Ok, back to the top.
Still have sketchy details, but here goes.
California - 1888 to 1903
The area in question falls in two sections. The river runs east - west, section line cuts across it in a north direction.
Sec. 29 | Sec. 28
----<---|-----<----
Sec. 29 | Sec. 28
The sections do lie in a formal mining district.
1888 - ABMC discovered a placer mine was along the river in both section 28 and section 29. The claim was 3000' long. There is a description that could be followed.
Both sections were "owned" by USA at this time. It should be noted that there was much mining activity in this area, placer in the early days and hard rock in the later years.
1893 - the ABMC aquired a deed to a lode mine located in Section 28. This really does not come into play, but supports the fact that there were known mineral lands in the area prior to 1893.
1894 - The state mineralogist report provides a brief description of the ABMC's location and ownership. Owner A is listed.
1896 - The state mineralogist report provides a very detailed description of the ABMC's operation It appears that much work has been done. The placer mine is described as operating 24 hours a day with 20 men employed. They are washing 600 cubic yards of material averaging $.75 / yard (@ $18.96 per ounce) every 24 hours.
The owner is now listed as Owner B and Owner A. It would appear that an investor was brought into the mining operation.
1896 - A mining publication states that the ABMC has done very well this season, realizing as high as $200 per day in some clean-ups.
1896 - USA patented section 28 to the Central Pacific Railroad (Central Pacific and Southern Pacific had already been merged at this time). The patent specifically excludes "Known mineral Lands".
1897 - The ABMC is listed as a mine (Owner B and Owner A)and a gold buyer (Owner B) in a mining journal.
1897 - Another mining journal describes the operation as having 30 men employed.
1898 - The ABMC's mining operation is described for the last time. They are now employing 38 men.
1899 - The ABMC granted the portion of the claim lying in section 29 to Owner B. Apparently there was a dispute over $2000 that had been invested. Included in the deed was much of the mining equipment.
1901 - The ABMC granted a portion of their property in Section 28(surface access?) to the County for a proposed road.
After this it appears that ABMC abandonded mining in both sections, however it is suspected that a dredger ran up the river through both section sometime between 1901 and 1914.
1984 - Southern Pacific and Santa Fe merge.
1986 - Santa Fe creates Santa Fe Gold
1990 - Santa fe grants to Owner C all of Section 28, excepting and reserving all mineral rights.
2000 - Owner C grants all of Section 28 to USA
USA states that there are no open mineral rights in Section 28, due to it being re-aquired lands.
As far as I can tell ABMC only had a mining claim that included surface rights and minerals. No patented mining claims.
So the question I really have is this. It is clear that during the time Section 28 was being granted to the railroad, there were "known mineral lands". There was a large active mining operation. USA could not just give their rights away, so they excepted them from the patent. I think this is clear. What did they actually except? Just the existing rights ABMC had or the actual land and minerals?
Once the ABMC ceased to keep their mining claim active, who would the rights revert back to, USA or the Railroad (who never had them to begin with)?
This is a very interesting issue. Hopefully the extra details are enough to comment on this.
JRL
Don't know if this could be anything a surveyor could resolve other that locations of past activity's. Sounds like history and the court system is the only clear method of resolution and then only after all appeal options were completed. Could be the Fed gov. still has all of the mineral rights. What is the reason for digging this up, private mining in conflict with surface rights? Anyway thanks for the history of the area.
jud
I figured this would be an issue that perhaps a surveyor has dealt with in a round about way.
The issue is not conflict, rather potential conflict.
It should be noted that BLM has no record of a formal claim in section 28.
Perhaps these operations were so short lived that the Railroad had not gotten around to even looking at this land until much much later. By that time all the mining was completed. A 1964 photo shows several buildings that look like they may have been lived in not too long before. Since there were fraudulent township surveys in this area, perhaps it was kind of "no-mans land".
Speaking as someone with no mineral rights surveying experience, are the mining rights similar to a easement in gross in that the mineral rights only existed as long as the original land owner owned the land? Feel free to flog me if I'm way off base, just a thought is all.
I would suggest that you contact the BLM personally to have a meeting with them to try and sort this out. They should have the documentation on the governments ownership.
Keith
When the lands were opened to homesteading, the early patenting included the mineral rights. Later the Government retained the mineral rights, hence a split estate. If the feds never relinquished these minerals, then they still belong to the feds. On lands where the minerals went with the lands, then the patent holder could either retain them or include the sale with the land, OR they could sell the mineral rights to someone other than the one they sold the land to. Mineral rights have nothing to do with actual mining operations. In the oil boom of the 1960's & 1970's in Wyoming, when they used to go out and dig gravel or scorio for road surface material for roads into a well site which was a common practice, the feds put a stop to this as the gravel, etc. was classed as a mineral owned by them and permits to use it was required. Minerals include many things.
BLM has been consulted prior to much of our research.
I think that perhaps because BLM has no formal legal document describing the mining claim, it was never "known" to them. The railroad reserved mineral rights prior to BLm re-aquiring the land. This is probably a simple decision for them.
It is probably something that would never get resolved unless it went to court.
It is interesting that someone thought they had some sort of claim to the land otherwise they would not have lived there during the 40's to the 50's. Could just be
considered squatters I guess.
Loyal
I'm kinda up to my butt in alligators today, but here's a couple of comments for whatever they may (or may not) be worth:
First...the GLO “should” have (at a minimum) done a Mineral Segregation Survey of Section 28 (and any other affected Sections) that delineated the extent and boundaries of the 1888 Gulch Placer back in 1896.
Second... prior to FLPMA (1976) the GLO/BLM really had NO WAY to know that such a survey was needed, therefore the matter slipped through the cracks. Basically, the GLO/BLM had no idea that the Mine even existed (no reason for them to really know in those days).
Just a guess (SWAG), but I think that it is highly unlikely that anyone (including the BLM) could lay “claim” to any portion of Section 28 that was NOT included (embraced) within the original boundary of the 1888 Placer, based SOLELY on the mineral lands reservation in the Railroad Patent.
Now whether or not the lands embraced within the boundaries of the 1888 placer are (and have always been) part of the Public Domain, is I suspect the REAL question here. IF the BLM now has control of ALL of the lands in Section 28, then this is probably a moot point anyway. I suppose that the possibility exists, that the area WITHIN the 1888 Placer is in fact unappropriated Public Domain, but I doubt that anybody is going to want to spend the time and expense to force that issue.
So my 2 bits would be....MAYBE Santa Fe Gold does NOT own the mineral estate under the 1888 placer (and never did), but I'll bet they would argue to the contrary, and I suspect that Santa Fe has a defensible title to the mineral estate EVERYWHERE else in Section 28...
I hope that made sense,
Loyal