not talking about existing wilderness areas or special reserves already set aside then the whole public should participate in a process to determine whether, and how, mining might proceed. If mining was determined to be allowed to proceed, of course, the miner who initiated the exploration should have the rights to it, again, under strict supervision. We commend this Committee for undertaking to explore this very difficult subject. We have some difficulty with it too, as you can see. But we are certainly willing to continue to work with you and others to see if we can modernize this important law. Thank you. 521 F Mr. RAHALL. Mr. McCloskey, would you like to comment on that? Mr. MCCLOSKEY. The part that I guess I would like to comment on is the idea of self-initiation. It seems to me that it has two different implications, one of which we can accept and one of which we can't. The part that we can accept is the idea that the moving party in terms of initiating a process should be the private miner. We have no objection to that. Where we part company is the idea, as it was defined by the Public Resource Foundation, that self-initiation means that you can go the whole process without a permit. Now we think that whenever major disturbance to the environment is contemplated there should be a permit, and I suppose that is where we part company, but we don't embrace the motion that nothing should happen until the Government controlling the leasing decides to put something up for lease. Mr. RAHALL. Thank you. Just a second. The gentleman from Idaho. Mr. CRAIG. One more question, and that goes back to your point two of your four-point suggestion, Mr. Greenwalt, when you talked about repealing patenting provisions. I am assuming you would-well, let me not assume. Is that retroactive or from the passage of the law forward? Mr. GREENWALT. I think as a practical matter and then keeping with the standard way society does these things, this is not retroactive. I find it a little difficult to see how one might take private property away from someone whose property has been private for some time. When you ask me the question in precisely that fashion, I'm uncertain as to why it would be advantageous to deprive owners of private property after the fact in a circumstance like this. Now retroactivity perhaps in terms of the requirement to fix the mine site subsequent to the completion of the mining activity obviously should run perhaps to retroactivity, but I'm not sure that it's good public policy necessarily simply to in essence expropriate public property. Mr. CRAIG. The reason I asked that question is because I know on occasion we have through condemnation and a variety of other approaches when we have contemplated and ultimately legislated withdrawals taking private property away from landowners as supposedly just compensation and oftentimes not. Mr. GREENWALT. Condemnation presupposes some kind of compensation just presumably because that is what the law requires, but if retroactivity in the nature of your question said no, that title to this person's land will be taken from him, I can't agree that that's a good idea under any circumstance. Mr. CRAIG. Thank you. Mr. RAHALL. Panel IV is comprised of the American Mining Congress. Mr. David W. Delcour, vice president, Amax Mineral Resources Company, and chairman, AMC Public Lands Committee; Graham M. Clark, Jr., vice president, Newmont Mining Corporation; Stanley Dempsey, president, Royal Gold, Incorporated; Charles C. Dietrich, consultant; and Jerry L. Haggard of Evans, Kitchel and Jenckes. Gentlemen, you may proceed as you wish. PANEL FROM THE AMERICAN MINING CONGRESS CONSISTING OF DAVID W. DELCOUR, VICE PRESIDENT, AMAX MINERAL RESOURCES CO., AND CHAIRMAN, AMC PUBLIC LANDS COMMITTEE; STANLEY DEMPSEY, PRESIDENT, ROYAL GOLD, INC.; GRAHAM M. CLARK, JR., VICE PRESIDENT, NEWMONT MINING CORP.; CHARLES C. DIETRICH, CONSULTANT, AMERICAN MINING CONGRESS; AND JERRY L. HAGGARD, ESQ., EVANS, KITCHEL & JENCKES Mr. DELCOUR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. My name is David Delcour. I'm vice president of Amax Mineral Resources Company, but appear here today as chairman of the American Mining Congress Public Lands Committee. The American Mining Congress is the principal trade association of the mining industry in the United States. Its member companies mine and process a large proportion of the minerals produced in this country from public lands. Mr. Chairman, with your approval, we would each like to summarize our statements and request that the full text of our remarks be included in the hearing record. Mr. RAHALL. Yes, that is very good, and all the prepared testimonies will be made part of the record. Mr. DELCOUR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is our understanding that you have convened this hearing to take testimony on how well the General Mining Law serves the Nation and the mining industry. In our most recent declaration of policy we renewed our support for retention of the General Mining Law. We particularly support self-initiated exploration and security of title in the event of discovery. The policy notes that in contrast to the general mining law, leasing with its attendant rule-makings, environmental clearances and exposure to delaying litigation would discourage and reduce mineral exploration and would preclude many individuals and small firms from activities on public lands. The American Mining Congress believes there are four concepts that are basic to any realistic and effective Mining Law. First, prospecting for minerals should be encouraged by allowing individuals and companies maximum and non-exclusive access to the public lands to search for mineralization. Second, a prospector should be given exclusive exploration rights for any particular area for the time he is focusing detailed exploration attention on it. Third, a person who discovers a viable mineral deposit should have an exclusive right to develop and mine it, including the right to defer such development for a reasonable period of years until economic or technological conditions justify production. Finally, the law must provide a mining venture with security of tenure for the duration of mining on terms reasonably set in ad vance. The existing General Mining Law serves these objectives admirably and, as will be demonstrated by our panelists, does so without thwarting other important public policy objectives. Over the years the deficiencies of a leasing system have become apparent to many, including some who were leasing enthusiasts. Accordingly, it is not our purpose to restate the case against leasing. Rather, we have assembled a panel of mining law and public land law experts, each of whom has had considerable experience with the General Mining Law. Our first panelist is Mr. Stanley Dempsy, president of Royal Gold, Incorporated. He is a geologist and an attorney who has worked actively in the mining industry for 30 years. He has served as president of the Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation and is chairman of the Colorado Mining Association. He has served as a chief executive or chief operating officer of mining companies in both the United States and Australia. He will present a general overview of how the mining law serves both mineral development and public interest. Our second panelist is Mr. Graham Clark, vice president and western general council of Newmont Mining Corporation. He has practiced law extensively in the areas of natural resources and land use planning. Since 1973 he has worked with three major nonferrous mining companies. Mr. Clark's testimony will deal with the effectiveness of the Mining Law in relation to the current exploration and development activities with an emphasis on the current boom in Nevada gold production. Our third panelist will be Mr. Charles Dietrich, an attorney practicing in the field of natural resource law with offices in Sausalito, California. For 25 years he was legal counsel for Utah International, a mining company headquartered in San Francisco with operations throughout the world. He serves as chairman of the Mining Congress' Coal Leasing Committee and is the current president of the Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation. His testimony will focus on the responsiveness of the Mining Law to environmental concerns, including some of the ones that we have just heard addressed and the relationship between environmental protection and land tenure. Our final panelist will be Mr. Jerry Haggard, a partner with the Phoenix, Arizona law firm of Evans, Kitchel & Jenckes. He specializes in natural resource environmental land matters. He has been a commissioner of the Arizona Environmental Planning Commission and was in fact staff attorney for the Public land Law Review Commission. Currently he serves as a trustee of the Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation. His testimony will address the relationship between the Mining Law and the modern public land management and land use control. Mr. Chairman, just let me say in conclusion that the American Mining Congress believes the Mining Law to be one of the most ingenious pieces of public policy every formulated in the United States. Its endurance is testimony to its flexibility and responsiveness. It has accommodated a series of mineral booms and busts and continues to do so. It has accommodated pervasive environmental regulation and modern land use planning. In so doing it has spawned a comprehensive and predictable body of law. In short, it works. |