areas not actually under development; (3) make claims automatically lapse to the status of open public land unless filing of annual assessment work is done; (4) claims to be void if patent or production of minerals is not accomplished within 5 years; (5) prohibit refiling for 3 years of relinquished claim by former claimant. 5. Patenting of mining claims is unnecessarily slow, expensive, and bothersome. When the holder of a mining claim seeks to patent it, he runs into unnecessary difficulties due, primarily, to the mining law. Since mining claims can be located on unsurveyed land and lode claims are necessarily located without conformity to legal subdivisions in surveyed areas, a mineral survey is usually necessary before the land can be described accurately. Conflicts with other mining claims not previous evident, because of the lack of adequate filing, often come to light. Applications for patent must be advertised, which often results in more conflicts and lawsuits. The claims must be examined for valid discovery and for making the necessary improvements. The whole process is time consuming (see attached statement for further details). Possible solution.-Greatly simplify law and regulations, as well as adopt other suggestions made above. 6. Prolonged and expensive legal controversies are common. In addition to the legal problems and controversies arising out of features of the mining law, cited above, much controversy has arisen over the extralateral rights' feature of the present mining law. The owner of a claim is entitled to follow his vein laterally even though his operations extend under ground owned by others. Miners have filed many conflicting and overlapping claims in order to gain valuable extralateral rights, leading to extended legal controversy. Possible solution.-(1) Abolish all extralateral rights for new claims, giving title or use only to a large area bounded by vertical planes from the surface area; (2) abolish all distinction between lode and placer claims for new claims, and make new claim boundaries conform to legal subdivisions in surveyed areas, or to north-south and east-west boundaries in unsurveyed areas; (3) permit owners of adjoining claims to buy small (up to 5 acres) tracts isolated by other mining claims. In addition to the above it has been suggested that the requirements of valid discovery be liberalized. If the foregoing suggestions were adopted so that land claimed for mining had to be actually used for mining, and if later suggestions were adopted so that mining would not be the excuse for getting land for other purposes, then the present requirements for establishing a valid discovery would no longer be so necessary. HOW PRESENT MINING LAWS INTERFERE WITH OTHER LAND USES The mining laws are only a small part of the total United States land laws. Other laws provide for getting land for agricultural purposes, as do the homestead, desert land, and similar laws; or for leasing certain minerals, as oil and gas, coal, phosphate, potash, and the like; or for acquisition of timber or forage from Government land, as do the Taylor Grazing Act and acts providing for the sale of timber; or for acquisition or use of small areas for recreation. Each of these laws sets up conditions for obtaining the land or its use, and specifies areas and conditions of use, each appropriate to the particular use. Congress and the public considered the needs of these uses in establishing the conditions for their use. The mining laws have in practice been widely used to thwart the purposes of other land laws and to deprive people entitled to land use under other laws of their lawful rights. They have hindered and made more costly the Government's use of the public domain for the national defense. In practice, most mining claims are not located for mining purposes, but for other reasons. The holder of a valid unpatented mining claim obtains use of its surface, and of as much of the timber and forage thereon as needed for his mining operations. Frequently he uses his claim primarily for nonmining purposes. The owner of a patented mining claim gets fee title to all surface and subsurface resources. The ways in which mining claims interfere with other land uses can best be considered by looking at the various kinds of mining claims, as follows: 1. Invalid claims.-One of the most common devices to obtain use of Federal lands is to file a mining claim. It may be valid, but this must be proved. Another private person may "jump" it if he can prove that the first claimant does not have a valid discovery, or has not done the necessary location and assessment work. The Federal Government can move to declare it invalid as a practical matter only if it needs the area for some definite public program; because, unless the area is withdrawn, an invalid claim can be relocated immediately which would start the whole legal process over again. While the right of the holder of any invalid claim are very limited, such claims have great nuisance value. They can be and often are used to deny other persons access to an area. They can be and often are used as the basis for grazing livestock; for business enterprises, such as filling stations; and for recreational uses, for harvesting timber, and the like. While most of these uses are illegal because the claim in not valid, yet they occur and require time-consuming and expensive procedures to correct; and they may be effective against poorly informed or poorly financed people, or even against the Federal Government for several years. For a discussion of some of the better known and more flagrant cases, see one of the addenda hereto. 2. Valid, but not bona fide claims.--In a great many parts of the West it is possible to locate a mining claim that will qualify as valid under the mining laws but which will never be profitable, and is never expected to be profitable. Such a claim can be held unpatented indefinitely, or can be patented by expenditure of the necessary time and money. Though valid, it is not bona fide; the real purpose is not mining, but timber, or grazing, or recreation, or tourist trade. Such claims are most common with placers, for many western streams contain enough "color" to qualify for valid placer claims. By using mining claims in this way, the purpose and intent of other land laws is defeated, and other legitimate would-be users of land are deprived of their rights. For a discussion of how this has operated on the national forests in California, see one of the addenda hereto. The effect upon the mining industry is serious also. Not only does the mining industry get a bad reputation with other groups, such as conservationists, but the Federal agencies responsible for land administration naturally often have reason to regard every mining claim with suspicion. Under present mining laws, the only way to prevent or minimize such abuses is for the Federal agencies to insist on full compliance with valid discovery and necessary improvement, and this results in further delays in patenting. Possible solutions to the two above types of problems.—(1) The earlier proposals for recordation, lapsing to public-land status of claims not maintained in good standing, higher assessment work, etc., would reduce the numbers of both invalid and valid, but not bona fide claims; and (2) if patent to mining claims gave right or title only to minerals and only to so much of the surface as actually needed for mining operations, while permitting use of surface by other persons and for other purposes, most of the profit from invalid or valid, not bona fide claims, would vanish, and thus also the temptation to locate them. 3. Valid bona fide mining claims of low value.—In many western areas it is possible to locate mining claims that can be and are actually used for mining purposes, but that are marginal or low-profit enterprises. In many instances such mines do not harm and should be encouraged. Other claims, particularly placer claims, may lead to substantial destruction of other values. Silt in streams may destroy fish and recreation values, and cause trouble to irrigation or other works lower on the stream. Other areas may be torn up and essentially destroyed. The values created by mining may be far less than the values destroyed by it. Possible solutions.-Require measures to keep silt out of streams, and require restoration of the surface of any areas torn up for mining purposes; or require an appraisal of mineral as against other values to determine highest use of land. LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN THE MINING LAWS In any consideration of the mining laws and their revision, several groups have a legitimate interest. 1. The mining industry obviously is directly concerned with mining laws. Miners and prospectors want the opportunity to go upon the public lands to search for minerals, to mine any minerals found, and to make a profit if they are fortunate enough to discover and develop a profitable deposit. These motives are perfectly proper, and the mining industry should be encouraged in development of minerals on the public lands. Opportunity should be held open to large and small operators alike. They also want security of their investment, which they believe requires patenting of mining claims. 2. Foresters and lumbermen are concerned in forested areas that mining claims not be used as a means of getting timber from Federal land, or as a means of preventing their access to timber. 3. Livestock men are concerned that mining claims be not used as a device for getting forage from Federal land or as a device for blocking them off from springs or other livestock watering facilities. 4. The general public is concerned that mining claims not be used to block them from enjoyment of the public lands, and that mining shall not destroy the recreational values of the public lands. 5. The Federal land administrators are concerned that mining claims shall be used for mining purposes only and that they shall not interfere with sound administration of the Federal lands under other applicable laws with their use for Federal purposes. Miners should have every reasonable security in order to develop minerals, but mining claims should not be used as a device to obtain patent for other purposes. ADDENDA 1. Statement by Hoover Commission Task Force on National Resources on mineral resources, on need for revision of mining laws, and on recommendations for revision (pp. 50-56). 2. The location and use of mining claims for purposes other than mininga statement prepared by the Bureau of Land Management, February 1949. 3. The mining claim problem in the national forests of California-a statement prepared by the Bureau of Land Management summarizing a report prepared by the Forest Service. 4. Major provisions of laws of nine States governing disposition of minerals in State lands-a summary tabulation prepared by the Bureau of Land Management, March 1949. 5. Memorandum on requirements of mining laws for patenting of lode and placer claims, and on suggestions for simplification of the patenting process. 6. Memorandum on extralateral rights problems under mining law. 7. Analysis and language of a draft bill to revise the mining laws. EXTRACTS FROM HOOVER COMMISSION REPORT A. FEDERAL AGENCIES CONCERNED WITH MINERAL RESOURCES The Geological Survey and the Bureau of Mines in the Department of the Interior share the major responsibility for the Federal program in mineral resources. The Survey and the Bureau carry on their activities under a coordinated program without objectionable duplication. The invasion of their major fields of activity by other Federal agencies is limited. However, at least 25 Federal agencies are concerned with mineral resources, and many of these are carrying on statistical and economic investigations of mineral resources, mining, industries based on minerals, and of the domestic and international commerce growing out of this important segment of our economy." The Department of Commerce, the State Department, the Tariff Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Army and Navy Departments, and other agencies have made extensive studies in this area. These activities frequently involve extensive duplication, which could be avoided by calling on the Geological Survey or the Bureau of Mines for all such services. The scientific and technical work performed by these two agencies is of a high order and of great value to the Nation. They are now headed by able men who command the respect of the mining and metallurgical professions. Continued support and steady maintenance of their current activities are certainly warranted, but expansion is hardly needed except to meet calls for technical service from other organizations such as the Atomic Energy Commission for special statistical and economic investigations, and for the expanded hydrological investigations recommended elsewhere in the report. 1 This section of the report is supported by appendix 17, Additional Data on Problems Relating to Minerals. 2 These agencies are listed in appendix 17. B. NEED FOR INTENSIVE EXPLORATION A pressing need of the Nation is a more adequate supply of a long list of minerals to support and strengthen our industrial economy and to insure our national security. Hence encouragement of exploration should be the principal objective of the policies dealing with minerals and fuels on the public domain. Maintenance of the Nation's mineral reserves requires not only the discovery of concealed ore bodies in old districts but the finding of ore bodies in entirely new regions where signs of ore or evidence of conditions favorable for mineralization are not sufficient to have induced adequate exploration. To accomplish these ends, improved scientific knowledge of the occurrence of mineral deposits is essential and more refined techniques for testing areas for them must be devised. The Geological Survey and the Bureau of Mines should be given adequate support to continue energetically their work in this field. Improvements in methods of extraction, concentration, and benefication, which lead to reduction of costs and of losses of metals, increase the reserves of ore by making it profitable to exploit low-grade and complex deposits. This field in particular will continue to offer rich opportunities for the technical staff of the Bureau of Mines. Progress in efforts to make the best use of the mineral resources and to provide against disastrous lack of critical materials is necessarily slow. Results are cumulative, sustained effort on the part of the Geological Survey and the Bureau of Mines is essential. The need for maintaining personnel and specific projects for adequate periods of time should be recognized and emphasized when appropriations are made. The minerals and fuels that are vital in the Nation's economy may be divided into three classes: (1) Those in relative abundance within our borders, which include iron, copper, lead, zinc, and molybdenum as well as coal and petroleum; (2) those that can be obtained from domestic sources only at considerably greater cost than foreign production and not in adequate quantity or quality to meet the Nation's full needs include bauxite, manganese, chromium, tungsten, and mercury which may be mentioned as examples; and (3) those such as nickel and tin that appear to be lacking without our boundaries in deposits that offer any hope for significant production. For the exploration, development, and exploitation of deposits in the first class, private enterprise can be relied upon in the future, as in the past, to meet the Nation's needs, provided that the normal incentive of profits commensurate with the risks inherent in such enterprise is not destroyed through excessive taxes or arbitrary controls. The activities of Government agencies with regard to the development and exploration of such deposits should be restricted to provision of geologic and other scientific data concerning the occurrence of the ores and nonmetallic minerals, and to provision of technical data on mining and metallurgic operations with special emphasis on their engineering aspects. More direct aid-such as drilling, deep drainage tunnels, and pilot plants for metallurgical study-should be confined to special cases where the danger of loss of ore, or the magnitude of the operation in relation to the scale of individual holding might justify such assistance. For deposits in the second category, governmental exploration and development of mines and the actual support of operations may be justified on the grounds that (a) the position of the country with regard to reserves might be notably improved by such work and (b) the preservation of mines and mills on such deposits provides a certain measure of protection if foreign supplies were cut off by war. In such cases, more positive exploration activities on the part of both the Geological Survey and the Bureau of Mines are justified, as is provision of a domestic price sufficiently above world markets to furnish an adequate incentive for maintaining operations. With regard to ores in the third class, results to date offer practically no grounds for expecting that significant deposits will be found. New discoveries or prospects naturally should be investigated, but extreme and costly efforts to find ore where there is little reason to expect its existence should be discouraged. Reliance on imports of such minerals cannot be avoided. Expenditure of money on elaborate surveys, tests, and drilling campaigns for such deposits by the Geological Survey or the Bureau of Mines should not be permitted. C. RECOMMENDATIONS To promote these general objectives, a consistent policy with regard to mineral exploration and development, technical aid to mining and metallurgy, taxes, tariffs, stock piles, and other factors should be adopted and followed. 1. Organization of mineral resource functions With regard to the mineral resource functions considered by this committee, few changes in the organization of the Geological Survey or the Bureau of Mines seem necessary. The following recommendations are designed to emphasize certain assignments of duties which seem desirable. 1. Consolidation under the direction of the Geological Survey of all responsibility for mapping, geological study, and exploration for mineral resources on public lands, and for administering all phases of the mining and mineral leasing laws, except the following, which are to be the function of a reorganized General Land Office; the issuing and recording of leases, patents, easements, and other evidences of rights to minerals in Federal lands; the collection of rentals, royalties, fees, and penalties as assessed and allocated by the Geological Survey; and the legal interpretation of the mining and mineral leasing laws after consultation with the Geological Survey. 2. Consolidation in the Economics and Statistics Branch of the Bureau of Mines of all responsibility for the collection and economic interpretation of data on mineral resources, mining operations, and the international reserves and movements of metals and minerals. This will require transfer to this branch of responsibility for studies now widely scattered throughout numerous Government agencies, such as the Department of Commerce, the Tariff Commission, and the National Security Resources Board. The Economics and Statistics Branch should make all provisions necessary to insure the highest standards of reliability in gathering mineral and production statistics, in conducting economic studies, and in publishing the results in a form that will meet the basic and, insofar as possible, the special needs of all other Federal agencies, the mineral industries, and the public generally. 2. Revision of mining laws Mineral deposits in Federal public lands are subject to disposal under the mining law of 1872 and the mineral leasing law of 1920. The mineral patent system, under which outright ownership of mines can be acquired, has remained unchanged since its enactment on May 10, 1872. Under it, prospecting of the public domain has been extensive. Protection has been assured to claims on which a discovery has been made while exploration and development to establish the value of the discovery were carried on. The discoverer has been eventually rewarded by grant of title by patent to a holding of prescribed size. The system has worked well, and the committee favors the retention of location and patenting for the mineral deposits to which it now applies. In general, the leasing law likewise is suitable and acceptable for the various bedded deposits that it governs, and no fundamental changes are recommended. However, the committee also believes that there are some definite benefits to be obtained through certain revisions, especially in the laws by which title to mineral deposits on the public domain is granted or by which the right to remove minerals is obtained. Evidences of need for revision of these laws are: 1. The steady decline in the number of mineral claims patented, from approximately 2,500 in 1905 when applications for mineral patents were at the peak to an annual rate of less than 100 in recent years. 2. The inapplicability of the law to concealed deposits because of its requirement of exposure of valuable minerals in order to establish a valid claim. Most of the valuable minerals with surface exposure have probably already been discovered; however, concealed deposits of unknown but possibly great proportions remain to be explored and utilized. 3. Lack of provisions for adequate protection of the heavy investment required for subsurface exploration during a period of sufficient length to establish clear title. 4. The liberal provisions of the mineral laws which permit the acquisition of surface rights in additions to subsurface mineral rights have opened the way to the filing of numerous claims to secure valuable surface rights under the guise of mineral claims. 5. The present law, by omitting requirements that the Federal Government be notified when claims are filed and that claims be surveyed prior to patenting, has led to extensive overlapping of claims, caused expensive litigation, retarded mineral exploration, and restricted legitimate mining operations. 6. The requirements for "discovery," both in establishing rights to original claim and in obtaining a patent, as currently interpreted, make it legally impossible to obtain rights or titles to many important types of deposits. The proposed changes would waive the need for discovery as a requirement for hold |