COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MORRIS K. UDALL, Arizona, Chairman GEORGE MILLER, California JAMES MCCLURE CLARKE, North Carolina JOHN LEWIS, Georgia BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa JAMES A. MCDERMOTT, Washington DON YOUNG, Alaska, Ranking Republican Member ROBERT J. LAGOMARSINO, California RON MARLENEE, Montana DENNY SMITH, Oregon JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada BEN BLAZ, Guam JOHN J. RHODES III, Arizona ELTON GALLEGLY, California JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee NILS W. JOHNSON, Republican Consultant on Mining and Natural Resources NOTE.-The first listed minority member is counterpart to the subcommittee chairman. (II) 90.602650 Peggy J. Rector, commissioner, Rio Blanco County, CO................. Ronald W. Cattany, assistant director, Colorado Department of Natu- 128 Mark Pearson, Rocky Mountain chapter, Sierra Club. OIL SHALE CLAIMS TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1989 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MINING and Natural RESOURCES, COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:30 a.m., in room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Nick J. Rahall (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. RAHALL. The subcommittee will come to order, please. The Subcommittee on Mining and Natural Resources is meeting today to conduct a hearing on H.R. 643. Under the guise of a law enacted during Ulysses S. Grant's presidency in 1872, mining claims were staked for oil shale deposits on thousands of acres of public domain lands. In 1920, the practice of locating claims for oil shale was ended by Congress with the Mineral Leasing Act. While this law removed oil shale from the claim location system, section 37 of the statute grandfathered in valid oil shale claims existing on the date of enactment so long as they were lawfully maintained. In addition, if the claims were found to be valid-meaning that they were properly located, maintained, and represented a discovery of valuable mineral deposit-the 1920 law envisioned that a fee title to the land could be transferred in the form of a patent for $2.50 an acre under the terms of the Mining Law of 1872. Today, 69 years later, 1,600 of these claims are still in existence. covering over 228,000 acres of public land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Hundreds of other claims were patented. The intent of the mining laws is to facilitate mineral extraction, not to serve as a vehicle for land speculation and profiteering at the public's expense. Yet, for more than seven decades, the holders of these oil shale claims have managed to evade and frustrate the intent and purpose of these laws. Little to no mining-related activities have been undertaken on the claimed lands. It is highly questionable whether the claims have been maintained in compliance with the law. And, the recent past has shown that the claimholders may view the value of these claims not in terms of oil shale, but quick cash. After certain claimholders obtained 17,000 acres for $42,500 from the Federal Government under the so-called TOSCO settlement in 1986, the land was then quickly sold to major oil companies for $37 million. I would submit that the people of the United States have given these claimholders ample opportunity to move toward the development of the mineral resource claimed under the mining laws. In (1) this regard, the purpose of H.R. 643 is to preserve the possessory rights of the claimholders while seeking some type of diligent development of the oil shale, as originally intended by the applicable mining laws. The bill was introduced on January 24 by myself; the full committee chairman, Mo Udall; the chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands, Bruce Vento; the chairman of the Subcommittee on Water, Power, and Offshore Energy Resources, George Miller; the chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior of the Appropriations Committee, Sidney Yates; and the distinguished gentleman from Colorado, Ben Nighthorse Campbell. This committee and the full House have already spoken and overwhelmingly acted on this issue when we passed a bill almost identical to H.R. 643 in 1987. Be that as it may, during today's proceedings I am sure we will hear proposals to take an alternative approach than that represented by the pending legislation. We will certainly examine these suggestions, but I will certainly not lend credence to any proposal that does not represent the broad public interest in this issue. At this point, without objection, we will have printed in the hearing record, a copy of the bill on which we hold this hearing. [The bill, H.R. 643 follows:] |