OCR Text |
Show ' 7 ¦¦I Leaching of minerals and siltation from mine tailings cause serious pollution problems. The proportion of value should be comparable, but not necessarily equal, to rates being paid to other landowners for the same mineral ore in the region. In suggesting the establishment of this market test, we recognize that royalties on the minerals involved are rather modest and will not be a major source of revenue. Minerals covered at the present time by the 1872 law are, under another law, leased on national forest acquired lands,19 where experience supports our conclusion that royalties will be modest if they are based on comparable private land transactions. In any event, Congress should specify such royalties at levels that will provide a continuing incentive for mineral exploration, development, and production on public lands. As we envision the system that we recommend, the United States would reserve a royalty interest in minerals in the development contract, and would then 19 Reorganization Plan No. 3, July 16, 1946, 5 U.S.C.A. Appendix, A-188. perpetuate it in the patent. In either event, the royalty would be paid only on minerals produced, and not on ore in the ground. As we have indicated previously, we believe present patent fees to be inadequate. We do not consider charges for mineral patents to be a suitable vehicle for capturing the economic value of mineral deposits, and we do recognize the incentive value of reasonable charges based on the national importance of discovering mineral deposits in our vast public land regions. Nevertheless, we believe mineral patent fees should be increased at least enough to cover administrative costs associated with the issuance of patents. Uniform Federal Requirements Locators should not be required to comply with state laws relating to the location and maintenance of valid mining claims other than those provisions 129 |