Private Contests
If mining claims are
already present when the
surface owner initiates
his conveyance application and efforts at
accommodation with the claimant
fail, the surface owner can seek to
eliminate the mining claims
through a private contest.
A private contest is an
administrative proceeding
brought within the DOI
Office of Hearings and
Appeals to invalidate mining claims. 24 The
object of a
contest of
mining claims
is to invalidate
the claim or
site by showing
that it is invalid for
failure to comply with
the requirements of the
mining laws.
A valid mining claim exists only
where there has been a “discovery” of
marketed at a profit. 27
Conclusion
A property owner or prospective purchaser
in a formerly rural area should carefully
examine his chain of title and closing documents. Mineral severances or reservations
can be present in many forms, often involving unfamiliar language.
A cautious surface owner should be as
proactive as possible, seeking accommodation with the mineral estate owner in the
case of severance by deed and using the
existing regulatory mechanisms in the case
of severance by patent. Waiting for a mineral estate owner or user to show his hand
will limit the surface owner’s options.
AZ AT
Representing the Surface Owner
a “valuable mineral deposit … within the
limits of the claim located.” 25 A discovery
of a valuable mineral deposit has been
made “where minerals have been found
and the evidence is of such a character
that a person of ordinary prudence would
be justified in the further expenditure
of his labor and means, with a
reasonable prospect of success
in developing a valuable
mine.” 26 The complementary “marketability test”
provides that a valid mining
claim is one in which
the mineral
deposit can
be mined,
removed, and
A mutual agreement, including
all the necessary compromises, is
preferable to taking one’s chances in a court-
imposed interpretation of Spurlock.
endnotes
1. Susan Carroll, Community Struggles to Keep Rights to Land,
ARIZ. REPUBLIC, Feb. 13, 2006, at A1.
2. Gallagher v. Boquillas Land & Cattle Co., 238 P. 395 (Ariz.
1925).
3. Land patent. n.d. In Wikipedia. Last visited June 19, 2015,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_patent.
4. 6 AM. L. OF MINING § 200.01 (2d ed. 1984).
5. John C. Lacey, Conflicting Surface Interests: Shotgun
Diplomacy Revisited, 22 ROCKY MOUNTAIN MIN. L. INST.
731 (1976).
6. 6 AM. L. OF MINING § 200.02 (2d ed. 1984).
7. Arizona State Land Department, Annual Report 2011–2012,
www.azland.gov/report/report2012_full.pdf.
8. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior Legacy Rehost 2000 (LR2000).
9. 1 AM. L. OF MINING § 9.01.1 (2d ed. 1984).
10. Id. § 9.02.4.
11. 143 Ariz. 469, 694 P.2d 299 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
12. Id. at 481.
13. Id. at 478.
14. Id.
15. 39 Stat. 862, 43 U.S.C. § 299 et seq.
16. Pub. L. No. 73-482, ch. 865, 48 Stat. 1269, 1272 (1934)
amended by Pub. L. No. 74-827, amended by Act of June
16, 1936, ch. 842, 49 Stat. 1976, 1976-78 (repealed
1976).
17. 1 AM. L. OF MINING § 9.03.3 (2d ed. 1984).
18. Id. § 9.04.2.
19. 30 U.S.C. § 22 et seq.
20. Id. § 601 et seq.
21. Id. § 181 et seq.
22. Pub. L. No. 94-579, as amended (Oct. 21, 1976), 43
U.S.C. § 1701 et seq.
23. 43 U.S.C § 1719.
24. 2 AM. L. OF MINING § 50.01 (2d ed. 1984).
25. 30 U.S.C. §§ 22, 23.
26. Castle v. Womble, 19 L.D. 455, 457 (1894).
27. United States v. Coleman, 390 U.S. 599, 602 (1968).
