OCR Text |
Show LEGAL ASPECTS OF MINERAL RESOURCES EXPLOITATION 761 decade which followed. The Leasing Act did not, of course, affect perfected shale locations made prior to 1920. In 1930, President Hoover withdrew all the Federal oil shale land from leasing, although unpatented locations remained valid. The Executive withdrawal is still in effect, but the Secretary of the Interior has power to reopen the shale land if he chooses to do so. It is the dormant pre-1920 placer claims which presently cloud the title to the Federal land, although actually these claims are on a relatively small portion of the Federal shale land. Between 1929 and 1933, the government attempted to eliminate thousands of unpatented oil shale claims in contest proceedings or in applications for patents. It based its case largely on the fact that the annual assessment work on these claims had not been performed. It lost on this ground when the Supreme Court held that the failure to perform assessment work did not result in forfeiture of the claims but merely made them vulnerable to relocation by other mining locators.430 But, since locations and relocations could not be made after 1920, these pre-1920 locations continued to exist without visible evidence of any actual development, and it has been difficult indeed for the government to determine what shale land is subject to these outstanding placer claims. The Department as late as 1961 admitted that the contests between 1930 and 1933 were not valid in view of the Supreme Court's decision in 1935, and for many years it issued patents to these placer claimants. In 1964, it took quite a different position and urged that in the administrative cases in the early thirties which were not appealed, the decisions enjoyed the usual finality accorded to judicial judgments.431 Encouraged somewhat by language in the second Supreme 430See Wilbur v. Krushnic, 280 U.S. 306 (1930) and Ickes v. Virginia-Colorado Dev. Corp., 295 U.S. 639 (1935) . 431 Union Oil Co., 71 I.D. 169 (1964) . Court opinion, the government urged that these claimants were subject to the rules of res judicata, estoppel and laches and that it could at least assert that these claims had in fact been abandoned. So far the government has not prevailed.432 There is even some possibility that oil shale patents may be collaterally attacked.433 There have been suggestions that legislative action might be taken to obliterate these dormant placer claims. One avenue might be noted here because it has been discussed in some detail in the previous section, i.e., the use of "Section 7" proceedings under Public Law 585.434 This will have limited use. The final story of the Federal oil shale land is in the future. Every indication is that it will be a colorful one. Classification; The Public Land Law Review Commission. The process of classification of public lands has always been troublesome. Some notable steps have been made in this direction in recent years. In the Classification and Multiple Use Act of 1964,435 Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior to review public lands under his jurisdiction with a view to determining what lands should be retained in public ownership and which land might be disposed of for community development and other purposes. The Secretary is also authorized to sell land for community development and growth under the Public Land Sale Act.436 The Classification Act also expressly recognizes the principle that retained lands should be managed for multiple use, and the 432 Oil Shale Corp. v. Udall, 261 F. Supp. 954 (D. Colo. 1966) . It is not known whether this case is on appeal. 433 See Lohr, Conclusiveness of United States Oil Shale Placer Mining Claims, 43 Denver L. J. 24 (1966) . *" See note 398, supra, and text. 4:15 78 Stat. 986 (1964), 43 U.S.C. § 1411 (1964). *W78 Stat. 988 (1964), 43 U.S.C. § 1421 (1964). |