Land use planning should be used to introduce flexibility into the hard rock situation so that all lands are not simply totally withdrawn or totally open. In closing, we would like to offer for the record three documents that we have commissioned-that is, our group, Public Resource Associates. One is a memo on problems with pre-discovery tenure under the existing system by Kenneth Lee; second, a study of po tential gross revenues from hard rock royalties by John Wells; and third, an analysis of a number of foreign countries' mining systems in comparison to that of the United States by John Lacey. This is going to be revised, Mr. Chairman, and I think it will be of interest to you and the other Congressmen because this issue has been raised already today and at prior hearings where I think there is some misunderstanding about what foreign laws are, and also comment on what they are is oversimplified by just expressing opinions as to whether there is a royalty or not a royalty and not realizing that it is far more complicated than that and involves not just com paring whether there is a royalty or not but whether there is sev erance tax, whether there is a national or provincial tax, what the income tax provisions are of foreign laws. So we are in the process of drawing up such a treatise, and we would be happy to submit it to you in addition to the one that I mentioned. I would also like to invite your renewed attention to an essay called, "Self-Initiation: The hard rock miner's right," by Thomas S. Barrett, who works with the Public Resource Associates, which was entered in the record of your 1987 oversight hearing. Finally, Mr. Chairman, we would be most happy to work with the committee and your staff in clarifying any of these studies or putting into appropriate legislative language our suggestions and to be helpful in any other way we can. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [Prepared statement of Mr. Livermore, with attachment, follows:] STATEMENT OF PUTNAM LIVERMORE ON Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Putnam Livermore. I am an attorney in San Francisco, with over thirty years' experience as an attorney working in the field of natural resources, including hardrock mining, geothermal energy and other public lands issues. I have also served on the national boards of, and as an attorney for, conservation organizations involved with the protection of critical natural areas. Today, I am appearing as president of Public Resource Associates, a small group that, beginning some years prior to your Mining Law oversight hearing in June 1987, and continuing, has been doing and commissioning research, and exchanging views with miners, environmentalists, federal and state government officials and others, in the hope of developing consensus on desirable and/or acceptable changes in the Mining Law of 1872. We have made substantial progress. Mr. Chairman, the central controversy about changing that Law is rooted in some environmentalists' determination, on one hand, to protect not only environmentally critical natural areas but as much of the rest of the public lands as possible and the industry's necessity, on the other hand, to have reasonable access to all possible public lands for exploration and their use for production of metals vital to the industry's survival and to the nation's economy and security. What we believe your Committee and the Congress want is a Bill that will meet the demands of both sides in a way that will provide both sides with improvements over their PUBLIC RESOURCE ASSOCIATES current situations, without unnecessarily or unfairly penalizing either side. It can be done--and in a way that both sides will be better served than under the present Law. This would be a win-win situation. But H.R. 918, I regret to say, does not so far achieve it. Despite some very good features, it comes out weighted against one side, namely, the mining industry, instead of being the balanced win-win vehicle it might be. Wanting to be constructive, I will undertake in this statement to explain that conclusion and to make suggestions for changes that could achieve the fairness and balance we believe you are basically seeking, Mr. Chairman, that are sorely needed in the national interest, and without which our group cannot support the Bill. First, though, I would like to point very succinctly to some of the Bill's positive features, which should be kept in any new legislation. They are: (1) Retention of the principle of self-initiation, and rejection of a leasing system, to govern exploration and claimstaking for hardrock minerals on the public lands. This is of fundamental importance to a viable hardrock mining industry for this country. (2) Elimination of the surface patent, so that the surface would remain in public ownership after mining. This is of great importance to the environmental community. We recommend a provision for a patent, based on a discovery, limited to minerals only. (3) Creation of a single type of claim, of forty acres, tied PUBLIC RESOURCE ASSOCIATES to land surveys, in place of the old lode and placer claims and tunnel and mill sites, and elimination of extralateral rights and "uncommon varieties" claims--while, in fairness, preserving the original configuration and rights of existing claims. This will help simplify both the Mining Law and its administration. (4) Inclusion of Section 201(c)(2), making for further simplicity on the ground by having the new law supersede State laws--though I urge that state reclamation laws not be superseded. (5) Elimination of the confusing concepts of "pedis possessio" and "discovery" as requirements to hold a claim during the exploration period, and the substitution of a secure type of tenure for claim holders. Although many in the mining community have opposed this change, we believe that is because their spokesmen have generally chosen to oppose all change in the Law and have failed to concede the advantages of particular changes. (6) Very importantly, the provision in Section 201(b) (2) (B) for a notice approach for initial test drilling, rather than requiring an approved plan of operations at that stage. After all, Mr. Chairman, the essence of self-initiation is more than simply being allowed to put stakes in the ground. amounts of assessment work required to hold a claim, i.e., requiring increased diligence to reflect a bona fide exploration effort, rather than virtually condoning the practice of just PUBLIC RESOURCE ASSOCIATES sitting on a claim indefinitely. However, with great respect, I must say that the dollar amounts in H.R. 918 are unrealistically and unnecessarily high and would be particularly unfair to the small prospector/miner. (9) Inclusion of exploration, reclamation and environmental studies in an expanded definition of assessment work. This has advantages to all; among other things, it will help reclaim and improve past mining areas and encourage direct environmental improvement by exploration and mining companies. (10) Provision of a liberalized group assessment work feature for contiguous claims. This would be welcomed by explorationists. However, the group should have some limit, say, 1000 acres of reasonably compact size that would include all claims, contiguous or not, that benefit the exploration effort. This would prevent an existing producer from spreading assessment work over an entire mineral trend. Excess expenditures in one year might be carried forward for a period of time, say three years. (11) Imposition of a land rental, and optional cash payments in lieu of land-disturbing assessment work after the initial exploration has been completed, rather than a royalty urged by some but which there are sound reasons for omitting, not least of which is the fact that a recent Department of the Interior study concluded that the imposition of a royalty would cost the Government more money than it would bring in. (12) Imposition of penalties for knowingly and willfully filing false diligence statements. |