Hardesty v. State Mining and Geology Board
C079617
| Cal. Ct. App. | May 16, 2017Background
- Property: Hardesty owns ~150 acres (Big Cut Mine) originating from 19th-century federal mining patents; historic gold mining occurred pre-1940s, with no convincing evidence of substantial surface mining by Jan 1, 1976 (SMARA effective date).
- Postwar activity: Mining largely dormant after WWII; limited/unverified sporadic activity through the 1970s; surface (open-pit) mining occurred in the 1990s and early 2000s without permits and was halted and reclaimed by County/Board enforcement.
- Administrative process: Hardesty filed a Request for Determination (RFD) claiming vested rights under SMARA §2776 based on federal patents and historical mining; the State Mining and Geology Board (with staff reports by Executive Officer Testa) denied the claim; Hardesty sought mandamus in superior court, which upheld the Board; Hardesty appealed.
- Core legal claim: Hardesty argued federal mining patents and pre-1976 mining vested an unconditional right to surface mine post-SMARA (no need to show active surface mining on Jan 1, 1976); alternatively he argued nonconforming-use protection and that abandonment was not shown.
- Board/trial-court findings: The Board found no evidence of authorized surface mining at SMARA’s effective date, found any earlier rights were abandoned, and found post-1976 surface mining was a substantial change; the courts credited contemporaneous statements (e.g., owner certified mine "closed with no intent to resume") and neighbor testimony showing long dormancy.
- Outcome: Court of Appeal affirmed denial of mandamus — federal patents do not automatically exempt landowners from state mining regulation; claimant must show active surface mining or objective intent to continue/expand such mining as of Jan 1, 1976; abandonment and nonconforming-use doctrines were applied against Hardesty.
Issues
| Issue | Hardesty’s Argument | Board/State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effect of federal mining patents on SMARA vesting | Patents (and pre-1976 mining) create a vested right to mine that survives SMARA and removes need to prove activity on Jan 1, 1976 | Federal patents convey property title but do not immunize owners from state environmental regulation or SMARA’s vesting conditions | Patents do not automatically satisfy §2776; claimant must show active surface mining or objective reliance by Jan 1, 1976 |
| Nonconforming-use protection under SMARA §2776 | Pre-1976 mining (including prewar activity) suffices to establish a nonconforming vested right without proof of continued activity on SMARA date | SMARA protects existing, operating surface mines; a nonconforming use must be extant at the effective date, not merely historical | Court required evidence of active surface mining or objective manifestations of intent to continue as of Jan 1, 1976; Hardesty failed to carry burden |
| Abandonment of mining rights | Any cessation was temporary or due to market forces; no clear abandonment | Owner (Donovan) officially certified mine "closed with no intent to resume," corroborated by decades of dormancy and neighbor testimony | Board/trial court reasonably found abandonment (clear knowing intent); evidence sufficiently persuasive |
| Adequacy/procedural fairness of Board findings and process | Board findings did not bridge evidence to conclusions; alleged improper ex parte communications by staff (Testa) with County | Findings identified bases (dormancy, abandonment, lack of production records); staff reports were public, no undisclosed ex parte material influenced Board | Findings adequate for review; no procedural due process violation shown (staff reports public; no undisclosed information considered) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Rinehart, 1 Cal.5th 652 (Cal. 2016) (federal mining laws define private property interests but do not broadly preempt state regulation; miners remain subject to state law)
- California Coastal Comm’n v. Granite Rock Co., 480 U.S. 572 (U.S. 1987) (state environmental and land-use regulation may apply to federally patented mining lands absent direct conflict with federal law)
- Hansen Brothers Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors, 12 Cal.4th 533 (Cal. 1996) (nonconforming use must be present at time zoning change; nonuse is not a nonconforming use)
- Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd., 40 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2006) (limitations on ex parte communications; public report-and-response procedure allowed if parties receive the material)
- Pathfinder Mines Corp. v. Hodel, 811 F.2d 1288 (9th Cir. 1987) (federal patent conveys legal title; courts examine interaction between federal mining law and state regulation)