The General Mining Law is not still adequate for Regulation of Minimizing Activities
The general mining law is still not adequate in the regulation fo the mining activities, especially on the public land because it still has some reforms that need to be done to it. Considering the mining act that was passed in the year 1872, the law has some improvements that still need to be done to it to accommodate the dynamic state of the mining industry. The reforms that need to be done to it should be focused on conforming with the environmental and legal requirements that concentrate on effective utilization of human resources. According to Honorable Dan Schaefer, of the United States Representative Colorado, the mining laws have a duplication of the federal systems that are already in existence (Blumm and Fraser, 2017). This, therefore, necessitates severe amendments for the law to incorporate such useful amenities like clean water.
Explaining my rationale to the topic, the reasons at to why I think the mining law needs to be reviewed is because it has high instances of environmental degradation which result from the mining activities and the requirements does not go forth to providing the necessary solutions to the issue. The enduring vitality shows that the law is outdated and does not include the actions required to compensate those affected by the degradation of the environment as a result of mining activities (BLM, n.d). From the Honorable Ken Calvert, most of the mineral miners will defy the provision of the law, and still, there will be no severe actions taken against them. There are therefore many reclamation standards which are to an extent onerous. Nonetheless, the general mining law does not include the welfare of wildlife and fish. The mineral exploration process leads to the alteration of the aquatic animals in the areas where mining takes place.
Additionally, the unprecedented nature of power that it gives to the Director of wildlife and fish services. The fact that the law was passed a long ago implies that there still are some modifications that should be done on the law to suit the current and updated mining activities. To add on, I think the law does not advocate for the equity in the distribution of resources, from the law which allows the United States and other firms to stage their exploration of the minerals and establishment of rights to own the federal lands without the legal authorization from the authorized government agencies. This implies that there may be inequity in the distribution of the resources as other citizens or firms may own a more significant portion of the mining fields in the federal states. As the law states if in any case, a place contains valuable minerals, citizens will have full right to exploit the minerals. This leads to the limiting of the government efforts in the management and control of public lands, especially mining sites.
The vast effects of mining on aquatic resources as exemplified in the Red Dog Mine of Alaska is proof of the adverse effects that are associated with the continued process of resource exploitation. Furthermore, the Summitville mines of colorado, the Berkeley Pit of Montana have been left to be unfilled depressions which pose a significant danger to the environment and the health status of human beings too (Leshy, 2014). Basing on this evidence, it is clear that the law does not specify the effects of land reclamation reforms that should be embraced upon completion of the mineral exploration process. It is clear that land left after the mining process is left unused, and this is the reason why I find the law not suitable to the current industrial applications. Its shortcomings also make it ineffective and increase the susceptibility of the nearby people to respiratory-related infections (Lehman et al. 1994). The analysis of the future possible mining impacts on the environment if the law still holds indicates that there will be more adverse effects on fisheries and provision of clean water. The policies governing mining should, therefore, be under subjective review.
However, there are counterpoints to my position include the views of Honourable Richard H. Lehman, who says that the amendments of the HR. 322 was purposed at ensuring that there is the elimination of the deficiencies and flaws of the mining law of 1872. He also adds that the amendments were aimed at maintaining a strong to make sure that there is the safeguarding of the federal land, which he says that were to be managed in an environmentally sound manner (Lehman, 1994). The economic implications of the abandoned land after the process of mining was also an issue. I find this to be unworthy because there is more that still needs to be done to ensure that there is effective checking of the adverse effects caused by the process of mining. In my opinion, I find this unnecessary because there is a need to put more efforts to update the law so that it can have conformities with the environmental effects associated with mining in federal states. The law does not adequately include the reforms that cater for the effective utilization of the mineral resources.
Furthermore, the idea of the congressman Sergent of California, who said the quartz law was initially an experiment depicts the ineffectiveness of the mining law. Though they have been ideas that have been put forth by the law to protect the interests of the mining industry, there are those rules that are not strictly adhered to. The general mineral act of 1872 the allowing of the mineral sites to be controlled by the people that are at will to do so presents unbalanced opportunities to the industry (Woody et al. 2010). Though the law allowed for the people to practice free exploration of mineral resources in federal states, which seemed to be a good idea, it only seems to benefit those few individuals that are found to be convincing investors. The selective distribution of the mineral resources, therefore, calls for the amendment of the law to ensure that all the people benefit from the exploration of the mineral resources (Weidlich, 2005). This is enough to convince me that the law needs some necessary amendments and is not adequate in the regulation of mining activities on public lands, and it thus needs some essential reforms.
In summary, the general mining law of 1872, still has limitations in the provision of adequate regulations on mining activities. As much as it has had its importances on investors and, it still needs some reforms on the way it deals with the adverse effects that are associated with mining activities and after mining activities. Likewise, the law should be reformed to make sure that it encompasses the human rights of the places that the events take place. It should also ensure that there i adequate representation of people in the mining industry. This should also be accompanied by the act to ensure that there is the maintenance of aquatic resources and other wildlife resources.
References
Woody, C. A., Hughes, R. M., Wagner, E. J., Quinn, T. P., Roulson, L. H., Martin, L. M., & Griswold, K. (2010). The mining law of 1872: change is overdue. Fisheries, 35(7), 321-331.
BLM(n.d). Mining Claims and Sites on Federal Lands.
Lehman, R. H. (1994). Should the House pass HR 322, Federal Mining Law Reform? Pro. Congressional Digest, 73, 78-78.
Weidlich, T. L. (2005). The Mining Law Continuum-Is There a Contemporary Prospect for Reform. Brandeis LJ, 44, 951.
Leshy, J. D. (2014). The mining law: a study in perpetual motion. Routledge.
Blumm, M. C., & Fraser, J. A. (2017). Coordinating With the Federal Government: Assessing County Efforts to Control Decisionmaking on Public Lands. Pub. Land & Resources L. Rev., 38, 1.