Opinion ID: 4027039
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Preemption Under the Mining Law of 1872

Text: Rinehart‘s principal argument is that the present moratorium on suction dredging stands as an obstacle to the purposes of Congress implicit in the Mining Law of 1872. In Granite Rock, the leading decision on the mining law‘s preemptive effect, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that the law categorically forecloses states from imposing permit requirements on federal land. (Granite Rock, supra, 480 U.S. at pp. 582–584.) But Granite Rock involved a facial challenge to the requirement that a company obtain California Coastal Commission permits before engaging in mining. The Supreme Court‘s decision left open the possibility of future preemption challenges to specific permit requirements or, as here, refusals to issue a permit. (Id. at p. 594.) Rinehart presents such a challenge. In Granite Rock, the party asserting preemption ―concede[d] that the Mining Act of 1872, as originally passed, expressed no legislative intent on the as 8 yet rarely contemplated subject of environmental regulation.‖ (Granite Rock, supra, 480 U.S. at p. 582.) Rinehart makes no such concession, but we reach the same no preemption conclusion: The purposes and objectives underlying the 1872 law do not require displacement of the challenged state laws.
We begin with the relevant federal statutes. The Mining Law of 1872 allows citizens to enter federal land freely and explore for valuable minerals. (30 U.S.C. § 22; Granite Rock, supra, 480 U.S. at p. 575; United States v. Locke, supra, 471 U.S. at p. 86.) Locators of valuable minerals may obtain a right to possess and develop the area around their claim, with title remaining with the United States. (30 U.S.C. §§ 26, 35; Granite Rock, at p. 575; Locke, at p. 86.) The law and its regulations spell out further steps a miner may take to acquire not only possession, but formal title—a patented claim. (30 U.S.C. §§ 29, 37; 43 C.F.R. § 3861.1 et seq. (2016); Granite Rock, at pp. 575–576; Locke, at p. 86.) While these provisions all generally involve mining, their focus is considerably more specific—the delineation of the real property interests of miners vis-à-vis each other and the federal government. The provisions of the 1872 law identify in detail the conditions for obtaining, and extent of, a right of occupancy (30 U.S.C. §§ 26–27), the conditions for obtaining complete title (id., §§ 29, 37), the size of claims (id., §§ 23, 35), the marking and recordation of claims (id., §§ 28, 34), how disputes between claimants are to be resolved (id., § 30), and so on. The discovery of a valuable claim is in every instance a condition for thereafter obtaining some possessory or fee simple interest in federal land (id., § 22; United States v. Coleman (1968) 390 U.S. 599, 600–603), but the act as a whole is devoted entirely to the allocation of real property interests among those who would exploit the mineral wealth of the nation‘s lands, not regulation of the process of exploitation—the mining—itself. 9 As discussed, the property clause alone does not foreclose states from exercising their ordinary police powers on federal land; Congress must act. From time to time in the years prior to 1872, California had seen fit to regulate mining within its borders. (See, e.g., Stats. 1860, ch. 212, pp. 175–176 [conveyance of mining claims]; Stats. 1863–1864, ch. 91, p. 91 [disputes over property within mining claims]; Stats. 1865–1866, ch. 600, pp. 828–830 [mining partnerships].) The 1872 law is explicit concerning the effect of such past and future laws: it endorses their continuing vitality and prospectors‘ ongoing obligations to abide by them. Claimants are granted a right of possession ―so long as they comply with the laws of the United States, and with State, territorial, and local regulations.‖ (30 U.S.C. § 26.) One exception applies; compliance with laws that are ―in conflict with the laws of the United States governing [claimants‘] possessory title‖ (ibid.) is not required. This narrow exception further underscores the real property focus of the law: the one area where the law does intend to displace state law is with respect to laws governing title. In other areas, state and local law are granted free reign. More generally, the law endorses in the first instance local, rather than federal, control over the mining fields. (See 30 U.S.C. §§ 22 [mineral exploration on federal land shall occur subject to ―the local customs or rules of miners in the several mining districts, so far as the same are applicable and not inconsistent with the laws of the United States‖], 28 [permitting miners to adopt local rules governing the possession of mining claims], 43 [approving state regulation of mining claim sales].) These express acknowledgements of the application of state and local law to federal mining claims suggest an apparent willingness on the part of Congress to let federal and state regulation broadly coexist, especially insofar as those state laws relate to matters other than a miner‘s ―possessory title.‖ (Id., § 26.) 10 The text and history of title 30 United States Code section 21a, enacted a century later and codified as a preface to the Mining Law of 1872, also convey that Congress did not, and does not, intend mining to be pursued at all costs. The provision describes as the ―continuing policy of the Federal Government‖ the promotion of (1) a private, ―economically sound and stable domestic mining . . . industr[y], (2) the orderly and economic development of domestic mineral resources . . . to help assure satisfaction of industrial, security and environmental needs, (3) mining . . . research, including the use and recycling of scrap . . . , and (4) the study and development of methods . . . to lessen any adverse impact of mineral extraction and processing upon the physical environment that may result from mining or mineral activities.‖ (30 U.S.C. § 21a.) These policies recognize the importance of stable, sustainable industrial-scale mining in order to avoid foreign dependence. (H.R.Rep. No. 91–1442, 2d Sess., pp. 2-4 (1970), reprinted in 1970 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News, pp. 5792–5794.) But they also acknowledge mining must be done in an ―orderly‖ fashion and account for ―environmental needs‖ and ―any adverse impact‖ on ―the physical environment.‖ (30 U.S.C. § 21a; see H.R.Rep. No. 91–1442, at p. 5795 [―The reclamation of mined land, the recycling of scrap and waste materials and the development of methods to lessen any adverse impact on the environment must all receive consideration.‖].) Federal support for mining is not limitless. Rinehart, however, asserts the 1872 law reflects a more expansive congressional purpose, an affirmative intent to grant individuals a federal right to mine, and requires preemption of state laws whenever they unduly infringe that right. He focuses on the opening passage of section 22, which provides: ―Except as otherwise provided, all valuable mineral deposits in lands belonging to the United States, both surveyed and unsurveyed, shall be free and open to exploration and purchase, and the lands in which they are found to occupation and purchase 11 . . . .‖ (30 U.S.C. § 22.) To better understand the purposes and objectives underlying this and other provisions in the 1872 law, we may consider as well the history preceding and context surrounding their adoption. What the text implies, history confirms: no general federal right to mine, superior to the exercise of state police powers, was intended.
Gold was discovered in California in 1848. Across the West, other discoveries of valuable minerals followed soon after. (U. S. v. Shumway (9th Cir. 1999) 199 F.3d 1093, 1098.) Congress debated how best to regulate mining of these resources but took no immediate action. (See Remarks of Sen. Stewart, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. (1866) p. 3226 [discussing earlier inaction]; Remarks of Rep. Ashley, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. (1866) p. 4053 [same].) For years, the prospectors who entered federal land to seek their fortunes operated without federal regulation (Shumway, at p. 1098; Woodruff v. North Bloomfield Gravel Min. Co. (C.C.D.Cal. 1884) 18 Fed. 753, 773), subject instead to state and territorial law and local custom (Sparrow v. Strong (1865) 70 U.S. 97, 104). As the Civil War concluded, Congress returned attention to the mining of the West and the need for formal rules. Competing proposals contemplated two very different regimes. Led by Congressman George Julian of Indiana, eastern legislators pushed a measure that would have put mining land up for public auction, selling out from under miners the territory they had explored and developed.4 In response, Senator William Stewart of Nevada proposed a system 4 House of Representatives No. 322, 39th Congress, 1st Session, section 1, as introduced February 21, 1866; see Remarks of Representative Julian, Congressional Globe, 38th Congress, 2d Session (1865) pages 684–687; Remarks (footnote continued on next page) 12 advocated by western legislators under which miners would be granted a right to occupy and, for a small fee, acquire title to the land they mined.5 The Stewart approach prevailed. (See Act of July 26, 1866, ch. 262, 14 Stat. 251.) The 1866 mining law provided a template for what followed. Originally applicable only to lodes, the law‘s principles were extended to placer claims in 1870. (Act of July 9, 1870, ch. 235, § 12, 16 Stat. 217; see Deffeback v. Hawke (1885) 115 U.S. 392, 401.) Those principles, and much of the 1866 act‘s original language, were then incorporated into the Mining Law of 1872. (Act of May 10, 1872, ch. 152, 17 Stat. 91, codified at 30 U.S.C. § 22 et seq.)6 The provision at the heart of Rinehart‘s preemption claim, title 30 United States Code section 22, was drawn with minor rewording from the 1866 act. (Compare 30 U.S.C. § 22 with Act of July 26, 1866, ch. 262, § 1, 14 Stat. 251.) These laws undoubtedly had as their central mission the orderly development of the nation‘s valuable mineral resources. (See United States v. Coleman, supra, 390 U.S. at p. 602.) But the way in which Congress went about (footnote continued from previous page) of Representative Julian, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session (1866) pages 4050–4051. 5 House of Representatives No. 365, 39th Congress, 1st Session, as amended in the Senate July 19, 1866; see Remarks of Representative Ashley, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session (1866) page 4021; High Country Citizens Alliance v. Clarke (10th Cir. 2006) 454 F.3d 1177, 1183–1184. 6 See, e.g., Remarks of Representative Sargent, Congressional Globe, 42d Congress, 2d Session (1872) page 534 (the 1872 law involved no ―change in the slightest degree [of] the policy of the Government in the disposition of the mining lands‖); High Country Citizens Alliance v. Clarke, supra, 454 F.3d at page 1183 (the 1872 law ―essentially served to combine and fine tune‖ the 1866 and 1870 acts). 13 establishing incentives to invest time and capital in a potentially risky enterprise is instructive. First, the main inducement offered was the preservation, and endorsement going forward, of an existing system for the allocation of real property rights. The 1866 act was drafted as protection for miners against the threatened exercise by Congress of its latent property clause power to sell land. (See, e.g., Remarks of Sen. Stewart, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. (1866) pp. 3225–3229; Remarks of Rep. Higby, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. (1866) p. 4054.) The ―general purpose of the act . . . was to give the sanction of the government to possessory rights acquired under the local customs, laws, and decisions of the courts.‖ (Jennison v. Kirk (1879) 98 U.S. 453, 461.) By legislating, Congress endorsed the status quo and ―prevent[ed] such rights from being lost on a sale of the lands.‖ (Id. at p. 457; see High Country Citizens Alliance v. Clarke, supra, 454 F.3d at p. 1184.) The mining laws gave prospectors tools to secure their real property interests against federal action. Second, while occupation and development of one‘s claim might protect against a federal sale, it did not insulate against parochial regulation. The 1866 act, unlike Representative Julian‘s proposal, gave the force of law to local miner rules. (Compare Act of July 26, 1866, ch. 262, §§ 1–2, 14 Stat. 251–252 with H.R. No. 322, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. (1866).) It also authorized state and territorial legislatures to regulate land sales to miners. (Act of July 26, 1866, ch. 262, § 5, 14 Stat. 252.) These features were carried forward to the Mining Law of 1872. (Act of May 10, 1872, ch. 152, §§ 1, 9, 17 Stat. 91, 94, codified at 30 U.S.C. §§ 22, 43.) Additionally, the Mining Law of 1872 conditioned miners‘ rights of possession on ongoing compliance with existing and future state regulations. (Act of May 10, 1872, ch. 152, § 3, 17 Stat. 91, codified at 30 U.S.C. § 26.) From this history, we may infer Congress was concerned principally with removing federal obstacles to mining, and specifically the threat of a property sale, 14 that might deter individual prospectors and mining concerns from investing effort in mineral development. Granted a right to enter federal land, the opportunity to obtain a right of possession, and the opportunity to acquire ownership, miners could pursue mineral discovery and exploitation free from the specter of having the land they worked sold at auction. In contrast, the purpose Rinehart attributes to these laws—an intent to confer a right to mine, immune in whole or in part from curtailment by regulation—is not apparent. The mining laws were neither a guarantee that mining would prove feasible nor a grant of immunity against local regulation, but simply an assurance that the ultimate original landowner, the United States, would not interfere by asserting its own property rights. Rinehart correctly notes the 1872 law conferred on him and others specific property rights. Rinehart has an interest in land, a real property right to possess the area of his claim for particular purposes. (See Wilbur v. United States ex rel. Krushnic (1930) 280 U.S. 306, 316–317; Cole v. Ralph (1920) 252 U.S. 286, 295.) But the grant of a real property interest does not ordinarily carry with it immunity from regulation, a guarantee that the state police power will be inoperative simply because the source of the real property interest is federal. Given this, if Congress intended to do more, we can reasonably infer it would have said so. It did not; indeed, quite to the contrary, it specifically noted the continuing obligation of miners with possessory interests, such as Rinehart, to obey state law. (See 30 U.S.C. §§ 26, 35.) Collectively, the text and legislative history reveal no intent to displace state law. C. Congressional Acquiescence in State Regulation of Mining Methods Our confidence in this reading of the 1872 law is enhanced by Congress‘s reaction to state law limitations on mining in the immediate wake of the law‘s passage. When in 1884 the application of California law resulted in a de facto ban 15 on a major industrial mining method, Congress did not move to restore the affected mining companies‘ rights. Instead, it expressly approved and helped enforce the ban, which stayed in place for nearly a decade. By the early 1850s, much of the low-hanging fruit, the densest deposits of loose gold flakes and nuggets, had been picked clean from the Sierra Nevada foothills. Prospectors turned from panning and digging to other more efficient techniques. (Kelley, Gold vs. Grain: The Hydraulic Mining Controversy in California‘s Sacramento Valley (1959) pp. 23–28 (Kelley, Gold vs. Grain); Leshy, The Mining Law (1987) p. 184.) Chief among these, hydraulic mining involved blasting hillsides with large volumes of high-pressure water to liquefy the earth and cull from it gold. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 3982; Woodruff v. North Bloomfield Gravel Min. Co., supra, 18 Fed. at p. 756; Kelley, at pp. 27–56 [discussing the rise of industrial-scale hydraulic mining].) While effective, this method also had substantial environmental impacts. Its waste products—gravel, silt, and other earthen debris—washed downstream, filled up riverbeds, and triggered devastating floods in lowland farming communities.7 (Woodruff, at pp. 756–763, 766–768; Kelley, at pp. 56–67; Leshy, at pp. 184–185.) To cope with this ― ‗moving avalanche‘ ‖ (Kelley, at p. 244), Central California towns and the state spent vast sums on dams and levees, with mixed success (id. at pp. 58, 65, 119, 198; Woodruff, at pp. 763–767). 7 During the heyday of hydraulic mining, more than triple the volume of earth excavated in digging the Panama Canal was discharged into the Yuba River, just one of four affected waterways. (Bezerra & West, Submerged in the Yuba River: The State Water Resources Control Board’s Prioritization of the Governor’s Commissions Proposals (2005) 36 McGeorge L.Rev. 331, 332.) During one typically overwhelming 1875 flood, the City of Marysville was turned into ―a vast dump for mining debris‖ after its levees broke. (Kelley, Gold vs. Grain, supra, at pp. 66–67.) 16 In time, state officials and members of Central Valley communities sued hydraulic mining companies under state nuisance law and obtained permanent injunctions prohibiting the discharge of debris into various waterways (see, e.g., People v. Gold Run D. & M. Co. (1884) 66 Cal. 138, 152; Woodruff v. North Bloomfield Gravel Min. Co., supra, 18 Fed. at pp. 806–809), which had the practical effect of banning the mining practice. Of note, the Woodruff court considered at length and rejected the mining industry‘s argument for preemption under the Mining Law of 1872. The Woodruff defendants argued federal legislation ―recognize[ed] mining as a proper and lawful employment, and encourage[ed] this industry‖ with full knowledge of the environmental consequences it might impose, and thus they could not be enjoined. (Woodruff, at p. 770.) The court identified as the purpose of the mining laws the granting to miners of estates in land and the legalization of what had been trespasses (id. at pp. 773–774), and found no purpose to authorize mining notwithstanding any proscriptions in state law addressed to its collateral consequences. Though the injunctions effectively crippled a major industry (North Bloomfield Gravel Min. Co. v. U. S. (9th Cir. 1898) 88 Fed. 664, 671; Kelley, Gold vs. Grain, supra, at pp. 243–270) and de facto forbade a predominant form of mining, even on federal land, Congress endorsed the state law ban. In 1886, Congress appropriated money for improvement of the Sacramento and Feather Rivers, but conditioned its expenditure on the Secretary of War satisfying himself ―that hydraulic mining hurtful to navigation has ceased on said rivers and their tributaries.‖ (Act of Aug. 5, 1886, ch. 929, 24 Stat. 310, 326 (1886).) If the Secretary of War found hydraulic mining had not ceased, he was ―instructed to institute such legal proceedings as may be necessary‖ to end it. (Ibid.) Seeking an accommodation between mining and farming interests, our Legislature warned Congress that ―the mining industry of our State is in imminent 17 danger of being entirely suppressed‖ and asked for action. (Assem. J. Res. No. 10, Stat. 1887 (1887 Reg. Sess.) res. ch. 10, p. 253.) Senator Stewart, the author of the original 1866 mining act and the chair of the Committee on Mines and Mining, submitted a report to Congress advising that state law injunctions had ―practically stopped‖ hydraulic mining and ―rendered valueless‖ the affected miners‘ property (Sen.Rep. No. 1944, 50th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 2 (1888)) and favoring inquiry into whether there was any way to resume hydraulic mining without further damaging California‘s rivers (id. at pp. 1, 4). Acting on the committee‘s recommendation, Congress allocated money for an ―investigation of the mining debris question in the State of California,‖ directing a commission of engineers to determine whether ―the present conflict between the mining and farming sections may be adjusted and the mining industry rehabilitated.‖ (Act of Oct. 1, 1888, ch. 1057, 25 Stat. 498, 498 (1888).) The commission‘s recommendations eventually led to the 1893 reauthorization of hydraulic mining, albeit on terms replicating the restraints state law had placed on the mining companies‘ perceived right to mine. (Act of Mar. 1, 1893, ch. 183, 27 Stat. 507 (1893), codified as amended at 33 U.S.C. § 661 et seq.) Hydraulic mining now required a permit from the newly formed California Debris Commission, a permit that could be obtained only upon assurances that mining would not harm the state‘s rivers and lowland communities. (33 U.S.C. §§ 663, 670–678; see North Bloomfield Gravel Min. Co. v. U. S., supra, 88 Fed. at p. 674 [upholding the requirement].) This conditional approval did not revive the practice; hydraulic mining under an obligation to impound one‘s own debris proved economically infeasible, and the industry never recovered. (Kelley, Gold vs. Grain, supra, at pp. 291–292.) From this chapter in history, we may infer that Congress in the late 19th century, at a time not long removed from passage of the Mining Law of 1872 and related enactments, did not view these laws as conveying a federal right to mine 18 on federal land without regard to any environmental impacts a particular method might have and any interests a state might seek to protect. Woodruff and related cases did not merely impose damages, reallocating the burden of the impacts of mining to those responsible, but issued injunctions. For nearly a decade, hydraulic mining, a method of far greater economic significance than the suction dredging at issue here, stood in abeyance based solely on state laws giving priority to other concerns. Congress, including even the author of the law first declaring federal land open to mining, was explicitly aware of this circumstance. Yet it acquiesced in hydraulic mining‘s discontinuation, allocating money to prosecute miners (see Sen.Rep. No. 1944, 50th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 2 (1888); Act of Aug. 5, 1886, ch. 929, 24 Stat. 310, 326 (1886)) instead of taking action to assert federal supremacy, protect any supposed federal right to mine, and ensure the continued availability of federal lands for hydraulic mining notwithstanding contrary state law. It stands to reason that Congress did not deem the core purposes and objectives of the mining laws impaired by state regulation of mining methods and further, that states can place limits on effective but environmentally destructive mining methods without contravening the supremacy clause. Rinehart distinguishes the Woodruff injunction on the ground it involved impacts felt elsewhere than on federal land, but this is a distinction without a difference.8 The effect of the injunction was to prohibit a major, widespread mining technique everywhere, including on federal land. To the extent the Mining Law of 1872 might have been construed as creating a federal right to mine on 8 Indeed, it is not even a distinction. The impacts the Legislature perceived as warranting a temporary moratorium here—on fish, water quality, and the health of the state‘s inhabitants—are likewise experienced elsewhere than just the federal land on which Rinehart seeks to mine. 19 federal land, that right would have been equally burdened by a mining technique ban premised on impacts elsewhere as by one premised on impacts on federal land itself. The argument that the suction dredging moratorium challenged here poses a greater or different obstacle to posited federal rights than the nine-year hydraulic mining ban does not withstand scrutiny. Rinehart also relies on title 30 United States Code section 51, which authorizes damages actions for harm arising from the digging of ditches or canals, as a way to differentiate the Woodruff injunction from the present moratorium. However, if the purposes and objectives of the mining laws were as Rinehart posits, state law authorizing an injunction would still have been preempted, notwithstanding section 51, with the only proper remedy lying in a federal action for damages. In the eyes of the Woodruff court, however, and manifestly in the eyes of Congress at the time, such a state-law-based injunction did not contravene federal rights. In sum: Like the hydraulic mining industry, Rinehart argues he holds a superior federal right to mine that allows him to proceed, notwithstanding impacts on other interests. Like the court in Woodruff and Congress thereafter, we conclude that is not so. The federal statutory scheme does not prevent states from restricting the use of particular mining techniques based on their assessment of the collateral consequences for other resources.9 9 Rinehart takes issue with the Legislature‘s assessment of those collateral consequences, dismissing the impacts of suction dredging as minimal. In this proceeding, we are without authority to countermand the Legislature‘s judgment. The only issue for us is whether federal law permits the Legislature to favor other interests it deems in need of protection at the expense of mining. 20 D. Case Law Against the lessons of text and history, Rinehart argues that we should follow a series of cases from other courts finding various state restrictions on mineral exploitation preempted on one basis or another. (See South Dakota Mining Ass’n, Inc. v. Lawrence County (8th Cir. 1998) 155 F.3d 1005, 1009–1011; Skaw v. U. S. (Fed. Cir. 1984) 740 F.2d 932, 940; Ventura County v. Gulf Oil Corp. (9th Cir. 1979) 601 F.2d 1080, 1083; Brubaker v. Bd. of Cty. Com’rs, El Paso Cty. (Col. 1982) 652 P.2d 1050, 1059; Elliott v. Oregon Intern. Mining Co. (Or.Ct.App. 1982) 654 P.2d 663, 668; but see Bohmker v. Oregon (D.Or. Mar. 25, 2016 No. 1:15-cv-01975-CL) ___ F.Supp.3d ___ [2016 U.S. Dist. Lexis 39163] [no preemption of state moratorium on motorized instream mining]; Beatty v. Washington Fish & Wildlife Com’n (Wn.Ct.App. 2014) 341 P.3d 291, 307–308 [no preemption of state restrictions on suction dredging].) We do not find these cases persuasive. First, all but one predates the United States Supreme Court‘s landmark 1987 decision in Granite Rock, supra, 480 U.S. 572, which for the first time clearly established the states‘ authority to regulate on environmental grounds mining claims within their borders. Second, two of the cases involve statutes other than the one at issue here. Ventura County, an oil drilling case, found preemption based on a conflict with the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920. (30 U.S.C. §§ 181–263; see Ventura County v. Gulf Oil Corp., supra, 601 F.2d at pp. 1083–1084.) In Elliott, the challenged mining took place on land governed by the Stock Raising Homestead Act of 1916 and subject to a patent that expressly reserved to the defendants ― ‗the right to prospect for, mine, and remove‘ ‖ minerals under the provisions of that act. (Elliott v. Oregon Intern. Mining Co., supra, 654 P.2d at p. 665 quoting 43 U.S.C. § 291 (1970) repealed by Pub.L. No. 94–579, § 702, 90 Stat. 2787 (1976).) Third, the remaining cases uniformly omit 21 any close examination of the text, legislative history, and historical context of the 1872 law. To the extent they rely on a cursory understanding of congressional purposes, they are not convincing. Rinehart relies most heavily on his only post-Granite Rock case, South Dakota Mining Ass’n, Inc. v. Lawrence County, supra, 155 F.3d 1005, which the Court of Appeal concluded was ―nearly directly on point here.‖ Lawrence County considered an ordinance banning surface mining in an area overlapping a national forest.10 Lawrence County concluded the ban was inconsistent with the 1872 law‘s purposes, which it held included ―the encouragement of exploration for and mining of valuable minerals located on federal lands, providing federal regulation of mining to protect the physical environment while allowing the efficient and economical extraction and use of minerals, and allowing state and local regulation of mining so long as such regulation is consistent with federal mining law.‖ (Lawrence County, at p. 1010.) We do not disagree that Congress adopted a real property regime in the Mining Law of 1872 with the larger purpose in mind of encouraging ongoing mineral exploration across the West. Where we part company is with the conclusion that such general, overarching goals would be frustrated by state and local determinations that the use of particular methods, in particular areas of the country, would disserve other compelling interests. Congress could have made express that it viewed mining as the highest and best use of federal land wherever minerals were found, or could have delegated to federal agencies exclusive authority to issue permits and make accommodations between mining and other purposes. It did neither, instead committing miners to continued compliance with 10 Surface mining involves stripping off the top of an area to reach minerals, in contrast to boring down through tunnels or shafts to extract them. 22 state and local laws (30 U.S.C. § 26) and endorsing limits on destructive mining techniques imposed under such laws (Act of Mar. 1, 1893, ch. 183, 27 Stat. 507 (1893)). These actions cannot be reconciled with the view that Congress intended preemption of such state and local determinations.