## Facts

- Lawrence County voters approved an initiated zoning ordinance barring issuance of any new permits or amendments to existing permits for surface metal mining projects in the Spearfish Canyon Area.
- The Spearfish Canyon Area covered roughly 40,000 acres (about 10% of the county), of which about 90% was federal land in the Black Hills National Forest administered by federal agencies; the remainder included privately held patented mining claims.
- The area contained unpatented mining claims and other mineral-bearing properties open to mineral development, alongside significant recreational and aesthetic resources.
- Several mining companies had conducted surface mining in the county; at least two plaintiffs had active or recent operations in or near the restricted area.
- Plaintiffs asserted surface mining was the only economically feasible method for certain deposits, so the ordinance effectively barred mining on affected federal and private claims.
- The district court held the ordinance conflict-preempted by the Mining Law of 1872 and permanently enjoined enforcement; an intervenor appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a preemption challenge to the ordinance was ripe even though plaintiffs had not applied for permits under the ordinance.
2. Whether the ordinance’s categorical prohibition on new or amended surface metal mining permits in the Spearfish Canyon Area was conflict-preempted by the Mining Law of 1872.

## Decision

- The court held the dispute was ripe because the ordinance imposed an immediate, realistic constraint and a permit application would be futile given the ordinance’s categorical bar.
- The court affirmed the injunction, holding the ordinance conflict-preempted because it operated as a local prohibition on mining where federal law opens federal lands to mineral exploration and development.
- The court distinguished permissible state and local environmental regulation from an outright ban that effectively forecloses mining on federal lands.
- The court rejected arguments that environmental objectives or inquiries into legislative purpose avoided preemption; the ordinance’s operative effect controlled.

## Legal Principles

- A claim is ripe where a plaintiff faces a realistic danger of direct injury and further administrative steps would be futile because the challenged rule categorically forecloses relief.
- Under obstacle (conflict) preemption, a local measure is invalid if it stands as an obstacle to Congress’s purposes and objectives.
- The Mining Law of 1872 reflects a federal policy favoring exploration and development of valuable mineral deposits on federal lands open to mineral entry.
- State and local governments may impose reasonable, nonprohibitory environmental regulations on mining activities on federal lands, but may not enact measures that function as a veto by effectively prohibiting mining.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a permanent injunction against a county ordinance that categorically barred new or amended surface metal mining permits in an area composed largely of federal land, holding the challenge ripe and the ordinance conflict-preempted because it effectively prohibited mining that federal law encourages on lands open to mineral development.


S.D. Mining Ass’n, Inc. v. Lawrence Cnty., 155 F.3d 1005 (8th Cir. 1998)