OCR Text |
Show 758 HISTORY OF PUBLIC LAND LAW DEVELOPMENT sion will presumably supply the necessary empirical data on which to determine the advisability of changes in the location law. In the area of the administrative procedures of the Interior Department and particularly the Bureau of Land Management, there has also been disagreement between the government people and the industry. It is optimistic to assume that this type of disagreement will ever be completely solved to the satisfaction of both sides. These are matters on which it is impossible to pass judgment here. Surface Resources and Common Varieties. Congress enacted the Surface Resources Act in 1947 which authorized the Secretary of the Interior to remove and sell certain surface vegetative minerals from public lands if such disposal would be in the public interest and was not otherwise expressly forbidden by any special act.416 In 1955, in the so-called "Common Varieties Act,"417 it amended the earlier statute to include mineral materials, such as "but not limited to" common varieties of "sand, stone, gravel, pumice, pumicite, cinders, and clay." The Secretary of Agriculture was given similar powers with respect to land under his jurisdiction. More important for present purposes, the amendment expressly provided that the above "common varieties" are not, after July 23, 1955, to be deemed valuable mineral deposits within the meaning of the location law. In 1962, deposits of petrified wood were also included. A matter of special significance is the statement that un-patented mining claims after July 23, 1955, cannot be used for purposes other than prospecting, mining, and processing. The amendment expressly permits locations based on valuable minerals which might be associated with the enumerated common 418 61 Stat. 681 (1947). 417 67 Stat. 367 (1955), 30 U.S.C. § § 601-615 (1964). varieties. Also, the term "common varieties" does not include deposits of the stated minerals which possess some "distinct and special value," e.g., "block pumice" which is expressly excluded. Departmental regulations explain the distinct and special value criterion.418 The Supreme Court has recently held that the common-varieties amendment has impliedly superseded the 1892 Building Stone Act to the extent that ordinary quartzite stone which in this case was found in immense quantities in the general area of a claim is no longer within the location laws.419 Although the 1955 statute was not applicable to prior perfected locations because under the 1872 mining law these locators had the "exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all the surface" within the boundaries of their locations, the act did authorize an in rem proceeding under which prior unpatented mining claimants are required to assert their claims or forfeit any surface rights which might conflict with the government's right of removal. The proceeding is obviously patterned after the similar procedure in the Multiple Mineral Development Act, discussed in the previous section. The purpose of the provision is, of course, to enable the government to dispose of surface resources of immense value on dormant mining claims. The procedure is apparently used extensively although there has not been much litigation.420 Withdrawals. In recent years, there appears to be growing dissatisfaction in the mining industry with the Interior 418 43 C.F.R. § 3511.1 (1967). 419 United States v. Coleman, 88 Sup. Ct. 1327 (1968) . This result was predicted in 1 American L. of Min. § 1.19 (Martz ed. 1960) . 420 See Converse v. Udall, 262 F. Supp. 583 (D. Ore. 1966) (apparently on appeal) . See generally, Barry, Determination of What Constitutes "Common Varieties," 12 Rocky Mt. Min. L. Inst. 225 (1967) . |