by Campbell on this appeal, that in order to prosecute the government must first prove that the unauthorized logging was not “reasonably incident” to legitimate mining operations under 30 U.S.C. § 612 . Here, as in Doremus , “[t]he flaw in…”

United States v. Curtis-Nevada Mines, Inc., & Robert Curtis, 611 F.2d 1277 (9th Cir. 1980). · cites it 4× “The District Court, ruling on cross motions for summary judgment, held that under section 4(b) of the Multiple Use Act, 30 U.S.C. § 612 (b), the public is entitled to use the surface of unpatented mining claims for recreational purposes and for access to adjoining lands, but…”

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 581 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2009). · cites it 4× “Under the Mining Law of 1872, Asarco has a right to engage in mining on the selected lands even if the exchange does not proceed.”

California Coastal Comm'n v. Granite Rock Co., 480 U.S. 572 (1987). · cites it 2× “30 U. S. C. § 612 (b). Congress has delegated to the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to make "rules and regulations" to "regulate [the] occupancy and use" of national forests.”

United States v. Edison R. Nogueira, 403 F.2d 816 (9th Cir. 1968). · cites it 5× “368 , 30 U.S.C. § 612 , which provides: “* * * Any mining claim hereafter located under the mining laws of the United States shall not be used, prior to issuance of patent therefor, for any purposes other than prospecting, mining or processing operations and uses reasonably…”

Show all 73 citing cases →

— 30 U.S.C. § 612(b) — 2 cases

United States v. Fallbrook Pub. Util. Dist., 165 F. Supp. 806 (S.D. Cal. 1958).

Silbrico Corp., an Illinois Corp., Plaintiff/counterdefendant-Appellee v. Herman Ortiz, Defendant/counterplaintiff-Appellant, 878 F.2d 333 (10th Cir. 1989).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.