Mineral Associations Coalition v. State Mining & Geology Board

Good Law
138 Cal. App. 4th 574·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 518·2006 Daily Journal DAR 4359·41 Cal. Rptr. 3d 544·36 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20070
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 12, 2006No. C049201California5,524 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Butz, J.

This case presents the question of whether defendant State Mining and Geology Board (the Board), which operates within the California Department of Conservation, exceeded its authority in promulgating an administrative regulation requiring that the Director of the Department of Conservation (the Director) concur in any lead agency determination that a mine operator has fulfilled the terms and conditions of his reclamation plan and that the financial assurance instruments securing his obligation to reclaim lands shall be released.

Plaintiffs Mineral Associations Coalition, California Mining Association, Construction Materials Association of California and Southern California Rock Products Association (collectively, the Associations) filed this declaratory relief action, seeking a judicial declaration that California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 3805.5, subdivision (d) (regulation 3805.5(d)) 1 was invalid because it was in conflict with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 2710 et seq.), 2 and therefore in excess of the Board’s rulemaking authority. The trial court granted the Board’s motion for judgment on the pleadings,…

dissent Opinion

Nicholson, J.

I respectfully dissent.

In my view, the regulation at issue (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 3805.5, subd. (d)) is inconsistent with the home rule nature of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA). (Pub. Resources Code, § 2710 et seq.)

In People ex rel. Dept. of Conservation v. El Dorado County, the Supreme Court deemed “accurate[]” this court’s description of SMARA, which stated: “ ‘In keeping with the recognition of the diverse conditions throughout the state, SMARA provides for “home rule,” with the local lead agency having primary responsibility.’ ” (People ex rel. Dept. of Conservation v. El Dorado County (2005) 36 Cal.4th 971, 984 [ 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 109 , 116 P.3d 567 ] (El Dorado)) Although the State Mining and Geology Board sets policy and reviews the ordinances of the lead agency, the Director has a limited role, secondary to the lead agency, as to projects undertaken within the lead agency’s purview. “[T]he director is vested with significant, but limited, powers and responsibilities under SMARA . . . .” (Id. at p. 986.)

Before approving a reclamation plan and financial assurances, the lead agency submits the proposal to the Director, who may comment. But the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.