Opinion ID: 501787
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Continually-Created Valid Existing Rights.

Text: 293 Section 522 defines standards and procedures for designating certain lands as unsuitable for surface coal mining. For the most part, Congress delegated the making of such determinations to state regulatory agencies. Section 522(e), however, lists lands directly declared by Congress to be unsuitable for mining. Included among those lands on which surface coal mining is prohibited are: lands within the National Park or National Wildlife Refuge systems, Sec. 522(e)(1); federal lands within a national forest, Sec. 522(e)(2); areas in which mining might adversely affect a designated historic site, Sec. 522(e)(4); or within 300 feet of occupied dwellings, public schools, or churches, Sec. 522(e)(5). Lands that fall within the specified categories are not subject to the discretionary designation process described elsewhere in Sec. 522, but are statutorily declared to be unsuitable for mining. 84 294 Congress, however, limited the application of the surface mining proscriptions to avoid infringement of existing property rights. After the enactment of this Act and subject to valid existing rights no surface coal mining operations except those which exist on the date of enactment of this Act shall be permitted ... SMCRA Sec. 522(e). Neither the statutory language nor the legislative history elaborate on the meaning of the phrase valid existing rights (VER). The Secretary, however, promulgated a regulation implementing Sec. 522(e) that created what he described as continually created valid existing rights, 47 FED.REG. 25281 (1982): 295 Where an area comes under the protection of Section 522(e) of the Act after August 3, 1977, valid existing rights shall be found if-- 296 (1) On the date the protection comes into existence, a validly authorized surface coal mining operation exists on that area.... 85 297 30 C.F.R. Sec. 761.5(d). In other words, even after the enactment of the Act, once a mining operation is properly initiated on a particular parcel of land, if that land were later to be designated as unsuitable for mining pursuant to Sec. 522(e)--e.g., if the land were declared by Congress to be a National Wildlife Refuge--the mine would be permitted to continue operating pursuant to a valid existing right. NWF's challenge of that regulation, and the district court's rejection of that challenge are the subject of this appeal. 298 NWF's argument is, essentially, that a continually-created valid existing right is an oxymoron, and that to assign any meaning to VER other than existing as of the date of enactment is arbitrary and contrary to the intent of Congress. Under NWF's reading of the Act, any mining operation initiated after August 3, 1977, the date of SMCRA's enactment, would be subject to shut-down if the land on which it stood or abutted were subsequently found to be unsuitable under the provisions of Sec. 522(e). The district court rejected this challenge and concluded that the concept of continually-created VER was in accord with law. PSMRL II (Round III-VER), 22 E.R.C. at 1564-65. 299 Industry, supporting the district court, argues that once an operator has obtained mining rights and a permit for a particular parcel of land that has not yet been declared unsuitable, any subsequent infringement of that mining right, i.e., because of a declaration of unsuitability under Sec. 522(e), would constitute a taking. Since Congress explicitly tried to avoid takings in Sec. 522(e), once a permit has been validly issued the permit area is insulated from subsequent unsuitability designations. This, however, is a somewhat circular argument; one could just as easily argue, as NWF does, that after the passage of the SMCRA mine operators are put on notice that certain kinds of lands are subject to the protections of Sec. 522(e), and that they make their investments subject to that risk. For example, a mine operator could purchase a 300-foot buffer zone around the mine to protect that mine site from the Sec. 522(e) protections triggered by proximity to dwellings, roads, cemeteries, etc. Both notice arguments presuppose particular, opposing interpretations of the statutory language; neither aids us in choosing between them. 300 The statutory language appears to be susceptible to either interpretation of valid existing rights. The legislative history, however, is of some help. Although it does not answer the specific question before us, 86 it does suggest that Congress did not intend to infringe on valid property rights or effect takings through Sec. 522(e). In discussing the state regulatory process for declaring non-federal lands unsuitable for mining, see Sec. 522(a), the House committee made clear that operating mines should not be shut down: The designation process is not intended to be used as a process to close existing mine operations, although the area in which such operations are located may be designated with respect to future mines. H.R.REP. NO. 218, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 94 (1977), reprinted in U.S.CODE CONG. & ADMIN.NEWS 593, 631. 301 That same principle should reasonably apply to the unsuitability designations of Sec. 522(e), and is indeed the basis for the Secretary's VER regulation. As the House report noted, when land on which mines are already in existence is declared unsuitable, those mines should be allowed to continue, but no new mines should be permitted within the protected area. That rule should apply equally to mines in existence as of August 3, 1977, or to mines subsequently started on lands which have permits approved for mining. Thus, if a site not previously designated unsuitable were to be declared to be subject to Sec. 522(e) protection--e.g., if the site which was not covered by Sec. 522(e) in 1977 were subsequently included within the National Historic Register, but not before a mining operation had been lawfully established--the prohibition would apply only prospectively. We find such a rule to be a reasonable interpretation of the Act, and thus affirm the decision of the district court upholding the Secretary's VER regulation. 302