PLP_RaffleAd_2025rk 2

The SMALL MINER AMENDMENT update and Call to Action
We are overwhelmed with the support PLP has been receiving from around the country for the Small Miner Amendment. With over 2,000 endorsements and counting, this will help to make a greater impact because legislators will see the breadth of support from around the country for the Small Miner Amendment. In just a few weeks our Northern California Director, Clark Pearson and Scott Harn of the ICMJ (Mining Journal), will again be meeting in Washington D.C. with high level officials in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Interior (DOI), along with many legislators and their aides. We are working hard to get this critical mining legislation passed, providing regulatory relief for the small-scale mining community across the nation. Help us to help you: send us your endorsements of the Small Miner Amendment. You can read the complete language here: http://www.publiclandsforthepeople.org/small-miner-amendments-to-s145/
It seems there may be some confusion as to what PLP’s proposed legislation is. It is NOT what MMAC has/ had in mind regarding Mining Districts. It is not the same bill at all. It is somewhat like doing arthroscopic surgery to cancerous laws, by using legislation to go in and make tiny incisions (corrections), in multiple places (various laws), to help the sick patient (the miners), heal up and restore full use of their mining rights.
PLP’s legal researcher Clark Pearson wrote the “Small Miner Amendments to S. 145. RECOGNITION OF THE LIMIT OF THE RIGHT OF SELF-INITIATION UNDER THE 1872 MINING ACT AND THE PERMISSIVE (PERMIT) SYSTEM FOR PURPOSES OF REGULATORY CERTAINTY”

As you read through the bill, you will see just how well the small-scale suction dredgers will benefit! Especially in Sec. 104.
It amends certain US Codes. Here are the current US Codes mentioned so you can more easily refer to and understand the amendments proposed to them (Thanks to Jann Higdem for setting up these links!):

SECTION 101: Improving regulatory accountability
28 USC §2412(d)(1)(A) -Costs and fees

Section 102: Removing overlapping and duplicative authorities
16 USC § 478 – Egress or ingress of actual settlers; prospecting
16 USC § 551 – Protection of national forests; rules and regulations
16 USC § 1604 – National Forest System land and resource management plans
30 USC § 612 – Unpatented mining claims

Section 103: Uniform federal regulation
43 USC § 1702 – Definitions
43 USC § 1748c – Bureau of Land Management Foundation
42 USC § 4332 – Cooperation of agencies; reports; availability of information; recommendations; international and national coordination of efforts
16 USC § 1536(a)(2) – Interagency cooperation

Section 104: Mine operation exemptions from the Clean Water Act
33 USC § 1362(12) – Definitions: “discharge of a pollutant” and the term “discharge of pollutants”
33 USC §§ 1341, 1342 or 1344

Section 105: SMALL MINER EXEMPTION
30 USC § 803 – Mines subject to coverage
5 USC § 554 – Adjudications (MSHA)

Section 106: Review and revise existing federal regulations
36 CFR Part 9 MINERALS MANAGEMENT (DOI & NPS)
43 CFR Part 4 Dept. Hearings & Appeals; and (DOI)
Part 3800 – Mining Claims Under the General Mining Laws (DOI)
36 CFR Part 228 – Subpart A, Locatable Minerals (USDA)
30 CFR Parts 1-199 – Mineral Resources (MSHA)

Section 107: FEDERAL CONSENT ON PUBLIC LANDS None
Section 108: DISCRETION OF THE OWNER OR MINERAL OPERATOR
30 USC § 43 – Conditions of Sale by Local Legislature

Section 109: MINERAL WITHDRAWN LANDS
43 USC § 1712(e)(3) – Land Use Plans
43 USC § 1714 – Withdrawals of Lands
You can read more about the Small Miner Amendment and also the need to write letters about MSHA issues right away at: https://www.icmj.com/magazine/article/plp-and-mmac-update-3815/
Regarding letters of support for the “Small Miner Amendments to S 145,” please address them to your member of the US Senate or US House of Representatives. The Mining Journal is collecting the letters to take to D.C.
Completed letters can be sent to the Mining Journal by email to editor@icmj.com; by fax at (831) 479-4385; or by mail to:
ICMJ
Attn: Scott Harn
PO Box 2260
Aptos, CA 95001
As a personal means to show support for PLP’s efforts, everyone should strongly consider becoming a member. The cost is a mere $35/yr . Keep in mind that PLP is not a prospecting or social club. We are an organization that focuses primarily on “mining rights” and protecting them without compromise! The majority of donations to PLP are from individuals making small donations. Every dollar goes into the fight! We are an all volunteer board, and your donation/ membership, raffle ticket purchase keeps us engaged in the battle.
Order your 2018 Grand Raffle tickets here: http://www.publiclandsforthepeople.org/ Another prize is being added this month!
Also consider subscribing to the Mining Journal to keep abreast of the very latest mining and prospecting news and insights. https://www.icmj.com/subscribe/
Let’s all work together to make an impact. Together we’ve taken some lands back for public multiple use as in the Eagle Mountains and other areas, now let’s work together making history with these current activities to keep them!
Why? Because it matters greatly to the next generation what we do now. We are the Patriots of our generation. It’s about Mining Rights, it’s about Freedom!
Ron Kliewer
President

December 18, 2017

President Donald Trump

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW

Washington, D.C. 20500

Re: Rinehart v. California, No. 16-970 (U.S. Supreme Court)

PLP exists to “Represent and assist outdoor user groups and individuals interested in keeping public and private lands open to prospecting, mining and outdoor recreation through education, scientific data and legal means.”

Dear President Trump,

If you have not heard of Public Lands for the People (PLP), we are one of the oldest mining and land rights advocacy organizations in the nation, having fought hard for miner’s rights since 1990. We are reaching out to you, inviting you to unite with us in the struggle to preserve the rights granted to us under the 1872 Mining Law.

Along with supporting Brandon Rinehart in the California state court, PLP has fought other battles in the courts for many years, winning some very key cases for miners in the United States while preserving the spirit of our Federal Mining Law and our National Minerals Policy, codified in 1970, which states: “The Congress declares that it is the continuing policy of the Federal Government in the national interest to foster and encourage private enterprise in (1) the development of economically sound and stable domestic mining, minerals, metal and mineral reclamation industries, (2) the orderly and economic development of domestic mineral resources, reserves, and reclamation of metals and minerals to help assure satisfaction of industrial, security and environmental needs…”

I write to you today in order to make you aware of some rather disturbing recent actions of your Solicitor General in his office’s Amicus paper favoring California’s anti-mining position on mining and specifically regarding Rinehart v. California, No. 16-970 (U.S. Supreme Court).  It is also to address specifics not addressed in a letter sent to you from the defendant’s attorney, James Buchal, on December 8^, 2017.

As you are aware, it will be difficult to “Make America Great Again” without domestic manufacturers that have access to domestic sources of raw metals and minerals mined here in the United States.  The problem is this: states such as California and your present Solicitor General support these actions that promote duplicative state regulation that overrides and is in direct conflict with Federal land planning objectives under the guise that state law can be more restrictive than federal law.

Unlike what your present Solicitor believes, this is exactly what the US Supreme Court warned about in California Coastal Comm’n v. Granite Rock., 480 U.S. 572 (1987).  Anti-mining states such as California have a rather insidious way of carrying out this anti-American policy.  They require a state permit on federally managed land—a permit that is physically impossible to obtain in the case of Rinehart.

Rinehart, in good faith, was carrying out his obligations under federal law and was caught in a scheme some have called “regulation by strangulation” whereby the state or federal agency requires a permit that it will not, or cannot issue in a timely fashion, then proceeded to criminally prosecute Rinehart under state law for not having that permit.  A common tenet in law is that “the law does not require impossibilities,” but here in California, the rule of law and the justice it stands for is out the window. The state of California claims harm without environmental proof, which adds to this miscarriage of justice.

I understand that more of the swamp (administrative state) needs draining in order for your Presidential orders to be carried out and we at PLP admire your courage, drive and commitment.  So if it is at all within your power as President to ask your Solicitor General to withdraw his Amicus regarding Rinehart v. California, No. 16-970 (U.S. Supreme Court) that acts to reward regulatory abusers such as California, it would be greatly appreciated.

Without your help, California and your current federal Solicitors stand as obstacles to federally encouraged activities and the security of our nation. Until next time, Let’s Keep Taking it Back while we Make Mining and Multiple Use Public Lands Great Again!

Thank you for your time and attention to this urgent matter, and please do not hesitate to contact me if you have further questions.

On behalf of the Board of Directors of Public Lands for the People, the Traditional Mining Districts, and our entire national membership,

Ron Kliewer, President

Public Lands for the People

23501 Burbank Blvd.

Woodland Hills, CA 91367

Phone: (844) PLP-1990

cc: Attorney General Sessions

Secretary Ryan Zinke