environmental ethics and the minning act

7/29/2019 Environmental Ethics and the Minning Act

1/11

Evolution in Environmental Ethics and the General Mining Act

The 1872 mining act has become outdated since the introduction of new age environmental

ethics, and now requires a reform to better suite the ways in which society manages its resources.

The General Mining Act of 1872 is one of the most controversial acts still in place in today's

society. It was established in a time where environmental ethics and principles were only just emerging,

preventing any type of environmental protection policies from being included. At the time American

was set on expansion and the establishment of the Western public lands. By giving citizens full access

to valued minerals at a good price and requiring little regulation caused a boom in established

communities and soon towns and cities. Unaware of the impact that this vast amount of mining would

have on communities and their health as well as the damage to the environment; there were never any

implementations to the act to hold mining companies responsible for their impacts. Now, that these

problems have been brought to light it should seem obvious that the act be retired or reformed to

conform to the new ways in land management. However, even through many attempts to reform the

law it has still proven to be difficult to change some of the old ways in which this country was founded

on. Nonetheless, there is still hope to reform the act when the proper actions are taken, and the

corresponding evidence is presented.

Old Age Ethics and the Environment

To understand the logic that had once gone into the General Mining Act of 1872, one must

examine and understand the ethical views American's had when the country was first established. The

country that is now known as the United States of America was built upon many anthropocentric views.

Anthropocentrism is a view based on the idea that humans are the most central and valuable entities

that exist on the planet Earth, as described by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. In terms of the

environment it is thought that humans have the right to control and use the environment for their needs.


2/11

The use of anthropocentric views of the environment has been used throughout history and can be

linked back to many religious interpretations. One such interpretation is that of the book of Genesis

which states:

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion

over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth,

and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. (5)

The word dominion is defined as sovereign or supreme authority; the power of governing and

controlling (1). This thought of dominion over the planet has fueled the progression on human

existence. In the early American history the Christian community used this interpretation of the Bible in

order to tare down forests, plow fields, over graze grasslands, and extirpate wildlife such as wolves

from many areas of the country. For many years this idea of anthropocentrism was followed, and made

sense to those who believed in it. The thought was if the land was left in the hands of humans to

control, then why not take from it what was necessary for human life?

Establishment of the General Mining Act of 1872

In the late 1840's, especially in 1849 during the California Gold Rush, several Americans were

making their way towards the West. The West promised land full of extractable minerals such as gold,

silver, copper, and others. California had only recently been acquired by the United States, which led to

a lack of Federal regulation of mining rights. Most mining communities in California had established

their own mining policies based mainly on Mexican mining laws (2), and usually defined the size of a

claim that could be made and the frequency in which it was extracted. It was not long before most of

the Western territories had adopted this form of creating small communities revolving around mining.

However, it was at the time still illegal under the Federal government to stake claim to a mining site

without the proper legal ramifications.

This lack of regulation later lead to the controversy of whether or not these illegal claims of
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Sovereignhttp://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Sovereign


3/11

land by miners should be allowed. Some proposed that the mining right be taken from those who laid

claim to the land in order to pay back the war debt left over after the Civil War. However, through

influence from the West it was determined that without the establishment of these mining communities

there would be no settlement. Furthermore, the nation was profiting through economic growth by the

generation of jobs and valuable resources. Convinced that mining on public lands was good for the

growing nation, the Chaffee Law of 1866, which allowed the legal extraction of minerals (such as gold,

silver, and copper) on public lands, was declared. This law was one of the first leading towards the

General Mining Act of 1872. In 1870 it was modified to include placer claims or claims that included

gold found along stream beds embedded in sand and gravel (2).

Proceeding the Chaffee Law and the introduction of placer claims in 1870, it was decided that

the two laws should be merged into what is now known as the General Mining Act. The act was

officially signed on May 10th,1872 (3). As stated in the U.S Bureau of Land Management, this law

allowed for any U.S citizen 18 years or older the right to access certain economically valuable mineral

resources located on U.S Federal Public lands. Embedded within the law is a clear definition of the cost

per acre of land located on a lode claim (hard rock deposit) as well as a placer-claim (gravel):

FORTY-SECOND CONGRESS. Sess. II Ch. 152. 1872. 95 approved July ninth, eighteenhundred and seventy) a patent shall issue for the placer-claim, including such vein or lode, uponthe payment of five dollars per acre such vein or lode claim, and twenty-five feet of surface oneach side thereof. The reminder of the placer-claim, or any placer-claim not embracing any veinor lode claim, shall be paid for at the rate of two dollars and fifty cents per acre, together withall costs of proceedings; (4)

Today the price of mineral rich land has not changed, by definition of the law as long as there are

minerals located on a non-defined Federal land it can be bought and mined for a cost between $2.50-

$5.00 per acre.

With mineral lands being so economically feasible through the mining act, it promoted more

Westward expansion. The rapid increase in mining communities promoted more jobs which, generated

income that cycled back into the U.S economy through spending and tax payments on land allowing it


4/11

to grow. This newly generated revenue allowed the government to recover from the recent Civil War,

which caused there to be a build up of debt. At the same time there were large amounts of economically

valuable mineral resources being excavated, which also contributed to the overall U.S economy. With

that being said it had only made sense at the time to enlist a policy such as the 1872 General Mining

Act; however, with the passing of time such policies should be subject to reform.

Conflicts Between Environmental Ethics and the Mining Act

Interestingly enough at the same time that the mining act of 1872 was put into place, it was also

considered the beginning of the first wave into the environmental movement. Although most views on

land management still revolved around the sense that humans were meant to shape and control the land

to their needs, there were new ideas forming on the way in which people should view nature. One such

individual who shared in this view that nature was beautiful within itself was John Muir, who was later

defined as one of the first preservationists of the time. The idea behind preservation was that nature

should be protected on the principle that it has an intrinsic value to itself. Parallel to the thought of

preservation was the concept of conservation which favored the more popular anthropocentric views.

Nonetheless, this newly revised form of anthropocentrism was different from the command and

conquer views of the past, and favored the idea of protecting that land rather than destroying it. The

motive behind conservation was to ensure America's land was managed properly in order for humans to

benefit from its resources in the future.

Part of this thought to protect nature for human benefit was the generation of national parks,

such as Yosemite and Yellow Stone, which became tourist attractions for Americans and their families

to enjoy the beauty of nature. This new management of public lands lead to what the second wave of

the environmental movement. With the second wave came more ideas on how the America could better

manage their resources. Aldo Leopold had developed the idea of Land Ethics which defined the

biotic community as being a whole inter-working system that needed balance. Up to this point in


5/11

American history humans had disrupted that balance in many ways and one of those ways included

mining.

As mining over took millions of acres of public land, the amount of pollution had increased

significantly. With the mining act still in place, pricing public land at $2.50 an acre, it was easy for

industries to buy mineral rich land which allowed them to have roads built, heavy equipment with high

emissions output, and not to mention the dumping of waste into local water ways. Although the mining

industry could not mine in national parks because they were already under a defined use, the companies

could still mine adjacent to the parks. This possess a problem on both parts of the spectrum of

ecocentrism and anthropocentrism. For one, the pollution output of the mining sites are not limited to

the cite alone and cause pollutants such as waste water to leak into the water systems. Not to mention

the construction of roads to gain access to these mining areas and the mining sites themselves,

completely changed the landscape. Secondly, the goal of national parks through anthropocentrism was

for the enjoyment of people, but when the only view citizens saw in the distance is a decapitated

mountain top they are no longer there for the enjoyment of nature. In this still early age of the

environmental movement it was already clear that the mining act of 1872 was quickly becoming

outdated.

The third and fourth waves of the environmental movement were probably the most influential

waves; several policies were enlisted that completely changed environmental law. Some of these

policies included the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act. These policies

were put into place not only to ensure the health of American citizens, but also to begin recognizing

that the protection of wildlife and their habitat was also an important part of land management. During

this time in American history, Americans were becoming more involved in what went on when

deciding on how environmental policies would be made. This new concern for the environment was a

result of the stable generation of jobs and the increasing economy which, gave birth to the middle class.

Middle class society had a lot of influence on what policies were put into place, and paved the way to


6/11

new reforms in natural resource management and the protection of wildlife.

In 1976 the Federal Land Management Act (FLMPA) was passed, and was one of the first acts

to really challenge the practices enforced by the General Mining act of 1872 (6). Although it did not

amend the act, it introduces new policies on how mining claims were handled. FLMPA mainly began to

keep a record of any mining claims that had previously been made before the act to place, it also now

required that any new claims were also filed with the Bureau of Land Management (6). This, was a new

way to record and keep track of claim titles and whom ever the claim was filed under. FLMPA will be

further expanded on in the following section which, will examine some of the ways the General Mining

Act 1872 can be reformed.

Reform

Since the establishment of the General Mining Act, the Western public lands have been

completely taken over by mining companies. Westward expansion grew larger than what was

previously anticipated when the law was put into place. Because of the vast growth the landscape now

consists of thousands of closed mining operations, that made no attempt to reestablish the area by

cleaning up the large amounts of pollution. The states and its citizens who occupy these areas are going

to be the ones who pay the billions of dollars in clean up operations with no assistance from the mining

companies (7). Mining companies are also not responsible for paying royalties like other mining

operations such as oil and natural gas that are not covered under the general mining act (7). On top of

not having to pay these royalties the mining companies are still buying hard rock deposit lands for

$5.00 an acre. This is perhaps one of the most outdated sections of the 1872 law, back when the policy

was enlisted this was a fair price and allowed many Americans to take advantage of it. However, this

was during a time where promotion of settlement on public lands was seen as a necessary action in

order to expand the country. Today $5.00 per acre of mineral rich public land is extremely under priced.

Billions of dollars in subsidies from the federal government fuel the mining companies with


7/11

more access to land, as well as have roads built to get in and out of mining territories. Why is the

government giving some much money to an industry that already does not pay back the common tax

payer, but on top of that pays close to nothing in the mineral value for the lands they mine? It has been

suggested many times that the mining companies need to be responsible for the damages that are

caused by their operations and that includes paying back royalties to the American people. Along with

royalties companies should be required to pay a substantial portion of the value of the land that they

plan on mining.

FLMPA when it was reformed it did put into place some actions in place that helped limit where

mining was permitted. As part of FLMPA's goal of regulating public lands it also had an inventory done

to assess public lands in order to decide if they should be included in the National Wilderness

Preservation system (7). Although many lands were classified under this system, there were many

public lands still opened up to mining companies, and other resource companies as well. Similar to

FLMAP's inventory of wilderness areas, the Roadless-Rule which assessed lands that would no longer

be open to road construction, which would include mining access roads. Even with these policies in

place it doesn't seem like the federal government is keeping up its end of the bargain. Because of

pressures from the mining industry and other major resource industries many of these lands are opened

up as exceptions to the rule. Mean while vast environmental damage is being done to deface the land,

cause more pollution to the water systems, and airways.

There needs to be specific environmental policies enlisted to the mining act concerning the

direct results of mining in public lands. These policies should include specified requirements of areas

that allow mining, and should exclude any mining operations from lands which have been placed under

the Roadless-Rules, and any future lands that are included in the Road-Less rule. Prior to a mining

company requesting a claim in an area the are should be assessed and determined whether or not it is

suitable for mining based on the surrounding area. This would include a strict assessment by the EPA to

ensure no endangered species are present, and that the area is not a potential Wilderness or Road-Less


8/11

area that needs protecting.

Aside from the Wilderness act the mining act seems to take priority over any other land use.

According to EarthWorks since the establishment of the policy the federal government has stated that

they cannot say no to a mining claim. During western expansion this may have made sense, but today

the west is already established and needs to begin denying mining practices in areas. Mining companies

need to be held to certain standards in order to mine an area. Clear proposals on why an area should be

mined should be put into place, along with an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

Regulations on how mining sites is another major issue that needs to be implemented into the

reformation of the mining act. Although there are policies in place that require the reclamation of a

mining site after abandonment, it is often ignored or the reclamation includes a golf course or other

establishment that does not reflect the previous landscape. Mining companies needs to have stricter

rules on reclamation, and held responsible for failure to comply with the policy. Funding for the ability

for the EPA or BLM to send out representatives to monitor mining activities and clean up is strained at

the present time; however, if the mining companies are required to pay market value for the public

lands they mine part of that money should go towards funding job in environmental regulation.

Furthermore the way in which a land is reclaimed should be clearly defined as reconstructing the

landscape that had once been there within reasoning that some structures in nature are not possible to

repeat. Nonetheless, reclamation of an are should not include a golf course or shopping mall either.

Along with reclamation after the mining company has left, certain policies should be in place when

mining operations are going on. This concerns the surrounding towns as well as wildlife habitat and the

maintenance of surface water as well as any other pollutants that result from mining.

Although the above represents good ideas, these ideas mean nothing without a restriction on the

amount of time a claim can remain open. Most of the time even though there are loosely established

policies on reclamation a lot of the time these policies are not followed because the mining operation is

never abandoned. If a mining company thinks it has gotten the most out of a claim rather than shutting


9/11

down operations and beginning reclamation, it instead ensures smaller less profitable operations are

taking place. These small mining operations cost less to run than that of reclamation which, is why

mining companies prefer it. However, this should not be allowed, there needs to be some form of

regulation that requires a mining operation to produce a certain amount of profit from a mining site or a

certain amount of extraction. This way if a mine has lost it initial value in minerals mining companies

are forced to shut down and begin reclamation.

Many of the suggestions for reformation are already issues that have been argued over multiple

times between mining companies, right winged organizations, environmental groups, and other

citizens. One thing is clear however, and that is the mining act is outdated, and is in desperate need for

reformation. This need for reform has become more of a pressing issue as of late, and was even a

priority of the Obama administration announced in 2009 by, Secretary of the Department of Interior

Ken Salazar (8).

So, with more Americans concerned about the way mining companies have impacted the

western United States, and the environmental impacts it has caused it seems there is hope that reform

can take place. There are already policies in place that have tried to regulate the way the mining act

operates, but these policies must be strengthened. Although, there will always be conflicts between

parties and large industries there have been changes made in other acts and the mining act should be no

exception. The evolution in environmental ethics has been a driving force in protecting the country's

wildlife and its resources, it is about time that it helps reconstruct one of the most destructive laws still

in place from a time overpowering anthropocentrism.


10/11

Bibliography

1. "Dominion - Definition from Biology-Online.org."Life Science Reference - Biology Online.

Biology Online, 3 Oct. 2005. Web. 29 Sept. 2011. . "Dominion - Definition from Biology-Online.org."Life

Science Reference - Biology Online. Biology Online, 3 Oct. 2005. Web. 29 Sept. 2011.

.

2. "General Mining Act of 1872." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.,

16 July 2011. Web. 29 Sept. 2011.

.

3. "Mining Claims."BLM - The Bureau of Land Management. U.S Department of the Interier, 12

Sept. 2011. Web. 29 Sept. 2011.

.

4. "Mining Act of 1872."Alaskool.org - Alaska Native History, Education, Languages, and

Cultures. Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage U.S.

Department of Education,, 2004. Web. 29 Sept. 2011.

.

5. "Bible on the Web Search."Bible on the Web - Online Bible Church. Christ Unlimited

Ministries, 29 Sept. 11. Web. 29 Sept. 2011. .

6. "Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976."BLM - The Bureau of Land Management.

U.S Department of the Interier, 12 Sept. 2011. Web. 30 Sept. 2011.

7. Hawthorne, Brian. "FLPMA, Federal Land Policy and Management Act Explained."Land Use,

Access and Rubicon Trail Home Page by Del Albright including Volunteer Training and

Outdoor Photography. Albright Enterprises, 2011. Web. 30 Sept. 2011.

.
http://www.blm.gov/es/st/en/prog/minerals/mining_claims.htmlhttp://www.blm.gov/es/st/en/prog/minerals/mining_claims.html


11/11

8. "New Push to Reform 1872 Mining Law - US News - Environment - Msnbc.com."Msnbc.com -

Breaking News, Science and Tech News, World News, US News, Local News- Msnbc.com.

MSNBC, 14 July 2009. Web. 30 Sept. 2011.

environmental ethics and the minning act

Documents