Northwest Mining Association 4. across unpatented mining claims, deep under- The consequences of eliminating the mining development, mineral deposits discovered, or The proponents of H.R. 918 appear to ignore the implications of a taking of this magnitude, and the consequent major claims against the government for a taking without compensation under the Constitution. Before undertaking to destroy these property values, the Subcommittee should make further inquiry regarding the economic consequences of this precipitous action. The Association does not believe that many, if any, individuals or companies will be enticed into attempting to operate under the new "concession system" proposed in H.R. 918. Inherent in the program are rapidly escalating costs, lack of assurance of being able to mine a mineral deposit that has been discovered, with a very real likelihood that the necessary clearances to operate will take interminable periods of time, with the absolute right of the agencies involved to prohibit mining, and then to terminate mining at any time based upon conditions not known or anticipated at the time the mine is financed and developed. In addition, the program requires the "concessionaire" to underwrite restoration of historic mine-related damage caused by prior parties. The Bill also provides for a dual and duplicative recordkeeping system, which will require reference to two separate agencies to determine the status of lands for purposes of mining, in effect destroying the unitary set of records that was supposed to be part of the Organic Act. It will prove almost impossible for a responsible mine operator to justify the high expenditure for discovery of a mineable deposit, if the deposit cannot be mined when discovered. It is the current view of the Association that the new concession system is not workable, and will not foster and encourage private enterprise in development of mineral resources, but will instead prove prohibitive. Northwest Mining Association There is no simple way to make a workable program out of H.R. 918 and no amendments that could be suggested that would improve it, since its basic concepts are totally erroneous. The Bill should be rejected out of hand. The Northwest Mining Association, whose members are primarily westerners, are used to plain talk, and believe the Congress should say what it means. If it has now become the policy of the federal government to prohibit all future mining upon the public lands, and to terminate further mining activity on existing claims effective upon enactment of H.R. 918, and to expropriate all existing mining claims without compensation, Congress should so state. The Congress should not engage in double-talk and Newspeak, but instead say what it means. Northwest Mining Association April 15, 1991 To. Northwest Mining Association Officers, Trustees and Members There are currently two bills pending in Congress to repeal the existing claim location laws and to substitute a new system for acquiring mining rights on public lands. The two bills are the Bumpers 3:11 $ 411 Introduced in the Senate, and the Rahall Bill, MR. 918. Introduced in the House of Representatives. These are both modified versions of the bills introduced in the last session of Congress and contain some significant modifications from the first proposala Each of the bills has the effect of eliminating all existing unpatented claims at the end of three years although there are various provisions permitting conversion or pre-emptive rights to locate new "claims as they are defined in the new bills Neither of the bills provides for patenting, eliminating any future right to obtain title as has been the practice for over a century and a quarter Also pending is a proposal of the Bureau of Land Management to publiah regulations regarding use and occupancy of unpatented mining claims, with numerous restrictions upon what work or improvements could be done or maintained on the claims The proposals in Congress and in the Bureau of Land Management are proceeding with a view that somehow unpatented mining claims are simply claims, sometimes with a minimum amount of exploration effort expended substantially ignoring the actual practices of the industry in use of unpatented mining claims In order to assist the Northwest Mining Association in dealing with the issues raised, we would ask each member to cooperate by furnishing specific, or non-specific, information regarding existing uses of unpatented mining claims that will be disrupted by invalidation of the claims, or will be inhibited by naive regulations regarding use or occupancy. Please respond to the Association, as soon as possible, with answers to the following specific areas of inquiry. 1 Do you or your organization currently claim ore reserves at mineral reserves in unpatented claims, whether winable direct or by lateral entry from patented claims? 2 Do you or your organization know of significant surface improvements, either being used in operations, or usable in operationa such as crushing and beneficiation plants, explosive storage facilities, warehouses and machine shops, waste or tailings disposal areas, or other improvements that have been made for aining purposes on lands that are unpatented claims? 3. 4. Do you or your organization know of instances of required access across unpatented claims, either on the surface or underground, that could be lost if the claims were invalidated? In some instances this may be underground access to satisfy the safety requirements of MSHA. There may be powerlines and pipelines involved as well. What problems would be created under existing contracts committing you or your organization to maintain unpatented mining claims for thirdparties that will arise if the unpatented claims are invalidated? Your prompt response to these inquiries will be much appreciated so that the Association can formulate an appropriate position in regard to the pending legislative and administrative proposals. John L. Neff, Chairman Mining Law Committee JLN: kaw Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Wright. Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the committee. For 17 years, I have made my living in hardrock mining in the West as a miner, as an engineer, and as a geologist. I am what Carl Mayer refers to in his wonderful book as a small miner as a myth. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am here today as a small miner, and there are a lot of small miner myths just like me back home. But, Mr. Chairman, above all I am honored to appear before this august group and present my detailed written statement as well as to give the following oral summary today. H.R. 918 would abolish the foundation concept of discovery, convert to a whole new Mining Law working on a pay-as-you-go basis regardless, regardless of real mineral discovery. I can't understand that. H.R. 918 leaves the successful finder of minerals at the mercy of market vagaries. Yet it offers no guaranteed commodity prices to ensure the miner's development and production. H.R. 918 would institute new fees and cost increases, huge im pediments to just getting started. Isn't it better to take small bites out of one's pocketbook and measure their effects than to take a big chunk all at once? Reforms in the Mining Law are needed, but these can be made under the current general Mining Law. Discovery is at the core of the current law, and it is not rotten to the core, as some have said, for discovery is precious. Just ask anyone who has ever made a real mineral discovery. Ridding the law of discovery sends the message it does not matter whether a mineral discovery has been made, mineral activity and environmental degradation can take place anyway. That, ladies and gentlemen, could actually foster such abuses as investment scams and fraudulent discovery, and promote needless environmental disturbance. Where minerals are rare and hard to find, like tungsten or zinc, I think discovery is absolutely essential, and reward is appropriate for the one who finds them. But where minerals are common and easy to find, like coal or oil, sure it is appropriate to lease them. This bill really only countenances the location of land, not minerals. Under its approach there would be no such thing as a locatable mineral, only a distinction between lands leasable under the 1920 act or under H.R. 918. The motive for abolishing discovery and reward is puzzling. It seems that discovery is difficult to deal with in a legal context, and perhaps the legal solution is to simply do away with discovery. Yet discovery in fact really does take place regardless of its legal context. The injustice done to real discovery becomes a central issue then, an issue of justice. Mining Law reform should go back to discovery. It is the entire motivation and reward for prospecting and mining. Do not abandon discovery out of exasperation. Raise the concept of discovery as the high standard to which we may all repair. As Washington said in the 1789 Constitutional Convention, to paraphrase him, if the mining law, or a mining law is offered by our Congress of which we miners ourselves do not approve, how can we miners and our lawmakers afterwards defend ourselves. |