Joshua Bohmker v. State of Oregon
903 F.3d 1029 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state law that prohibits a specific method of mining in environmentally sensitive areas on federal lands constitutes a permissible environmental regulation, not a preempted land use plan, provided it is reasonably tailored to an environmental purpose and does not act as a de facto ban on all mining.
Facts:
- Joshua Caleb Bohmker and other miners (Plaintiffs) hold unpatented mining claims on federal lands in Oregon.
- Plaintiffs utilize motorized suction dredge mining, a method that uses a high-powered suction hose to vacuum up material from riverbeds to extract gold.
- In 2013, the Oregon legislature passed Senate Bill 838, citing an increase in motorized mining and the resulting risks to fish habitat, water quality, and other natural resources.
- This law imposed a moratorium on motorized mining in waters designated as 'essential indigenous anadromous salmonid habitat.'
- Many of the Plaintiffs' mining claims are located within these designated habitats.
- In 2017, while the case was on appeal, Oregon replaced the moratorium with Senate Bill 3, which made the prohibition on motorized in-stream placer mining in essential salmonid habitats permanent.
- The stated purpose of Senate Bill 3 is to protect threatened fish species, including salmonids and Pacific lamprey.
Procedural Posture:
- Joshua Bohmker and other miners (Plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit against the State of Oregon in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon.
- Plaintiffs sought a declaration that Oregon's law restricting motorized mining was preempted by federal law and requested an injunction to stop its enforcement.
- Several environmental groups intervened as defendants to support the state law.
- The district court, a court of first instance, granted summary judgment in favor of the State of Oregon, holding the law was not preempted.
- The miners (Plaintiffs-Appellants) appealed the district court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does federal mining and land use law preempt Oregon's Senate Bill 3, which prohibits the use of motorized mining equipment in rivers and streams designated as essential salmon habitat on federal lands?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Fisher
No, federal law does not preempt Oregon's Senate Bill 3. A state law that constitutes a reasonable environmental regulation is not preempted by federal mining laws, even when applied to federal lands. Assuming without deciding that federal law preempts state land use planning on federal lands, Senate Bill 3 is a permissible environmental regulation, not a land use plan. The court applied the distinction from California Coastal Comm'n v. Granite Rock Co., noting that land use planning chooses particular uses for the land, whereas environmental regulation merely requires that, however the land is used, damage to the environment is kept within prescribed limits. Senate Bill 3 does not choose a land use; it restricts a single, specific method of mining to achieve a clear environmental purpose—the protection of fish habitat. The law is not a blanket prohibition on mining, as other methods like panning are still allowed, and it is carefully tailored to apply only to environmentally sensitive areas. This type of reasonable state regulation is consistent with, and not an obstacle to, the objectives of Congress, which intended to balance mineral development with environmental stewardship.
Dissenting - Judge N.R. Smith
Yes, federal law preempts Oregon's Senate Bill 3. Federal laws like the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) occupy the field of land use planning on federal lands. Under the framework of Granite Rock, Senate Bill 3 is a land use regulation because it restricts a particular 'use' of the land (motorized mining) rather than setting an environmental 'standard' (such as a water turbidity limit) to be met. By prohibiting a specific activity instead of prescribing limits on environmental damage, Oregon has impermissibly chosen a use for the land. Furthermore, an environmental regulation can become a de facto land use plan if it is 'so severe that a particular land use would become commercially impracticable.' The miners presented sufficient evidence that the ban on motorized mining renders their claims commercially impracticable, creating a genuine issue of material fact that should have precluded summary judgment. By upholding the law, the majority erases the clear line between permissible environmental standards and preempted land use regulations.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the significant authority of states to enact environmental regulations that apply to activities on federal lands, as established in California Coastal Comm'n v. Granite Rock Co. It clarifies that a state may prohibit a specific, environmentally harmful method of resource extraction without the law being classified as a preempted 'land use plan.' The ruling strengthens the principle of cooperative federalism in environmental law, indicating that federal laws encouraging resource development do not create a right to mine 'at all costs.' For future cases, this precedent makes it more difficult for parties to challenge state environmental laws on preemption grounds unless the law functions as a broad prohibition on an entire industry rather than a targeted restriction on a specific practice.
