Case 3:15-cv-00491-MMD-VPC Document 22 Filed 10/23/15 Page 40 of 46 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 protected. 30 U.S.C. § 26; Indep. Mining Co., Inc. v. Babbitt, 105 F.3d 502, 506 (9th Cir. 1997); see also 80 Fed. Reg. at 57,637 (the segregation is subject to valid existing rights). If Plaintiffs have located unpatented mining claims but have not discovered a valuable mineral deposit, they have no “rights” that can be injured by segregation.

But Granite Rock gave effect to state permitting laws having nothing to do withtitle. (480 U.S.at p. 576.) Moreover,there is nothing in section 26 concerning possessory title that would override section 22’s requirement that miners comply with “regulations prescribed by law” when mining. . Rinehart’s position finds no support from an isolated statement in Butte City Water Co. v. Baker (1905) 196 U.S. 119, 125, that, with respect to mining, the state cannot “impos[e] conditions so onerousas to be repugnantto the liberal spirit of the Congressional laws.”

Although a person with a valid “unpatented” mining claim obtains exclusive rights to the subsurface and surface area within that site for mining purposes, the United States retainstitle to the land and the right to manage the surface resources. (30 U.S.C. §§ 26, 612; Granite Rock, supra, 480 U.S.at p. 575.)' ““TN]o right arises from an invalid claim.’” (United States v. Locke (1985) 471 U.S. 84, 105.)

A valid claim affords its holder the right to possess, occupy, and extract minerals from federal lands. 30 U.S.C. § 26; Mineral Policy Ctr. v. Norton, 292 F. Supp. 2d 30, 47 (D.D.C. 2003).