1. The prayers of both parties to quiet title to the disputed areas in sections 28 and 29, T 40 N, R 35 E, M.D.B.&M

are denied.

is denied.

2. Injunctive relief in support of such asserted title

3. It is declared that as of May 1986 when this case

7

8

9

was tried there had been no valid locations of placer and lode mining claims in the area under dispute and said lands remain in the public domain open to peaceable exploration by anyone

10 until a discovery of valuable mineral is made on a specific clair.

5. Each party shall bear his or its costs of suit.

DATED February 26, 1987.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Crombie. I appreciate the very forthright and very candid manner in which you have testified today expressing many of the problems that the industry faces.

Your statement was most appropriate and I think that it is more important to receive testimony of that nature rather than just a defense of the status quo.

If a company such as yours wished to put together an extensive mining operation on public lands in today's atmosphere and under today's laws, is it accurate to state that you would have to negotiate with a sundry number of small claim holders, perhaps in an attempt to purchase a claim from them to put together your mining operation?

Mr. CROMBIE. The majority of our operations are on claims held by one group or one individual. However, not all of them are. There are places where there are a multitude of people to deal with, and you just have to spend a lot of time negotiating.

Mr. RAHALL. So you are often then charged extortionist prices for these claims?

Mr. CROMBIE. Well, that's sometimes the attitude you adopt after you hear what they want. I mean you can always walk away and you don't have to do it.

Mr. RAHALL. Do you have any information on the extent of these mining claims that are used for nonmining purposes?

Mr. CROMBIE. I don't have any information on that.

Mr. RAHALL. Does anyone on the panel have?

Mr. SNOW. No, sir.

Mr. HILL. No, sir.

Mr. RAHALL. In the last Congress a military lands withdrawal bill was enacted which contained some innovative provisions that allowed hardrock mining to be conducted. Could you elaborate on what these provisions were and how they differed from the Mining Law of 1872?

Mr. HILL. They allowed for a limited patent that I believe is one of the key issues where the military would be uncomfortable with the establishment of a permanent building, particularly a high building on a military reservation where they might be flying or doing some testing. That was the main provision that I can think of at the moment.

Mr. RAHALL. Any other comments?

[No response.]

That concludes my questions.

The gentlemen from Idaho.

Mr. CRAIG. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Gentlemen, we appreciate your testimony.

I gather from all of you that in light of not knowing what might be, you would prefer to stay with what is?

Mr. HILL. Yes.

Mr. SNOW. Yes.

Mr. CROMBIE. Yes.

Mr. CRAIG. But you all recognize that it has problems?

Mr. HILL. Yes.

Mr. SNOW. Yes,

Mr. CROMBIE. Yes.

Mr. CRAIG. And you have placed apparently at the cornerstone of any argument to change the concept of self-initiation?

Mr. SNOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. CROMBIE. Yes, sir.

Mr. CRAIG. What do you base that on?

Mr. SNOW. It's an alternative between a managed society and a free enterprise society. Many of the scientific ideas that are used in exploration are viewed by the prevalent view as cockamamie, and indeed proved to be insightful,

Mr. Livermore's discovery of the Carlin deposit is a good example of that type. Unconventional ideas is what makes scientific breakthroughs, and that's what we are talking about here. This is not the kind of a thing that lends itself to a managed environment.

Mr. CRAIG. And of course the underlying spirit that stimulates that is the chance or the opportunity of success, wealth or the same thing that any marketplace approach tends to-

Mr. SNOW. Indeed, if a mining company wishes to remain in business, it must find new mines, because eventually its' operating ones will be depleted. So it's the life of the industry to find new property. So they are driven by not only the motive to make a profit, but the motive to exist at all.

Mr. CROMBIE. I might interject a little comment here, too. You are very familiar with the economic difficulties and lack of growth experienced by certain Latin American jurisdictions. Their legal system is based on the Napoleonic Code as contrasted with here where it's sort of an English North American system.

In the Napoleonic Code you can't do anything unless somebody says you can. Our's isn't completely the opposite. You can do anything you want unless there is a law saying you can't.

I believe that is one of the fundamental reasons for the economic differences between the two jurisdictions.

Mr. CRAIG. The last panel, I think, in large part agreed with you, that that factor of self-initiation would have to be in any kind of change or any revisiting of the Mining Law.

Beyond that, if we could assume that that was a given, and that could be guaranteed, then we get to a point of surface versus subsurface patents, limited patents. Do you feel patents, or limited patents are absolutely essential in the process?

Mr. SNOW. In my view, the difficulty in raising money without a clear title to the land is the principal issue at stake here. It would be difficult to raise money to reroof your house if you didn't have title to it using the house as collateral. In that regard some entitlement must be obtained to the mineral estate.

Mr. CRAIG. And that, of course, is the basis for patent?

Mr. SNOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. CRAIG. Do you believe if our patent laws were changed to deal with only subsurface and that the surface would be retained in public ownership that it would cause major changes in current withdrawal habits and practices of this Congress?

Mr. SNOW. This is, as you observed, a very political issue. Indeed, it is a land policy issue which is not the topic of this hearing, and yet it's inextricably bound. I don't know. One would hope so.

Mr. CRAIG. If you provided a limited subsurface patent for a period of the minerals existence or the mining process, how would

any of you view a termination clause or how would a termination point be arrived at?

Mr. HILL. I think that is one of the biggest problems with this limited patent as advocated. I think we have to have, in essence, life-long tenure to the claims. You can invest a considerable amount of money and develop ores that are not economic today, but as was pointed out, could be economic tomorrow, to walk away and have someone come in tomorrow and beat you to the punch on that I think is an inequitable situation.

I think we have to have a guarantee one way or another, be it first right of refusal or continued tenure. Once you have discovered a mineral, if you wish to retain it without mining it, then some sort of taxation or some system on that could be instituted.

Mr. SNOW. The cobalt property in your State, Mr. Craig, is a good example. That turned uneconomic in 1980 I think. It won't be long now before 20 years will have expired, and who knows if they will still export $6 cobalt. It would be too bad to have that lost under some kind of an arbitrary time limit.

Mr. CROMBIE. I would just add that our view would be that it would be good to be able to hang on, but I think the industry should pay for the right to do so after a certain period of time so that there is an economic discipline so that you can't just sit after you have exhausted the possibilities just for the sake of sitting in the hopes that somebody else is going to come along and pay you something for it. So after a certain number of years you would have to start paying an annual fee to sit there.

Mr. CRAIG. And all of you would agree with that approach, the last point you made, Mr. Crombie, of an annual fee beyond the point of mineral or exhaustion or something of that nature?

Mr. CROMBIE. For example, let's suppose you developed a mining operation and it operated for a number of years and then you had to close down either because you couldn't find any more ore or because it was uneconomic. After a period of time if you wanted to continue sitting there I would suggest paying an amount of money annually that makes you pay attention.

Mr. CRAIG. How many of you know of individuals or companies who hold patented mining claims of a valuable mineral that is currently marketable in today's economy that is not mining?

Mr. CROMBIE. I know of none.

Mr. SNOW. I can't think of any.

Mr. HILL. None.

Mr. CRAIG. None at all?

Mr. HILL. Why would someone do that?

Mr. CRAIG. Well, we keep being told, or this committee does that there are vast reserves of things just being held out there for whatever reason, and the test I make of you, and I think you responded to, was a resource marketable under today's economics.

Now the reason I asked that question again goes back to the limited patent and the period of time, and I guess then you have partially answered that as it relates to the willingness to pay a fee to hold on because there are times when you have phenomenally valuable metals or mineral or whatever that may be marketable based on the economy or that may not be and that ebbs and flows. I watch it constantly in the mining districts in my State. Our silver

mines are down and they are up and they are down and they are up based on the economy and the economy exclusively.

And yet there are millions and millions of dollars worth of assets and investment tied up on those properties that of course they are secure because they are private properties now. They are patented in large part and they are not public and therefore limited to some discretionary activity on the part of a bureaucrat or a Congress.

Thank you all very much, gentlemen, for your comments.

Mr. RAHALL. Our next panel is composed of Lynn A. Greenwalt, vice president, resources conservation department, National Wildlife Federation; Mr. J. Michael McCloskey, chairman of the Sierra Club; and Mr. Charles H. Callison, public lands consultant.

Mr. Brock Evans, vice president for national issues of the National Audubon Society was originally scheduled to be on the panel but has had to cancel at the last minute.

Let me say that it's interesting to note that we usually have Brooks Yeager and Karl Gawell here representing the Sierra Club and the Wildlife Federation, but it appears today, gentlemen that we have the heavy hitters from these organizations although that's not to say that Brooks and Carl aren't heavy hitters. We welcome you to the subcommittee.

You may proceed as you desire.

PANEL CONSISTING OF LYNN A. GREENWALT, VICE PRESIDENT, RESOURCES CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION; J. MICHAEL MCCLOSKEY, CHAIRMAN, THE SIERRA CLUB; AND CHARLES H. CALLISON, PUBLIC LANDS CONSULTANT

Mr. GREENWALT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me begin. I am Lynn A. Greenwalt, vice president of the National Wildlife Federation and Mr. Gawell's boss, and as his boss, I have some prerogatives, and one of those is being talked into coming up here and making this presentation today. Mr. Gawell was instrumental in preparing my testimony and in convincing me that this would be a good place to come and appear. I'm not altogether sure that was the best advice in the world, but here I am and I'm prepared to make a very brief resume of my statement which I would ask be included in the record.

First of all, I want to thank you for this opportunity to come and present our views on the Mining Law of 1872, an act which needs observation occasionally and will be getting it now and for some time to come, I hope.

The National Wildlife Federation is the Nation's largest conservation education organization with more than 4.6 million members and supporters in 51 States and territories.

We have a long-standing interest in the management of our Nation's lands and resources. Our interest in the stewardship of the public lands compels us to call for significant reforms in the 1872 Mining Law. The need for reform in the 1872 Mining Law has been well established for many years and some discussion has been held here this morning I understand on this subject.

The Mining Law has become a vehicle for abuse of the public lands in several ways.