## Facts

- Charlestone Stone Products Co., Inc. acquired unpatented mining claims on federal land under the General Mining Law of 1872, 30 U.S.C. § 22.
- On one claim (“Claim 22”), the company discovered water and used it to wash and process sand and gravel extracted from its claims for commercial sale.
- Federal officials challenged the validity of the company’s claims in administrative proceedings, resulting in adverse agency decisions.
- On judicial review, the district court held, among other things, that the company was entitled to access to the water on Claim 22.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed and, on its own initiative, further concluded that Claim 22 was valid based on the presence of water.
- The Secretary of the Interior sought review in the Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether water qualifies as a “valuable mineral” under 30 U.S.C. § 22 such that its presence on federal land can support a valid mining claim.
2. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that Claim 22 was valid because of water located on the claim.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit.
- Water is not a “valuable mineral” within the meaning of 30 U.S.C. § 22 and therefore is not a locatable mineral under the federal mining law.
- A mining claim cannot be validated on the basis of water found on the claim.

## Legal Principles

- A valid mining location under 30 U.S.C. § 22 requires discovery of a “valuable mineral deposit.”
- For § 22, the substance must be the kind of mineral Congress intended in 1872 to be locatable under the mining laws, not merely something that fits a broad dictionary definition of “mineral” and has market value.
- The structure and history of federal public-lands statutes treat water rights on federal lands as governed primarily by state and local law and custom, not by the mining location system.
- Longstanding, consistent Interior Department interpretations that water is not locatable under the mining laws are significant in construing § 22.
- Allowing water to be located as a mining mineral would create conflicting, duplicative regimes for acquiring private water rights.

## Conclusion

The Court held that water cannot serve as the “valuable mineral deposit” required for a mining claim under § 22, rejecting the view that Claim 22 could be validated by the water found there and preserving separate treatment of water rights from mining locations on federal lands.


Andrus v. Charlestone Stone Prods. Co., 436 U.S. 604 (1978)